37 Amendments of Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ related to 2022/2082(DEC)
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls thatWelcomes that pursuant to Rule 25 of and Annex V to the Rules of Procedure and Articles 6 and 166 of the Financial Regulation once the Plenary calls for different rules or measures to be implemented by Parliament, such proposed rules or measures should bare discussed and voted on by the Bureau, pursuant to Rule 25 of and Annex V to the Rules of Procedure and Articles 6 and 166 of the Financial Regulation; is deeply disappointed, however, that each year very concrete demands adopted by Plenary in discharge resolutions are not reflected in the discussions of the Bureau meetings despite the fact; reminds, in light of Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure that the Bureau is responsible to take decisions on financial, organisational and administrative matters concerning Members; highlights, that bothe Bureau members and the Secretary-General are aware of the discharge resolutions and have the capacity to submit proposals under the aforementioned Rule 25; is disappointed that the Secretary-General's written replies to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control are often limited to quoting the current rules without any is composed of democratically elected Members of all political groups; notes, that the members of the Bureau participate in deliberations and vote on resolutions related to Parliament’s draft estimates and discharge procedures; highlights, that since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandedmicated discussion in the Bureau and thus, lacking a genuine effort or intention to review those rules in accordance with Parliament’s will; believes that this situation is detrimental to the exercise in March 2020 and until the gradual lifting of sanitary restrictions at the beginning of 2022, the Bureau`s deliberations were focused primarily on decisions aimed at protecting the integrity of dMemocratic scrutiny which is carried out via the discharge procedure and for which Parliament should be a role model for all Union institutions and bodiesbers and staff while ensuring business continuity and implementing practical solidarity measures vis-à-vis the three host Member States of the Parliament;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Recalls that the Bureau has been mandated by the Plenary to decide all administrative, staff and organisational matters concerning Members and is concerned that the decisions of the Bureau often fail to respect the will expressed by the Plenary in discharge resolutions; reiterates the importance of the discharge procedure as set in the Financial Regulation and the Rules of Procedure and demands that resolutions affecting the functioning of Parliament be thoroughly taken into consideration and followed up in a legitimate, transparent manner; recommeminds that the Committeeagendas onf Budgetary Control should be systematically informed whenever a proposal arising from a discharge resolution is going to be discussed by the Bureau and calls on the Secretary-General to always include a clear list of the Bureau discussions and votes when providing the replies to the discharge resolutionsreau meetings are published beforehand and are made available on Parliament's internet site and that all Bureau discussions and decisions, including the ones in camera, are minuted and, once approved by the Bureau, the minutes are also accessible on Parliament's internet site; recommends that the Committee on Budgetary Control should be systematically informed whenever a proposal arising from a discharge resolution is going to be discussed by the Bureau;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Notes that the impact of the continuance of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 led to substantial transfers within Parliament’s budget, and that a budgetary surplus became available in areas such as travel expenses, organisation and reception of groups of visitors, the operation of Parliament visitors’ centres, in-person training, and lower energy consumption; notes that, at the same time, the pandemic created additional budgetary needs in other areas, notably health and prevention, as well as technical equipment and logistics for multilingual hybrid meetings and votes; observes that a substantial part of the savings were used to amortise the costs of the expansivetransferred to building policy of the last few years;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Is concernedObserves that the measures introduced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in modified working conditions in specific services within Parliament which had a negative impact on staff, for example at the copy shop in Brussels where members of staff had to work in isolation for a long period of time even after the safety measures were lifted; asks Parliament’s administration to proactively re-evaluate the working conditions changed in possible similar situationshighlights, that 2021 imposed numerous challenges on the work of the Parliament, the main one being the uncertainty as regards the evolution of the pandemic and the corresponding measures to be taken by the authorities to maintain fair working conditions; notes that isolation was a result of maintaining the measures preventing further spread of the pandemic;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Praises the key role of Parliament’s medical services at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic response and acknowledges the enormous workload involved, which included treatment, testing and vaccination of staff, providing psychological support and advising on mitigation measures; regrets the factwelcomes the statutory right laid down in Article 59(6) of the Staff Regulations giving the right to a staff annual medical check-up; notes that the staff annual medical check-up washad to be cancelled in 2021 and recalls that is a statutory right laid down in Article 59(6) of the Staff Regulatio; highlights that the year of 2021 was a challenging year impacted enormously by the COVID-19 pandemic which required most of the extraordinary measures introduced in 2020 to be maintained and adapted to minimise the risk for Members and staff while ensuring that the Parliament remains able to continue its core activities and to fulfil its mandate as democratic representation of the EU citizens; welcomes the creation, in October 2021, of the Medical Preparedness and Crisis Management Unit (MPCMU) made up of staff from the medical services in Brussels and Luxembourg with the objective of enhancing Parliament’s response capacity for future crisis;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Recalls that Article 4 of the President’s decision of 1 June 2021 on security measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 provided for temperature checks on any person entering Parliament’s buildings; notes that, for that purpose, Parliament purchased different models of body temperature detectors for a total amount of EUR 595 459.,63 (382 515,63 in 2020 and EUR 212 944 in 2021); observes that of the equipment purchased in 2021, 40 temperature detection units installed in the metal detectors were not used as of the 14 March 2022 and 4 cameras are now kept in storage; recalls that no provision was introduced to prevent people who had been denied entry from simply trying again moments later; observes that there is no data on the number of persons having been denied access to Parliament’s premises during the period of validity of the measure; regrets the conclusion that it is thus not possible to assess the effectiveness of the body temperature checks or the purchase of the equipmentnevertheless, highlights that during the summer it was often the case that persons have been denied access being influenced by the high temperature outside, which has nothing to do with high fever; observes that there is no data on the number of persons having been denied access to Parliament’s premises during the period of validity of the measure; also observes that with respect to Article 10 of Regulation 2018/1725 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data, Parliament did not treat nor collect this data, which is considered to be sensitive data;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Stresses the major negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Parliament’s catering staff which led to worsening working conditions and even dismissals; welcomes the solidarity measures implemented from April 2020 to December 2021, namely the provision of ‘charity meals’ and a business continuity fee in the three places of work, that at least helped to safeguard 37 jobs for catering staff; welcomes the fact that there 20 new jobs have been created since the restart of all catering activities in March 2022, but regrets the fact that Parliament’s administration has not communicated how many jobs were lost during the pandemic with the pretext that it is a concession contract;; notes, that catering and cleaning services are carried out by external service providers due to their specific nature which does not meet the conditions for internalisation; therefore, is of the opinion that the internalization of essentialthese services such as catering and cleaning should not be considered by the governing bodies, as Parliament has recently done with security and IT services, and it was also made with the CPE2 crèche in Luxembourg;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Is concerned about the reported hearing problems that resulted from remote interpreting for long periods of time; is alarmedObserves that 63,5% of respondents (127 out of 200) reported hearing problems in a survey on remote simultaneous interpreting conducted by the Staff Interpreters’ delegation at the beginning of 2021 and 54% of respondents (702 out of 1 602) mentioned in a survey conducted among staff and freelance interpreters in May 2022 that working under the conditions imposed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on their health and well-being; recalls the duty of care owed by the European institutions to their employees, which must be taken into account when implementing preventive measures to avoid harm to the health of interpretershighlights, that the health issues reported by interpreters are being followed up by Parliament’s Medical services; notes that the follow-up by the Medical Service did not detect an increase in hearing problems for interpreters; highlights, that the administration has deployed targeted actions to improve sound quality;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Notes that 877 out of 6 621 posts (13,2%) were vacant at the end of 2021; acknowledges the general difficulties encountered by the Union institutions, including Parliament, in attracting and retaining talent, which has an impact on the diversity and geographical distribution of the workforce; notes that in 2021 two surveys were run by Parliament’s Directorate-General for Personnel (DG PERS) to find out the main reasons for applying for a job in Parliament and that the results pointed to salaries, but also job significance and flexible working conditions; notes the opinion of Parliament’s administration on the slowness of the competitions conducted by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) but recalls the current transformation process aiming to shorten the duration of competitions, to make them more efficient and to better target specialist profiles while keeping objectivity and equality of treatment at the core of the process; notes that in 2021 Parliament started running internal competitions and is concerned about the internal criticisms which have stressed that fast-track recruitment procedures may lead to discrimination between professional categories;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Calls for a deep reflection onAcknowledges the new ways of working that can reconcile the needs of Parliament’s administration (including team cohesion, internal communication, and on-boarding of newcomers) with the expectations and satisfaction of its staff, which would positively impact their performance as well as the attractiveness of Parliament as an employer; highlights in this context the importance of a genuine social dialogue with the staff representatives on crucial points like a flexible work environment, health and welfare and training and career opportunities; also draws attention to the need to review the rules on harassment in relation to these new forms of work; suggests that a joint committee be established that assists DG PERS in monitoring the effective implementation and compliance of clear guidelines on teleworking and the right to disconnect that can be adaptedhighlights that physical presence is of crucial importance for the efficient interaction of all actors in every parliamentary process; also draws attention to the need to review the rules on harassment in relation to these needs of the different servicesw forms of work;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Recalls the seriously inadequate staffing levels in Parliament’s committee secretariats at the end of 2020 due, inter alia, to the increased workload, the working methods applied under the COVID-19 pandemic and the creation of new temporary committees; welcomes the fact that further to the adoption of the 2022 budget, 66 new organigram posts (12 for the Directorate-General for External Policies (DG EXPO) and 54 posts for the Directorate-General for Internal Policies (DG IPOL)), were created in the establishment plan with a view to swiftly reinforcing the support to parliamentary committees; is concerned that, currently, the net increase of staff (including organigram posts and contract agents) is planned to only include 8 additional members of staff, notably as the number of contractual agents has decreased by 23 between January and November 2022; remindswelcomes the efforts of the Secretary- General tof the commitment to an actual reinforcement of the human resources capacity in DG EXPO and DG IPOL, including an adequate level of contract agents; points outacknowledges that all available resources in committees, policy departments, horizontal and support services shouldare to be assigned to the implementation of Parliament’s legislative, budgetary and control powers and procedures; calls therefore for the available resources to be distributed according to the committees’ level of activity in these areas and not only to the number of legislative reports;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Is concerned aboutWelcomes the Bureau decision of 21 November 2022, based on a Secretary- General’s proposal, on General Implementing Provisions giving effect to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations; welcomes the further efforts of the Secretary-General and the Bureau following the 2020 discharge resolution that called for further efforts to ensure that employment at Parliament is equally attractive to all Union nationalities; insists on the importance of achieving a fair geographical balance among Parliament’s staff provided that the measures are “appropriate”, as required by Article 27, and stresses that competitions must respect fundamental principles enshrined in the Staff Regulations and Charter of Fundamental Rights, such as the principles of equality, non-discrimination and proportionality; reminds that Article 27 of the Staff Regulations enables Parliament to adopt appropriate measures in the event that a significant imbalance between nationalities among officials is observed, which is not justified by objective criteria; recalls furthermore that Article 27 states that “those appropriate measures must be justified and shall never result in recruitment criteria other than those based on merit”; calls for an immediate referral of these General Implementing Provisions to Parliament’s Legal Service for a compliance assessment;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Expresses concerns regarding theObserves particular difficulties in finding candidates willing to work for Parliament in Luxembourg, mainly due to the high cost of living and the increasing price of housing while availing of a salary that is adapted to living conditions in Brussels; asks Parliament’s administration to urgently forward a request to the Commission to address the long-standing and serious problem of salary indexation in Luxembourg by adopting a delegated act to correct the relevant Staff Regulations provision;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Recalls that, according to Article 9 of the Staff Regulations, the Staff Committee represents the interests of the staff vis-à-vis their institution and maintains continuous contact with them; points out that decisions taken by Parliament’s governing bodies often have a significant impact on staff and thus, reiterates that it is essential for staff representatives to be heard when general matters affecting Parliament’s staff policy are discussed; reiterates furthermore its request to the Secretary-General to take the appropriate measures to implement this key approach, for instance setting up a mandatory consultation procedure with staff representatives during the preparation of the proposals for Bureau decisions on staff matters;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Recalls Parliament’s recommendation to the Commission in its resolution of 18 April 2018 ‘to review its administrative procedure for the appointment of senior officials with the objective of fully ensuring that the best candidates are selected within a framework of maximum transparency and equal opportunities, thereby also setting an example for the other European institutions’; is of the opinion that an accelerated appointment procedure and an interview made up of only three questions to select its Secretary-General falls short of what is expected of Parliament in terms of transparency, accountability and good adminisreminds that the appointment procedure of the Secretary-General was a transparent process, where candidates were treation, and it is profoundly damaging to the institution’s reputation; recalls furthermore its own recommendation that officials from staff representatives bodies should sit on Parliament’s senior management selection panels; calls therefore on the Secretary-General to submit a proposal to the Bureau to modify its decision of 16 May 2000 laying down the steps in the procedure for appointing senior officials, in order to enable staff representatives to participed in a fair and equitable manner whilst complying with all necessary eligibility requirements; highlights, that the decision made on the selection of the successful candidate was observers in the Advisory Committee, which is fully compatible with Article 3(4) of Annex III of the Staff Regulationscarried out with a large majority of the Bureau;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Reiterates its demand for APAs to receive the same subsistence allowance as the officials and other statutory staff for their missions to attend the part-sessions in Strasbourg taking into consideration that the parliamentary allowance envelope remains unchanged; is of the opinion that the current situation, aggravated by the accumulated increase in prices over the last few years, is unacceptable as APAsputs APAs in a more difficult financial situation haveing to travel to Strasbourg to carry out their work in exactly the same way as Parliament's officials and other statutory staff; fails to understand this discriminatory treatment regarding the missions to Strasbourg while; notes that expenses incurred by APAs in undertaking missions outside Parliament’s three places of work are reimbursed, mutatis mutandis, in accordance with the rules applicable to officials’ missions; highlights that aligning the daily subsistence allowance with that of statutorynotes nevertheless that MEPs hire their own staff, would also put an end to the discriminatory existence of three levels of allowances to choose from, which is maintained without any administrative or financial justification; reiterates, therefore, its request to the Bureau to modify its decision of 2 October 2017 with the aim of implementing such alignmentithin a budget set by Parliament under the same employment conditions as temporary EU staff; highlights also that it is in the hands of the MEPs to decide the daily allowances to Strasbourg for their APAs;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. RegretObserves that the applicable rules adopted by the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents currently prohibit APAs to accompany Members on official Parliament delegations and committee missions; points out that the technical support that APAs provide during missions is of key importance to the participating Members, in particular when they are involved in the organisation or play a specific role; is concerned that this situation compels Members to resort tois concerned that the situation of financing APAs’ travel with the gGeneral eExpenditure aAllowance and obliges APAs to use their annual leave, thus jeopardising their insurance coverage, which representsputs the Parliament in a serious reputational risk for Parliament; regre; highlights, that neither the Bureau nor the Conference of Presidents have followed up on the long-standing request to allow APAs, under certain conditions yet to be determined, to accompany Members on official Parliament delegations and missions, as reiterated by ; highlights, that the presence of APAs on EP official missions could damage EP’s image and credibility; observeral discharge resolutions; urges the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents to respond positively to this demands also that allowing APAs to participate on official missions imposes specific risks with regards to their insurance coverage; reminds that MEPs are already accompanied by representatives of political groups on these missions;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Welcomes the fact that the Bureau’s last revision of the rules for visitors’ groups introduced the possibility for Members to designate professionals to hold the financial responsibility, which has brought about a decrease of APAs as heads of visitors’ groups to 28%; reiterates that APAs should not be compelled to takehighlights that it is preferred when APAs are not designated as heads of groups as this level onf suchbstantial financial responsibility, which can amount to substantial sums of money in some cases; insists, might compromise the appropriate auditing procedures following the groups’ visits especially in the case when APAs have left the EP and are no longer MEPs’ staff but some of the audits might take place up to 3 years following the groups’ visit; asks therefore, to the Bureau that APAs beo consider eliminateding APAs from the list of permitted heads of groups, leaving only a member of the sponsored group or a professional, such as paying agents or travel agencies, to take up the role or to consider adjusting APAs liability especially in the cases when they are no longer EP’s employees;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
60. Notes that the reduction for trainees in Parliament’s canteens, amounting to EUR 1,00 as of 1 April 2022, is based on previous discounts which are in turn based on the contracts signed and the prices at the time; believes that this reduction is at the moment purely symbolic and absolutely insufficient and calls, therefore, on Parliament’s administration to establish an automatic update on the basis of the food price variations;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Stresses that transparency, accountability, and integrity are essential ethics principles within the Union institutions and particularly Parliament as house of the European democracy; recalls that unethical behaviours must be prevented, persecuted and condemned for significantly damage the credibility and legitimacy of the Union and constitute a serious threat to democracy and public trust; recalls the Court’s conclusions and recommendations in its special report 13/2019 on the ethnical frameworks of Union institutions, as well as Parliament’s resolution of 16 September 2021 on strengthening transparency and integrity in the Union institutions by setting up an independentUnion ethics body; ; supports the reinforcement of the existing high ethical standards for politicians and for the guidance on the implementation of ethical rules, while fully respecting the separation of powers between the institutions and the rule of law; underlines that creating additional bodies and structures within the EU institutional framework would only add an additional burden to the work of the EU as the anti- fraud players such as OLAF, EPPO, Europol and Eurojust are already tasked to monitor and protect the spending of the EU budget and prevent any possibilities for mismanagement of funds; notes the importance of strengthening the systems in place and to address any shortcomings; notes that the proper application of existing rules can bring significant improvements; highlights that a cooperation agreement between the EPPO and the EP with clear rules and procedures is necessary to further facilitate and maintain the protection EU’s financial interest; such agreement shall provide that the EP reports to the EPPO concerns regarding any criminal conduct in line with the EPPO regulation and the Financial Regulation; reminds that the Treaties of the European Union are the primary law and reside at the top of the hierarchy of norms; the Treaties establish the EU’s institutions and clearly define their competences and decision- making powers (Article 13 TEU); Parliament together with the Council are the co-legislators (Article 14(1) TEU); reminds that under the Treaties, the Court of Justice of the European Union is the supreme judicial body of the EU (Article 19 TEU); there can be no higher judicial decision-making authority above it; under no circumstances can secondary law contradict or amend primary law; reminds that, therefore, the establishment of an independent ethics body with the power to make binding decisions on the EU’s institutions and organs counter to the separation of powers laid down in the Treaties, would imperatively require a change of the Treaties; stresses that transparency cannot undermine integrity and data protection;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
Paragraph 62
62. Calls for a thorough overhaul of Parliament’s ethical framework that integrates lessons learned and strengthens the current rules to ensure that there are stronger deterrents to address effectively current and future threats and interferences, whether they affect Members or staff; stresses that illegal activities funded by paid lobbying constitutes a profound attack on democracy and should be met with zero tolerance and heightened vigilance; calls in particular for a revision of thehighlights the need to reinforce trust in the European decision-making by strengthening transparency, ethics and conduct in the European Parliament; stresses that an abuse or misuse of EP’s Rules of Procedure and the Members’ Code of Conduct, as well as for an urgent upgrade of the current European Parliament’s Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members, in ord should be immediately addressed in a thorough and systematic manner; recalls the crucial role played by Members in the European decision- making, while protecting the freedom of Members’ mandate, as elected representatives; stresses that illegal activities funded by paid lobbying, NGOs funded in an unclear manner or other interest representatives constitutes a profound attack on democracy and should be met with zero to ensurelerance and heightened vigilance; highlights, that it is essential that Members act without any undue influence from interest representatives by means of a strict regulation of paid activities during the mandate, gifts or travel invitations, future employment expectations, and of undue use of information or contacts;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
68. Welcomes Parliament’s zero- tolerance policy on harassment and the awareness-raising campaigns carried out; is concernedobserves, however, that on 28 October 2022 only 245 sitting Members (36,3%) had completed the training on respect and dignity in the workplace; recalls that Parliament has requested on several occasions the implementation of mandatory anti-harassment training courses for all Members; stresses the importance of early intervention, together with training and awareness-raising actions and notes the initiative taken by the administration to set up internal mediators as a step towards early conflict resoluuggests that the anti- harassment training is brought mandatory not only to Members, but also to staff; welcomes the orientation debate on anti-harassment policies carried out in the Bureau meeting of 21 November 2022 and requests that the Bureau expresses a final position on the topic; stresses the importance of early intervention, together with training and awareness-raising actions and notes the initiative taken by the administration to set up internal mediators as a step towards early conflict resolution; stresses that the Code of Appropriate Behaviour for Members of the European Parliament seeks to ensure that members behave towards everyone working in the European Parliament with dignity, courtesy and respect and without prejudice or discrimination;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
69. Notes that the ‘advisory committee on harassment and its prevention at the workplace’ is composed of three members designated by the Appointing Authority (including the chair), two Staff Committee members and one expert advisor from the medical service; notes that the ‘advisory committee dealing with harassment complaints concerning Members’ is composed of three Quaestors (including the chair), the chair of the first committee, two APA committee members, one staff committee member (only for cases concerning a member of staff), and two expert advisors, namely from the legal and the medical services respectively; is concerned by the lack of independent experts on harassment issues in both committees, as well as the absence of the legal service in the first case; calls for a Secretary-General decision reviewing the composition of both advisory committees and stipulating mandatory training on harassment prevention and equal opportunities for all their members;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. Reiterates that APAs are in a particularly vulnerable position in whistleblowing cases due to their particular employment situation; therefore calls on the Secretary-General to modifyfully adapt the internal rules on whistleblowing adopted on 4 December 2015 to align themand contained in the Staff Regulations to Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , as well as to provideincluding by setting up secure channels for reporting; further notes that whistleblower APAs with a similadeserve proper protection similar to that of victims of harassment, in particular with regard to provisional measures during the administrative investigation and protection measures concerning; requests Parliament to raise awareness, where possible, anmonymity, pay until the end of the contract, transfer of post and protection from retaliationg parliamentary staff on their whistleblower protections; _________________ 2 Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17).
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85
Paragraph 85
85. Highlights Parliament’s investment in strengthening its cybersecurity, which includes the creation of a dedicated Directorate in DG ITEC and a significant increase of the related resources aiming to increase the protection of Parliament’s information systems in the face of growing threats and ransomware attacks; welcomes the expansion of the range of digital services provided via the e-Portal leading to an increase of 67% in the number of transactions, which is a significant increase compared to 2020, and to the achievement of 85% use rate of the e-Portal by Members for their travel and subsistence expenses; praises the specific measures undertaken to facilitate administrative procedures and the intended efforts towards less bureaucracy when it comes to the services for Members including the greater digitalisation of the e-Portal and improved intuitive consultation function for travel and subsistence expenses;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86
Paragraph 86
86. Notes that DG SAFE’s reorganisation has foreseen the creation of the new Directorate on Security Technology and Information aiming to ensure protection of all categories of information handled by Parliament; is concernedobserves that the specific unit responsible for Security Engineering has been created but that the head of unit position does not appear as such in Parliament’s organisation chart; calls on the Secretary-General to remedy this situation promptly in order to provide the new key Directorate with the necessary resources to fulfil its responsibilities;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 91
Paragraph 91
91. Takes note of the unanimous decision of the Bureau of 23 October 2019 to approve the creation of an IDEA Lab with the aim of testing new, innovative solutions in the context of offices and facility management; notes with concern that the decision of the Bureau was not based on any specific cost estimate and reminds the Bureau of the obligationwelcomes the announcement of the new Secretary- General that each proposal for a decision has towill again be accompanied by a financial statement of the estimated costs, and that expenditure should be accounted for transparently; welcomes the creation of a permanent laboratory for innovation together with the establishment of a separate budget line but considers that the costs need to remain reasonable and justifiable; notes that construction works needed to implement the innovative architectural concept, including the technical equipment and the installation costs, had an additional cost of 2 000 EUR/m2 to the “standard” renovation works; notes that to date the construc which will - however - benefit later renovations works needed to implement the architectural concept amount to EUR 663 265,55 while the IT equipment cost EUR 108 104 in case of a larger roll- out;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92
Paragraph 92
92. Points out that the IDEA Lab is supposed to be at the disposal of Members but regreand requests that Members have never been informed in this regardwill be informed in this regard about innovations and tested solutions that will be rolled-out in the future and those that are not pursued any further and for what reasons; questions the rationale behind the selection of the providers and of some of the technical innovations to be tested and regrets that some of the innovations would be too expensive to scale despite their interest; is of the opinion that one of the priorities of the IDEA Lab should be an innovative architectural solution to make better use of the space occupied by the unused showers in the Members’ offices; calls on the Bureau working group on buildings and Parliament’s administration to ensure a greater transparency regarding the budget for the IDEA Lab and to regularly present to the Committee on Budgetary Control the list of innovative solutions, their cost and the feedback produced, as well as the potential saving if implemented;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 108
Paragraph 108
108. Understands that the core business of the service cars is the transport of Members, including the journey between Brussels and Strasbourg; points out, however, the waste of resources resulting from the fact that on average 15% of the seats available in the service fleet were been occupied for that journey in 2021; reiterates its call on Parliament’s administration to widen the user group while making sure that Members’ seats are secured, i.e. establishing a reserve list and coherent deadlines to confirm the journey;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 a (new)
Paragraph 111 a (new)
111a. Is deeply concerned about growing delays in reimbursement of travel expenses for Members, which substantially affect their work; acknowledges that DG FINS should be adequately staffed to properly, timely, and without bias perform their duties;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 25 a (new)
Subheading 25 a (new)
Rules governing the reception of groups of visitors
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 a (new)
Paragraph 111 a (new)
111a. Notes, that the last revision of the Rules governing the reception of groups of visitors from 18 January 2021 does not reflect on possible force majeure circumstances when it comes to cancellations of visits; invites the Bureau to consider accepting national strike as a force majeure circumstance when cancelling an organised group visit, as it is often the case where national strike days are announced at a much later stage after tickets have been purchased and it is extremely onerous to cancel a group visit in the very last moment and be able to recover all the financial costs incurred whilst organising the visit;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 25 b (new)
Subheading 25 b (new)
JSIS
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 b (new)
Paragraph 111 b (new)
111b. Calls on the Bureau to ensure that the joint sickness insurance scheme (JSIS) shall provide a coherent and individual explanation for declining a reimbursement request; notes that the culture of declining a reimbursement request in pdf format without the possibility to challenge the decision in person imposes certain difficulties on the applicants applying for reimbursement; calls on the Bureau to consider introducing the possibility for local doctors in charge of a treatment of an applicant to talk to the responsible JSIS unit or expert group to explain the treatment and medical benefits; further expresses its wish to improve the user- friendliness of the application enabling a quicker and more direct follow-up of individual requests; requests that the relevant bodies within JSIS duly and regularly take into account recent medical developments and knowledge gains when updating the list of eligible treatments and drugs;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 113
Paragraph 113
113. SuggestWelcomes the creation of a Bureau ad-hoc Working Group to carry out a thorough overhaul of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (IMMS) while striking a balance between the freedom of the exercise of the mandate, the reputational risks to Parliament and managerial ethics; strongly recommends that a comprehensive consultation of Members is carried out before th, following the announcement by the President on 21 November 2022; highlights, that the WG would be tasked to evaluate eand of the current mandate to provide this Working Group with first-hand informreview the IMMS in order to adapt the provisions to the recent legislative developments, new practices of Members and the recommendations from experienced Members on the practical applicthe Internal Auditor while ensuring consistency and legal certainty; highlights, that in its deliberation ofs, the rules governing Parliamead-hoc Working Group shall take duly into and the ability to identify inconsistencies such as the fact that the Members’ attccount transparency, accountability, simplification and sound financial management of funds made available to Members as well as the principle of the independaence on Fridays is not registered in Brussels during plenary weeks or even if a Parliament’s committee official mission is carried out on Thursdayf the parliamentary mandate; and that any proposed changes to the current rules should avoid creating unnecessary administrative burden for Members, their offices and Parliament’s services; acknowledges that a consultation of Members is carried out to provide this Working Group with first-hand information from experienced Members on the practical application of the rules governing Parliament and the ability to identify inconsistencies;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114
Paragraph 114
114. Recalls that in previous discharge resolutions Parliament requested a reform of the General Expenditure Allowance (GEA) to make the expenditure of this lump sum more transparent and accountable; noteswelcomes, that following the announcement atby the Bureau meeting of 7 MarchPresident on 4 April 2022 of, the setting up of a Bureau ad-hoc wWorking gGroup on the GEA, which is tasked with evaluating the opereneral Expenditure Allowance (GEA) was established and tasked with carrying out an evaluation of the Bureau decision of 2 July 2018; observes that the Bureau, at is meeting of 17 October 2022, adopted a set of amendments to the IMMS clarifying the rules applicable to the entitlement and use of the GEA and measures aimed at inn the GEA on the basis of the experience gained during the ninth parliamentary term; highlights, that he ad-hoc Working Group was asked to take duly into account aspects of transparency, accountability and sound financial management of funds made available to Members, bearing in mind the principle of freedom and independence of the parliamentary mandate and the objective to avoid creasting transparency but believes that this reform does not meet the demands expressed in Parliaunnecessary administrative burdens for Members, their offices and Parliament’s services; welcomes that on the basis of proposals submitted by the ad-hoc Working Group, the Bureau, at its meeting of 17 October 2022, adopted a set of amendment’s resolution of 26 March 2019 on the 2017 discharge and in subsequent resolutionsto the IMMS clarifying the rules applicable to the entitlement and use of the GEA and measures aimed at increasing transparency;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 115 a (new)
Paragraph 115 a (new)
115a. Is deeply concerned about the extent of discretionary powers of responsible DG FINS staff when evaluating members' requests including when selecting the employment or service provider contracts for further ex-post verification; notes lack of formal accountability mechanisms and procedures for ensuring due process in proceedings with DG FINS, increasing the risk of discrimination and unequal treatment; reminds the DG FINS to apply transparent, clear and non-discriminatory standards including when performing the controls on the fulfilment of tasks carried out by local assistants;