7 Amendments of Luke Ming FLANAGAN related to 2017/2151(DEC)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that, since its creation, the Agency, together with its European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET), has been an information source for those involved in developing, adopting, implementing and evaluating Union environment and climate policies, as well as sustainable development policies, and also been an information source for the general public; recommends that all this information should also be made available to those suffering from dyslexia and other such difficulties with the written word, through full audio and audio-visual access;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes with concern a significant and unacceptable gender imbalance in the Agency’s senior management team ; acknowledgnotes from the Agency that it only has seven heads of unit positions available, which limits the potential speed of a transition towardsbut that is not an excuse for not achieving a better man/woman ratio,; notes that a woman candidate was last recruited for a head of unit position;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Welcomes that the Court of Auditors has announced that the transactions underlying the annual accounts of the Agency for the financial year 2016 were legal and regular in all material respects; commends the Agency on the implementation of all recommended corrective actions for the years 2012 to 2015, inclusive;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the work-life balance should be part of the staff policy of the Agency and that the budget spent on well- being activities amounts to approximately EUR 560 per staff, corresponding to two working days; observes that the average sick leave amounts to 13,8 days per member of staff, which amounts to an average of almost three working weeks; calls on the Agency as a matter of urgency to examine this issue with a view to ascertaining and addressing the major causes, to establish in particular whether workplace stress plays any role;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Takes note that the Commission’s IAS carried out an audit on data/information management, including an IT component, which was finalised in 2015; acknowledges that, in order to address the recommendations of the IAS in relation to that audit, an action plan was drawn up covering the coming years; notes with satisfaction that in 2017 the majority of the recommendations have been closed by the IAS, demonstrating that appropriate measures have been implemented to ensure proper handling of a higher volume of data;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Notes with concern from the Court’s report that, even if the Agency updated its security policy in 2016, many other internal procedures are outdated; notes that the senior management approved an action plan which includes the review and update of the business continuity plan and that the Agency also intends to review its document management policy, which it adopted in 2009, in line with the new security policy; notes moreover that the Agency envisages to review and update its internal control standards, where necessary; calls on the Agency to report to the discharge authority on the implementation of this action plan;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Recalls with concern that from the Court’s report that, in 2014, the Commission, on behalf of more than 50 Union institutions and bodies (including the Agency), the Commission signed a framework contract (FWC) with one contractor for the acquisition of software, licences and the provision of related IT maintenance and consultancy; notes that the framework contractor acts as an intermediary between the Agency and suppliers and that for these intermediary services the framework contractor is entitled to uplifts of two to nine percent of the suppliers’ prices; notes moreover that the FWC explicitly stipulates that it does not confer any exclusive right to the contractor; observes that, in 2016, the Agency used this FWC to purchase software licences for a total of EUR 442 754; notes that most of those purchases were for products belonging to a particular category that should only be used on an exceptional basis, for which prices were neither quoted during the tender process nor in the FWC; acknowledges from the Court’s report that this procedure does not ensure sufficient competition and the application of the most economical solution; acknowledges moreover that the uplifts charged by the framework contractor were not adequately checked: the largest order concerned the renewal of software licences provided by an exclusive Scandinavian reseller (EUR 112 248); expresses its concern that in this instance, there was no justification for the use of the FWC which resulted in an unnecessary uplift cost; acknowledges the Agency’s reply to the comment from the Court;