2011/2017(BUD)

2012 budget: priorities - other sections

Procedure completed

2011/2017(BUD) 2012 budget: priorities - other sections
RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Opinion AFCO
Opinion AFET
Opinion AGRI
Lead BUDG FERNANDES José Manuel (EPP)
Opinion CONT
Opinion CULT
Opinion DEVE
Opinion ECON
Opinion EMPL
Opinion ENVI
Opinion FEMM
Opinion IMCO
Opinion INTA
Opinion ITRE
Opinion JURI
Opinion LIBE
Opinion PECH
Opinion PETI
Opinion REGI
Opinion TRAN
Lead committee dossier: BUDG/7/05057
Subjects
Links

Activites

  • #3088
  • 2011/05/17 Council Meeting
  • 2011/03/09 Parliament's opinion on budgetary estimates/guidelines
    • T7-0088/2011 summary
    • Results of vote in Parliament
  • 2011/03/08 Debate in Parliament
  • 2011/03/04 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • 2011/03/04 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • 2011/03/03 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • 2011/02/17 Deadline Amendments
  • 2011/01/31 Committee draft report
  • 2011/01/17 EP officialisation

Documents

AmendmentsDossier
47 2011/2017(BUD) 2012 budget: priorities - other sections
2011/02/18 BUDG 47 amendments...
source: PE-458.814

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

2012-02-09
activities added
  • body
    EP
    date
    2011-01-17
    type
    EP officialisation
  • date
    2011-01-31
    docs
    • url
      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE456.882
      type
      Committee draft report
      title
      PE456.882
    body
    EP
    type
    Committee draft report
  • body
    EP
    date
    2011-02-17
    type
    Deadline Amendments
  • date
    2011-03-03
    text
    • The Committee on Budgets adopted the report by José Manuel FERNANDES (EPP, PT) on the guidelines for the 2012 budget procedure for the other institutions.

      It recalls that the ceiling for heading 5 of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the EU's budget in 2012 is EUR 8 754 million (representing an increase of EUR 340 million, or 4%, compared to 2011, including 2% for inflation). Members note that in its capacity as colegislator Parliament has decided to find a reasonable match between its human resources and its new competences following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (19.67% of the heading 5 total in 2009, 19.99% in 2010 and 20.03% in 2011). They insist that s essential to monitor movements in heading 5 spending throughout 2011, in order to develop an appropriate forecast for the forthcoming budgets.

      General framework and priorities for the 2012 budget: Members underline the difficult situation with respect to the heading 5 expenditure ceiling for 2012, and is fully aware of the fact that the institutions may encounter problems in meeting all financing requirements while maintaining budgetary discipline. In a context of economic crisis, the heavy burden of public debt and restraint in times of ongoing national budgetary consolidation efforts, the European Parliament and the other institutions should show budgetary responsibility and self-restraint.

      The committee feels that Parliament's goal should be to develop legislative excellence and that all the necessary resources should be available for this purpose. At the same time, it takes the view that the budget of Parliament and the other institutions for 2012 should be a budget of consolidation, not least because it may also serve as a reference for the next multiannual financial framework. Consolidation effort should not, however, prevent investments (e.g. in technology). The principles of good management, namely economy, efficiency and effectiveness are viewed as another priority in the budget of the Parliament and of the other institutions. In this connection, Members consider that that thought should be given to the advantages of centralisation, so as to generate economies of scale (e.g.: centralised procurement, shared services between the institutions), as well as to what should remain, or be, decentralised.

      To strengthen budgetary rigour, they request the submission of an organisation chart for each institution, together with the respective cost of each constituent unit. They request, moreover, that each expense be clearly specified and justified, with a clear distinction between fixed and variable expenses in order to fulfil the principles of a zero-based budget.

      They also consider that, at the latest starting from the next multiannual financial framework, Parliament's budget and the budgets of the other institutions should be the result of multiannual planning covering the duration of that framework.

      Members go on to ask that the budget :

      • integrate the prospect of a possible enlargement of the EU to Croatia ;
      • take into account environmental policy and EMAS so far as possible;
      • take in to account the need for a fully integrated knowledge management system and an ambitious and far-reaching digital strategy with regard to the Web 2.0 tools and social networks, and electronic governance;  
      • use teleworking where appropriate and considers the introduction of a cloud computing system to reduce the operating costs of the computer system, improve its performance and bring greater mobility to Parliament's work.

      The committee also asks for use to be made of staff redeployment and of retraining in order to enhance mobility as well as for active non-discrimination policies to ensure easier access for people with disabilities.

      Parliament: in accordance with these general recommendations, Members take the view that Parliament's goal should be to develop legislative excellence and show budgetary responsibility and self-restraint by staying around the inflation rate.

      With regard to the future enlargement of the EU and its consequences for the institutions, the report notes that for Parliament this will be marked by the arrival of the 18 new MEPs following the Lisbon Treaty will be integrated by an amending letter or amending budget.

      Members consider that they must be given access to quality services in order to be able to perform their duties on an equal footing, and stress the importance of equal treatment of Members of all nationalities and languages in terms of possibility for them to carry out the duties and political activity incumbent upon them in their own language if they wish. They find for instance, the absence of interpretation in committee meetings to be unacceptable. They are also of the opinion that all means must be sought to increase the flexibility of interpretation as a crucial step in ensuring good working practices. 

      Members also request the following:

      • a thorough review should be implemented as to whether the right of freedom of access for European citizens to meet with their European representatives could be more effectively matched with the urgent need to provide security for those who work in the institutions; 
      • rationalisation of the allocation of its existing space and to realise cost savings and economies of scale (they point out that the KAD extension project currently under way, the cost of which is estimated at about EUR 549.6 million will allow the geographical concentration of Parliament's Administration in Luxembourg, thus enabling substantial savings to be made);
      • the development of a medium- and long-term buildings strategy ;
      • the need for further information regarding the House of European History (a detailed business plan,  the global cost of this project as well as further information regarding the architectural design competition which has been ongoing since 2009);
      • information and communication policy reaching all European citizens; 
      • follow-up action in relation to a number of policies with financial implications, such as EMAS, public procurement and action taken in response to budget discharge recommendations.

      The committee believes that, as is the case for all big organisations, an independent external viewpoint on how resources are used and how work is organised is sometimes necessary.  While stressing that a political European institution such as Parliament is unique in character, it considers that, in the long term, consideration should be given to carrying out such an external analysis.

      Lastly, it is concerned about the proposal to create a European Added Value Assessment Unit to measure the cost of non-Europe. Members question whether such an office is necessary and request more detailed information regarding the creation of this office.

      Other institutions: Members call for realistic and cost-based budget requests from the other institutions which take full account of the need to manage scarce resources in an optimal way. They welcome the establishment of a new Section X in the EU budget for the European External Action Service, with an allocation of EUR 464 million.

    body
    EP
    committees
    type
    Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date
    2011-03-04
    docs
    • url
      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-0049&language=EN
      type
      Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
      title
      A7-0049/2011
    body
    type
    Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date
    2011-03-04
    docs
    • url
      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-0049&language=EN
      type
      Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
      title
      A7-0049/2011
    body
    EP
    type
    Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date
    2011-03-08
    body
    EP
    type
    Debate in Parliament
  • date
    2011-03-09
    docs
    body
    EP
    type
    Parliament's opinion on budgetary estimates/guidelines
  • body
    CSL
    meeting_id
    3088
    text
    • The Council took note of the presentation by the Commission of its draft for the EU's general budget for 2012.

      Some delegations considered the Commission proposal not to be in line with the national fiscal consolidation measures and argued for further efforts to limit the increase of the EU's 2012 budget. Other delegations regarded the draft budget as a starting point for the discussions and stressed the need to continue implementing EU programmes in particular in the cohesion area.

      It asked the Permanent Representatives Committee to examine the draft, with a view to enabling the Council to establish its position.

      On 15 February, the Council established its priorities for the 2012 budget.

      As regards administrative expenditure, the Council recalls the common objective of increasing administrative efficiency along the same line adopted by Member States to optimise the use of limited resources given the rigorous fiscal consolidation Member States are undertaking. The Council intends to continue to monitor and to improve EU institutions' effectiveness with a view to increasing administrative efficiency and stresses the crucial importance of redeployment of resources and reprioritisation.

      The Council expects all institutions to provide in advance all the necessary information for a clear, comprehensive, and consolidated picture of all administrative expenditure, including administrative expenditure financed under other headings and sub-headings of the multiannual financial framework, thus allowing the budgetary authority to evaluate the situation and take well-founded decisions on the allocation and use of resources. Due attention should be paid to the comprehensiveness and comparability over time and between institutions of information provided.

      The Council is concerned about the evolution in appropriations for pensions and their impact on administrative expenditure in the future.

      The Council is expected to establish its position on the draft budget at the end of July, and the Parliament at the end of October. If their positions diverge, a three-week conciliation process will start on 1 November.

    council
    Economic and Financial Affairs ECOFIN
    date
    2011-05-17
    type
    Council Meeting
committees added
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Constitutional Affairs
    committee
    AFCO
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Foreign Affairs
    committee
    AFET
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Agriculture and Rural Development
    committee
    AGRI
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    True
    committee
    BUDG
    date
    2011-01-19
    committee_full
    Budgets
    rapporteur
    • group
      EPP
      name
      FERNANDES José Manuel
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Budgetary Control
    committee
    CONT
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Culture and Education
    committee
    CULT
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Development
    committee
    DEVE
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Economic and Monetary Affairs
    committee
    ECON
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Employment and Social Affairs
    committee
    EMPL
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
    committee
    ENVI
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Women’s Rights and Gender Equality
    committee
    FEMM
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Internal Market and Consumer Protection
    committee
    IMCO
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    International Trade
    committee
    INTA
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Industry, Research and Energy
    committee
    ITRE
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Legal Affairs
    committee
    JURI
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
    committee
    LIBE
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Fisheries
    committee
    PECH
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Petitions
    committee
    PETI
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Regional Development
    committee
    REGI
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Transport and Tourism
    committee
    TRAN
links added
other added
  • body
    EC
    dg
    Budget
    commissioner
    LEWANDOWSKI Janusz
procedure added
dossier_of_the_committee
BUDG/7/05057
reference
2011/2017(BUD)
title
2012 budget: priorities - other sections
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Budgetary preparation
type
BUD - Budgetary procedure
subject
  • 8.70.13 2012 budget

code AGPLv3.0+, data ODBLv1.0, site-content CC-By-Sa-3.0
© European Union, 2011 – Source: European Parliament