Brussels, 07/04/2011 (Agence Europe) - Some people would like to have seen greater freezing or a more significant reduction in the European Parliament budget in 2012, which was adopted on Wednesday 6 April by the European Parliament. It now stands at €1,725 billion. This represents a 2.3% increase on the 2011 budget but it is still below the rate of inflation forecast for the EU, which is expected to be 2.8%. The report by José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, Portugal) was adopted by 479 votes in favour, 176 against, with 23 abstentions. This project has been sent to the European Commission, which will present proposals on spending forecasts for the EU in 2012.
MEPs reduced the level of spending suggested in the initial proposals by €13.7 million. This was achieved mainly by savings being made in the area of political parties and foundations, information campaigns, information technology, building maintenance and the number of posts in institutions. MEPs are also hoping to make savings by using external services less frequently and modernising and rationalising the EP administrative apparatus. They call for water, electricity and paper consumption to be reduced, as well as transport costs resulting from business travel.
The EP is also urging a long-term European Parliament budget review, aimed at identifying potential savings. In the context of Parliament's security, MEPs allocated €3 million from the budget to a reserve that will be released when a spending plan becomes available. Funding for 18 new MEPs (due to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty) and costs related to preparing for Croatia's accession to the EU have been postponed until the final decisions on this matter are taken.
The EP is not approving the creation of a new budgetary line at this stage for the European History House. Subsequently, it is asking for the €1 million that should have been allocated to the new position 3247 (European History House) to be transferred to chapter 10 1 (reserve for unexpected events).
The European Commission is proposing a 1% increase, while the Parliament Bureau had been planning on 5%. The budgets committee finally followed the line advocated by its rapporteur, José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, Portugal), who requested a 2.3% increase in EP administrative spending for 2012 (EUROPE 10345). Despite this increase, the rapporteur emphasised in the plenary session that this budget would represent 19.7% of the Union's administrative spending in 2012, as opposed to 20.3% in 2010. Fernandes is also proposing a €100 million reduction in the section 5 ceiling (administration) and a corresponding increase in the other sections helping youth related work.
Monika Hohlmeier from Germany spoke on behalf of the EPP and said that this was an excellent idea. She also appealed for greater financial strictness with regard to building maintenance. Many MEPs would have liked the Parliament to make further savings. Derek Vaughan (S&D, United Kingdom) would have liked further savings but recognised that real efforts had been made (buildings, information campaigns, reducing reserve funds). He was not opposed to funding for youth but would have liked a more detailed discussion on the matter.
Alexander Alvaro of Germany, speaking for the ALDE Group, asked what such a proposal was doing in the report. He underlined the major areas of savings that still exist and noted that a large part of spending not carried out will quite simply be carried forward to 2013-2014. For the Greens/EFA, Helga Trüpel of Germany saw the youth funds as a shrewd policy that was acceptable if not to the detriment of agencies like the new food safety agency. Lajos Bakros of Hungary, speaking for the ECR Group, was among those calling for austerity, saying it was necessary to heat less, to use electricity sparingly and to use public transport. Miguel Portas of Portugal, speaking on behalf of GUE/NGL, took the view that EP spending was excessive and even extravagant. He asked why a freeze should not be imposed. Along the same lines, Marta Andreasen of Britain, for the EFD Group, considered that some posts increase considerably without any real reason. She wished to know more on the House of European History (for which the rapporteur calls for downward cost revision without, for now, including a specific budgetary line for this).
The question of the European House has rallied many MEPs. Some are in favour of the principle, especially Swedish Socialist Göran Färm, who believes that this project has a meaning but wonders whether it is a matter for the EP to cover. Then there is Danish Liberal Anne Jensen, who calls for greater transparency throughout the procedure. This is an idea that was floated during the previous legislature, Finnish Liberal Karl Haglund points out, although he called for a vote on how appropriate it is to pursue the project. Peter Van Dalen (ECR, NL) asks why one should not go back in time. His Liberal compatriot Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy appealed to the pro-European elect (like himself), saying that, by asking too much, they should not provide a pretext for those who seek to use the budget against Europe. (L.G./transl.fl/jl)