Strasbourg, 15/02/2012 (Agence Europe) - The cost of European Parliament plenary sessions in Strasbourg amounts to €51.5 million per year, that is, four times less than the estimate put forward by supporters of a single location in Brussels, which say it would be around €169-203 million annually, according to a report presented on Tuesday 14 February. According to the report by the European association of young entrepreneurs on the basis of 2010 figures provided by the institution, the building costs €33.5 million annually and additional costs for functioning €18 million. “This amounts to 10 cents per citizen per year”, said Pierre Loeh, who is the association's co-president.
The report also underlines that the carbon footprint of the sessions in Strasbourg represents 4,200 tonnes of CO2 annually, far from the 19,000 tonnes put forward by those against Strasbourg, headed by Edward McMillan-Scott (ALDE, UK). This difference can partly be explained by the fact that McMillan-Scott takes into account the travelling done by MEPs to and from Strasbourg, when MEPs, even if the seat of Parliament were in Brussels, would have to travel anyway to return to their constituencies at the weekend. Thus, the report underlines, “nearly 80% of spending is fixed and independent of where the sittings are held”.
Main weaknesses: access and accommodation. The document also highlights a number of shortcomings of Strasbourg, and denounces the lack of accessibility and accommodation, on the basis of a survey of 250 users, MEPs, parliamentary assistants and officials. The report thus suggests taxi planes or low cost airlines should be used, with TGV Brussels-Strasbourg connections via Paris-Roissy, and regrets that the Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg line is incomplete. The document denounces the difficulties encountered for affordable accommodation during sessions. Saying that hotel prices are one and a half times higher during the weeks when sessions are held there, it calls for a “quality chart” that would force the hotel sector to make an effort. The report thus sets out 22 recommendations for improving the failings of the site, with regard to access, intra-city transport, accommodation, working conditions and the welcoming of MEPs.
In March and June 2011, MEPs voted in favour of a single location, mentioning financial reasons. They did not, however, say which location should be maintained. (CG/transl.jl)