A.

whereas the President adopted Parliament’s accounts for the financial year 2020 on 9 June 2021;

B.

whereas the Secretary-General, as the principal authorising officer by delegation, certified, on 25 June 2021, his reasonable assurance that the resources assigned for Parliament’s budget have been used for their intended purpose, in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and that control procedures established give the necessary guarantees concerning the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions;

C.

whereas the Court of Auditors stated in its audit that, in its specific assessment of administrative and other expenditure in 2020, it did not identify any serious weaknesses in the annual activity reports of the institutions and bodies it examined as required by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046;

D.

whereas Article 262(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 requires each Union institution to take all appropriate steps to act on the observations accompanying Parliament’s discharge decision;

—

having regard to its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2020, Section I – European Parliament,

—

having regard to Rule 100 and Rule 104(3) of, and Annex V to, its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0044/2022),

A.

whereas, in his certification of the final accounts, the European Parliament’s (the ‘Parliament’) accounting officer stated his reasonable assurance that the accounts, in all material aspects, present fairly the financial position, the results of the operations and the cash-flow of Parliament;

B.

whereas, in accordance with the usual procedure, 191 questions were sent to Parliament’s administration and written replies were received and discussed publicly by Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control, in the presence of the vice-president responsible for the budget, the Secretary-General, the director of the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations (the ‘Authority’) and the internal auditor;

C.

whereas there is always scope for improvement in terms of quality, efficiency and effectiveness in the management of public finances, scrutiny is necessary to ensure that political leadership and Parliament’s administration are held accountable to Union citizens;

1.

Notes that Parliament’s final appropriations for 2020 totalled EUR 2 038 745 000, or 18,1 % of heading V of the Multiannual Financial Framework (1) set aside for the 2020 administrative expenditure of the Union institutions as a whole, representing a 2,1 % increase over the 2019 budget (EUR 1 996 978 262), but at the same time a 0,4 % decrease in its relative share in the overall budget;

2.

Notes that total revenue entered in the accounts as of 31 December 2020 was EUR 203 449 523 (compared to EUR 207 521 070 in 2019), including EUR 33 567 305 in assigned revenue (compared to EUR 36 566 236 in 2019);

3.

Emphasises that four chapters accounted for 67,6 % of total commitments: Chapter 1 0 (Members of the institution), Chapter 1 2 (Officials and temporary members of staff), Chapter 2 0 (Buildings and associated costs) and Chapter 4 2 (Expenditure relating to parliamentary assistance), indicating a high level of rigidity for the major part of Parliament’s expenditure;

4.

Notes the figures on the basis of which Parliament’s accounts for the financial year 2020 were closed, namely:

5.

Points out that 95,7 % of the appropriations entered in Parliament’s budget, amounting to EUR 1 950 750 955, were committed, with a cancellation rate of 0,8 %; notes with satisfaction that, as in previous years, a very high level of budget implementation was achieved; notes that payments totalled EUR 1 590 035 012, resulting in a payment appropriation execution rate of 81,5 %;

6.

Underlines the fact that the cancelled appropriations for the year 2020 amounting to EUR 17 292 007, mainly related to expenditure related to buildings, production and dissemination, as well as to remuneration, computing and telecommunications;

7.

Notes that twelve transfers were approved, in accordance with Articles 31 and 49 of the Financial Regulation, in the financial year 2020, amounting to EUR 183 933 785 or 9 % of final appropriations; observes that 76,4 % of the funds transferred related to Parliament’s buildings policy and for the most part, to fund the purchase of the Wiertz building and the annual payments for the Adenauer II building project;

8.

Recalls that the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) performs a specific assessment of administrative and other expenditure as a single policy group for all Union institutions; highlights that administrative and related expenditure includes expenditure on human resources (salaries, allowances and pensions), accounting for 60 % of the total, and on buildings, equipment, energy, communications and information technology;

9.

Notes that the overall audit evidence indicates that spending on administration is not affected by a material level of error;

10.

Notes with concern the specific finding by the Court, in its annual report on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2020, of errors in two payments: (i) an over-payment for IT services caused by an incorrect application of contract terms and (ii) an incorrect payment of a subsistence allowance to a Member, following a mistake in an attendance list; regrets that the control system in place did not prevent nor detect those mistakes; calls on Parliament to explain how those mistakes arose and measures taken to correct them and to ensure that they cannot happen again in the future and to ensure that it only pays daily allowances to Members who qualify for them by the end of 2022;

11.

Notes the response given by Parliament in the adversarial procedure which accepted the Court’s recommendation; notes that in 2019 Parliament launched a project to automate the registration of attendance with biometric technology in the central attendance register and signed a contract for this project at the end of 2020; stresses that the large-scale processing of biometric data should be avoided; asks the Bureau to develop an alternative solution that does not involve the processing of biometric data and ensures that only Members entitled to the daily subsistence allowance actually receive it; regrets the fact that this project was pursued despite the European Data Protection Supervisor’s adverse opinion at the end of March 2021 and reiterated in its Annual Report 2021, where it was stated that Parliament should consider less intrusive alternatives with regard to data protection;

12.

Emphasises that the Court examined more in particular the Union institutions’ public procurement procedures for the purchase of personal protective equipment for their members of staff in 2020; notes that the Court checked three procurement procedures organised by Parliament to purchase protective masks, temperature detectors and COVID-19 tests; regrets the cost caused by successive decisions to purchase and use different models of temperature detectors until the most suitable one for the current needs was found; underlines that the urgent procurement of equipment in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic was challenging due to surging demand and competition between contracting authorities and countries; notes that the Court, in one case related to the purchase of fabric masks, found that the requirements set by Parliament in the tender specifications were too broad to allow assessment of compliance, and that the successful bidders did not include full evidence in their offer that all minimum quality requirements were met at the time of contracting, such as evidence related to compliance with technical specifications or to the durability of masks;

13.

Notes that, at the meeting between the committee responsible and the internal auditor held on 30 November 2021, the internal auditor presented his annual report and described the assurance audits he performed and reported on, which in 2020 covered the following topics:

14.

Welcomes and supports the following actions that the internal auditor has agreed with the directorates-general responsible, as a result of the assurance assignments:

15.

Notes that the 2020 follow-up process resulted in the closure of 61 of the 108 open actions analysed and for which the agreed due dates for implementation had expired; notes that among the remaining 47 open actions from audit reports concerned, 15 of those actions address significant risk; regrets that some of the actions mentioned above were recommended several years ago but remain unimplemented; expects the different directorates-general to ensure that the overdue actions are closed without any further delay and that the agreed actions will be implemented in accordance with the due dates set in the internal auditor’s annual report; calls on the Secretary-General to report back to the discharge authority on the closure of the remaining actions in the course of his hearings in Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control in September and November 2022;

16.

Notes that pursuant to Article 118(9) of the Financial Regulation, Parliament’s internal audit reports are not available to the public once the internal auditor has finalised them; notes that in practice they are only published once all recommendations have been implemented; regrets that this results in a de facto delay of publication for several years; also regrets that Members may only read them in the secure reading room for as long as recommended measures have not been implemented; calls on the Bureau to allow Members to have immediate and full access to the internal audit reports; further calls on the Bureau to make each internal audit report available to the public one year after its finalisation, once the internal auditor has validated the actions taken to implement the previous year’s recommendations; recalls that a validation of recommendations does not require all recommendations to be fully implemented;

17.

Takes note of the written answers to the 2019 discharge resolution provided to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control on 17 September 2021, and of the Secretary-General’s presentation addressing the various questions and requests raised in Parliament’s resolution on discharge for 2019 and the exchange of views with Members that followed;

18.

Notes that once the Plenary calls for different rules or measures to be implemented by Parliament, such proposed rules or measures are 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, as well as by Parliament’s administration; notes that the Bureau has been mandated by the Plenary to decide all administrative, staff and organisational matters concerning Members; stresses the importance of the discharge procedure and asks that all discharge decisions passed by the Plenary should be thoroughly followed up;

19.

Asks the Secretary-General to forward this resolution to the Bureau, highlighting all requests for action or decisions by the Bureau; calls on the Secretary-General to establish a plan of action and a timetable enabling the Bureau to follow-up and/or to respond to the demands and recommendations contained in Parliament’s discharge resolutions and to include the actions taken and implemented in the annual monitoring document; asks the Secretary-General and the vice-president responsible for budget to hold regular discussions with Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control on issues concerning the implementation of the said action plan;

20.

Reiterates its request to the Bureau to ensure greater visibility in its decision-making process, particularly with regard to the timely publication of relevant documents and information on its website;

21.

Asks the administration to consider approving Bureau minutes in written procedure to prevent a de facto delay of publication of at least one month until the Bureau reconvenes to approve the minutes, and once adopted for the minutes to be made accessible without delay on both Parliament’s intranet and internet site;

22.

Notes that the presence of Parliament’s officials in Union delegations or other bodies aims to strengthen Parliament’s relations with regional organisation; reiterates, however, the concern about the Bureau decision of 11 February 2019 regarding parliamentary support to the European Union Mission to ASEAN in Jakarta, the Delegation of the European Union to the African Union in Addis Ababa and the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations in New York; calls for a thorough cost-benefit analysis to justify any new decision, measurable indicators to assess annual performance, and that Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control be kept informed;

23.

Recalls that the year 2020 was marked by the challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in fundamental changes to Parliament’s way of working; welcomes the fact that from the onset of and throughout the pandemic crisis, Parliament has taken often unprecedented decisions aimed at minimising the risk for Members and members of staff, while ensuring that Parliament remains in a position to continue its core activities, while also showing practical solidarity with the host communities;

24.

Welcomes the fact that in 2020 a COVID-19 testing centre was set up in Brussels in Parliament’s premises, and that testing facilities were also created in Luxembourg and Strasbourg;

25.

Welcomes the fact that Parliament has been able to ensure the above through its organisational resilience and ability to apply new working methods, in particular teleworking and remote participation;

26.

Appreciates the remarkable efforts of Parliament and its IT services during 2020 to immediately provide members, staff, accredited parliamentary assistants (APAs) and trainees with electronic devices to work remotely; asks, however, to know the buying criteria for the devices and which practical considerations influenced the decision to buy the currently used surface devices; underlines with concern the amount of technical issues with the devices among Members and APAs, such as abrupt disconnections, lost documents, overheating, short battery capacity, and poor connectivity during video calls;

27.

Regrets the situation of the Schuman trainees with a traineeship from March to July 2020, who were teleworking from the second week of their traineeship; notes that the Commission and the Council had given their trainees the option to come back in October to restart a full 5-month traineeship; regrets the decision of the Directorate-General for Personnel (DG PERS) to only give the Schuman trainees that option if they interrupted their current internship; calls on the DG PERS to ensure equal treatment of its trainees in similar situations;

28.

Welcomes the fact that digitalised processes included the organisation of remote meetings and remote voting systems in plenary and parliamentary committees, allowed Parliament to continue its work, including during the Strasbourg part-sessions which were suspended for most of 2020; notes that the suspension of Strasbourg part-sessions contributed to total savings of EUR 26 260 608 according to Parliament’s Secretariat while also significantly reducing Parliament’s carbon footprint; acknowledges the temporary nature of these extraordinary circumstances; calls on the President to allow for the option of remote participation of Members until the COVID-19 pandemic is brought to safe levels;

29.

Welcomes, in terms of remote participation, the fact that the deployment of a complex, multilingual solution, which would normally require months, if not years, was implemented in a few weeks; highlights that a remote voting system was created in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act and the Members’ Statute, and that that system, which has been in place since March 2020, has been constantly upgraded and improved; commends the fact that from March until October 2020 that voting system has allowed for 143 voting sessions and nearly 10 000 voting operations;

30.

Stresses the serious risks of hearing problems as a result of the switch to remote meetings for Parliament’s interpreters having to rely on often very poor sound quality from remote-mode interventions; underlines the efforts made by the interpreters in that regard and calls on the Bureau to remind participants to use adequate speaking equipment in order to minimise the disturbances and sometimes poor quality of connection; recalls that interpreters have in the past rightly refused to interpret if the sound quality did not allow for it;

31.

Underlines that interpretation is vital for the functioning of committees and parliamentary life; recognises that due to the sudden and disruptive changes caused by the pandemic and consequent sanitary restrictions, the administration had to quickly find feasible solutions to provide interpretation services; stresses that some committee sessions did not have all required languages, thus complicating participation of some members and diminishing their options to interact; understands that the three working languages are English, French and German but strongly highlights that any of the 24 official languages should be provided upon request of Members;

32.

Calls on the Secretary-General, in the general context of the COVID-19 pandemic, to require all external companies providing their services in Parliament to guarantee the employment rights and working conditions of their staff and to strictly comply with the measures adopted by the government in the context of the pandemic;

33.

Draws attention to the fact that certain sanitary measures, although necessary, have significantly worsened the working conditions in certain services, with the prominent example of the staff employed in the copy shop working still in isolation from the public after months; calls for the applicable measures in similar future situations to take into account the protection of workers' mental health;

34.

Regrets that voting remotely is currently not provided for under Parliament’s Rules of Procedure unless the President establishes the existence of extraordinary circumstances;

35.

Notes the fact that there is no system in place to ensure that Members, who are temporarily absent for a justified reason such as maternity and paternity leave, can continue to carry out their core duties; deems this problematic as it can negatively impact citizens’ representation in Parliament; underlines that there is a risk of discrimination against Members and their voters when such arrangements are not provided for; emphasises that a vote for a female member of Parliament should not lead to a lack of representation, which is of concern given that younger, particularly female Members and their voters are disproportionally affected by the lack of maternity and parental leave arrangements in Parliament; recalls that the situation for national members of parliament in these same situations differs between Member States; calls on Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs to provide for feasible, temporarily limited solutions for Members who are absent for justified reasons to speak in debates and vote or be temporarily substituted by revising Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and the European Electoral Law; recalls that daily allowances remain linked to physical presence at Parliament’s places of work;

36.

Welcomes Parliament’s efforts, and particularly the personal engagement of former President Sassoli in this issue, to provide daily solidarity meals and shelters for vulnerable women in the three places of work, as decided by the Bureau; further welcomes the fact that around 65 drivers volunteered to drive doctors, nurses and other medical staff to their night shifts in hospital in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic;

37.

Welcomes the fact that Parliament distributed reusable facial fabric masks to members of staff at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic; notes that medical face masks EN14683 or FFP2 respiratory protective devices have been required to be worn while in Parliament’s buildings in order to reinforce the protection of Members and staff as well as to further reduce the release of infectious respiratory particles;

38.

Commends Parliament’s services on their decision to continue facilitating hybrid press conferences after the pandemic since this can facilitate the reporting on European affairs for journalists who are not present in Strasbourg or Brussels; recommends that audio-visual and other facilities in Brussels, Strasbourg and the European Parliament liaison offices be developed further, including by increasing VoxBox capacity and modernising the press conference rooms in Strasbourg and Brussels to make them more suitable for hybrid press conferences;

39.

Stresses that Parliament needs to be at the forefront of adopting more digital, flexible and energy-efficient working methods and meeting practices, learning from the experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic and capitalising on the investments in technology already implemented; notes that on the initiative of former President Sassoli, focus groups on ‘Rethinking Parliamentary Democracy - A stronger European Parliament after Covid-19’ discussed the future of work within Parliament between April and July 2021 pertaining to each of their fields of action: plenary, parliamentary prerogatives, communication, external diplomacy and internal organisation; notes that the focus groups delivered a final report including recommendations, the implementation of which will be discussed by the Bureau;

40.

Calls on Parliament to re-evaluate its Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) targets for 2023 in light of the COVID-19 pandemic; reiterates its call to amend its current CO2 reduction plan for reaching carbon neutrality using an internationally recognised method when it has been validated as, for example, an internal carbon pricing (ICP) mechanism by which companies voluntarily price their carbon footprint and thereby put a value on their greenhouse gas emissions;

41.

Notes that three of Parliament’s buildings in Brussels (Martens, Campoamor and Wayenberg nursery) have recently been awarded an internationally recognised environmental certification on sustainability, a BREEAM Excellence, confirming the long-standing policy and actions by Parliament to gradually transform its buildings portfolio into an environmentally exemplary one; notes that presently, on Parliament’s Brussels site, four buildings (a quarter of the total number of buildings - Spinelli, Campoamor, Arendt, Montoyer-Science) are equipped with photovoltaic panels, and that these installations represent a cumulative surface area of less than 2 % of the total roof surface of Parliament’s buildings in Brussels; notes that three new photovoltaic installations (100 m2 on the Montoyer 70 building, 200 m2 on the Spinelli building and 52 m2 of replacement of the current solar panels by photovoltaic ones on the Brandt building) will be completed by the end of 2022 (and this represents an increase of 64 %, in 2022, of the total surface equipped with photovoltaic panels);

42.

Notes that there are currently no photovoltaic panels on any of Parliament’s buildings in Strasbourg as the emphasis has been placed on more efficient means of saving energy, i.e. by installing new highly efficient heat pumps; notes that the feasibility studies based on which it was decided not to install solar panels on the roofs in Strasbourg date back to 2011 and reiterates that prices for solar panels have decreased by more than 80 % since 2010; invites the Bureau to evaluate the installation of photovoltaic panels by 2023, taking into account technical feasibility and cost effectiveness;

43.

Welcomes the installation of heat pumps and cogeneration in the buildings in Strasbourg and Brussels to produce renewable electricity and heat; further welcomes that the new Adenauer building in Luxembourg was built using the most modern environmental techniques available, including geothermal and solar energy and full use of daylight; calls on Parliament to further increase the share of renewable energy in its energy mix and, in particular, energy production, and to phase out fossil fuels as soon as possible; calls on Parliament to publish the energy certificates of all Parliament’s buildings;

44.

Recalls that efficient lighting solutions are an essential factor for the sustainability of buildings; welcomes that the replacement of existing lighting with low-energy LED lights is evaluated whenever possible and feasible in Parliament’s buildings; regrets that not all offices in Parliament’s three places of work are equipped with motion detectors and that it appears that the motion detectors in several offices in the Spinelli building do not work; calls on Parliament to ensure that fully functioning motion detectors are installed wherever feasible to reduce energy consumption;

45.

Welcomes the fact that the extension of the Wayenberg nursery in Brussels, completed in September 2020, is the first passive building of Parliament; invites the Bureau to initiate in 2022 technical studies to identify additional possibilities to further reduce energy consumption and increase the production of renewable energy and to implement them as soon as possible;

46.

Recalls that nearly two thirds of Parliament’s carbon footprint originates from the transport of people; calls for a reflection on the expansion of voluntary teleworking to more days and functions, whenever relevant and provided it does not disturb parliamentary work; keeping in mind the importance of physical presence, recalls that Parliament introduced working groups on Parliament’s future work; calls on Parliament to take the focus groups’ conclusions into account; calls to prioritise low-carbon transport modes for missions, where appropriate;

47.

Welcomes the gradual shift to zero-emission vehicles in Parliament’s car service fleet; calls for the service fleet to be fully electric by 2024 at the latest;

48.

Calls for an appropriate increase in the number of electric vehicle chargers in line with present and near future demand; calls for additional bicycle parking spaces; calls for the creation of adequate cargo bike parking spaces to ensure that regular bike parking spaces are accessible for regular bike riders;

49.

Notes that Parliament’s food waste amounted to 0,055-0,068 kg per meal served between 2018 and 2020; welcomes Parliament’s efforts to reduce food waste by gathering and delivering leftover food to ‘front line’ organisations who deliver it to people in need; calls on Parliament to continue to explore ways of reducing food waste even further;

50.

Welcomes the introduction of a wider and more sustainable food choice, including the introduction of a greater variety of vegetarian and vegan products, in Parliament’s canteens; suggests an increase in the variety of vegetarian and vegan meals served in Parliament’s canteens; further requests that at least one fresh gluten-free meal option is available each day and that allergy and diet information is displayed visibly on the food cards next to the counters;

51.

Recalls that according to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Protocol No 6 annexed to the Treaties, Parliament shall have its seat in Strasbourg, where the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session, shall be held; recalls the support by the vast majority of Parliament for a single seat to ensure efficient spending of Union taxpayers’ money and to assume its institutional responsibility to reduce its carbon footprint; notes that permanent changes would require a Treaty change; recalls that Parliament’s plenary has previously requested a debate on its right to determine its own working arrangements and committed itself to initiating an ordinary Treaty revision procedure under Article 48 of the Treaty on the European Union with a view to proposing changes necessary to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Protocol 6 to allow it to decide on the location of its seat and its internal organisation (4)

52.

Reiterates its call on Parliament to introduce a user-friendly online booking system for the use of Parliament’s car services to travel to Strasbourg to be operational once regular sessions in Strasbourg resume; further calls on Parliament to widen the user group to also include members of staff, group staff and APAs without the requirement for Members to accompany them;

53.

Welcomes the fact that ethical and transparency standards applicable to Parliament are in many respects ahead of those applicable in the Member State equivalents; considers that Parliament should strive to lead by example with regard to setting Europe-wide ethics and transparency standards; supports the strengthening of the existing ethical rules by providing Members with guidance and support;

54.

Notes with satisfaction that, since the start of the 9th parliamentary term, the necessary infrastructure to enable Members to publicise scheduled meetings with interest representatives has been available on Parliament’s website with a view to improving transparency; calls on Parliament’s services to expand the infrastructure to allow APAs and policy advisers to voluntarily publish their meetings with interest representatives; recalls that Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure obliges rapporteurs, shadows and committee chairs to publish their meetings with interest representatives; notes with concern that as of 30 April 2021, only 380 out of the 705 current Members had publicised at least one meeting with an interest representative on Parliament’s website; further notes that 10 out of the 24 committee chairs have published none or just a single meeting with an interest representative since the start of the 9th parliamentary term; recalls that the information, reminder notices and emails on the obligation to publish meetings should be sent to all Members at more regular intervals;

55.

Recalls the President’s written reply dated of April 2020 to the joint letter from Parliament’s Anti-Corruption Intergroup, which, in particular, agreed to implement a number of changes to the tool for publishing Members’ meetings with interest representatives to improve its user-friendliness, first and foremost by linking it to the transparency register and to the legislative observatory; regrets that these practical improvements have not yet been implemented; asks Parliament’s administration to effectively establish this link as soon as it is feasible without undue practical obstacles;

56.

Welcomes the fact that, with effect from July 2021, the 2011 interinstitutional agreement on a common transparency register has been replaced by a new tripartite agreement, in which the Council participates; notes that the quality of entries regarding the activities of interest representatives in the transparency register has improved over recent years and commends, despite limited resources, the role of the joint secretariat in that improvement; regrets, however, that the overall quality of entries remains unsatisfactory, with the Secretariat’s check of around 40 % of entries over the course of 2020 finding that only 43 % of checked entries provided satisfactory data quality, a number similar to 2019; welcomes the allocation of an additional 1,5 full-time equivalent (FTE) posts for the Secretariat; urges the Secretariat to use these for further reducing the number of registrations with sub-optimal data;

57.

Recalls that according to Rule 176(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, once a penalty that was imposed by the President upon a Member becomes final, it is to be published prominently on Parliament’s website and shall remain there for the rest of the term, in line with the legal principles of sound conduct of investigation, presumption of innocence, and protection of personal rights; calls for reflection on whether penalties are currently published prominently enough;

58.

Deplores the fact that Members are participating in unofficial election observation missions, as well as the expenditure incurred on these missions, believes such missions jeopardise Parliament’s reputation; notes eight such instances in 2020 were linked to Crimea and Venezuela; calls on the Bureau and democracy support and election coordination group to extend the duration of barring the Members concerned from undertaking official election observation missions from one year to the entire mandate, where this is not already the case;

59.

Calls on Parliament to publish a list of all friendship groups in Parliament on its website;

60.

Reiterates that Article 4 of the Code of Conduct provides, with respect to financial interests and conflicts of interest, that the Members’ declarations of financial interests shall be provided in a detailed manner; repeats its call on the Bureau to review the format of the declarations to require more detail and thus clarity; asks the President to instruct the services to systematically carry out thorough checks of the declarations to ensure that the information provided therein is sufficiently detailed to allow for an assessment of any potential conflict of interest;

61.

Recalls that according to Article 5 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure relating to the Implementing Measures for the Code of Conduct, Members shall refrain from accepting, in the performance of their duties, any gifts or similar benefits, other than those with an approximate value of less than EUR 150, and that any gifts presented to Members when they are representing Parliament in an official capacity shall be handed over to the President; notes that the Members’ Administration Unit should frequently remind Members of the obligation to notify the President of the receipt of a gift received in an official capacity; calls on the Bureau to introduce a standard form to be filled in at the end of delegation visits by all participating Members, declaring whether they received any personal or delegation gifts and their value;

62.

Is concerned that out of the 459 Members of the 8th parliamentary term that were not re-elected in 2019, Parliament received only one notification on post-mandate employment pursuant to Article 6 of the Code of Conduct; points out that notifications could help to prevent conflicts of interest, while also preventing former Members who engage in professional lobbying or representational activities directly linked to the Union’s decision-making process from benefiting from facilities granted to former Members; calls therefore on Parliament to improve the implementation of the Code of Conduct, in this regard also draws attention to the resolution to the 2019 European Parliament discharge, in which the discharge authority calls for an independent assessment on whether or not post-mandate activities of Members create conflicts of interest; once again calls on Parliament’s services to conduct such an assessment;

63.

Welcomes Parliament’s services’ ongoing project to make plenary voting records available on a dedicated space where users will have access to clear and reader-friendly documents, and notes the new layout for the roll-call votes in which the individual voting record of each Member will be published, giving the option of visualising the distribution of votes according to, inter alia, political group affiliation and/or nationality; regrets that it is not yet technically possible for Parliament’s services to allow for the display of the text of each amendment along with the voting record as it is offered by several private providers; calls on Parliament’s services to make available all amendments and roll-call voting records; also calls on the services to extend the information available to include up-to-date timetables and voting lists, including the final compromises agreed on by the rapporteur and shadows, as per the recommendations from the focus group on strengthening parliamentary prerogatives; further asks Parliament’s services to provide the possibility to Members to test a beta version of the new tool and provide feedback to be taken into account during the development of the tool;

64.

Takes note of 18 investigations carried out by Parliament’s services in 2020 into the misuse of allowances in which the offices of 12 Members were involved (compared to 6 Members previously), with total amounts at risk amounting to EUR 1 318 000 (compared to EUR 560 000 in 2019); commends Parliament’s services for their investigations in this regard, while also pointing to the need to continue monitoring the development of the number and types of cases involved;

65.

Takes note of the fact that there were again no cases of whistleblowing recorded by Parliament in 2020; recalls that the most recent cases of whistleblowing date back to 2016 and that each of the three APAs concerned were subsequently dismissed; recalls that, among others, APAs are in a vulnerable position due to their special employment situation; calls on Parliament to fully adapt its own internal rules contained in the Staff Regulations to Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), including by setting up secure channels for reporting; further notes that whistleblowers deserve proper protection, similar to that of victims of harassment, and that this should also include the establishment of an advisory committee to deal with the protection of whistleblowers; regrets that there is little awareness among staff of the existence of a contact point for whistleblowers in the Secretary General’s cabinet and is of the opinion that this contact point cannot replace a fully-fledged advisory committee; calls on the Bureau to require training for contact points receiving whistleblower disclosures and to adopt clear and legally certain standards regarding which cases require protection to be granted to the whistleblower, including for APAs, and to publish those standards; requests Parliament to raise awareness, where possible, among parliamentary staff of their whistleblower protections;

66.

Notes with concern the unclear rules and obligations pertaining to retention periods of documents for Members, in particular those concerning personal and financial information as well as staff information; calls on the Bureau to establish clear, comprehensible and binding rules that duly take into account the number of documents to be stored and their retention method; strongly stresses that rules must be proportionate, do not increase bureaucracy, and are cost adequate; notes that archive activities are to be financed under the general expenditure allowance expenses;

67.

Recalls that pursuant to Rule 11(4) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, Parliament already provides Members with the possibility of publishing a voluntary audit or confirmation of their general expenditure allowance expenses; notes that five voluntary declarations on the use of the general expenditure allowance were submitted during the calendar year 2020; calls on Parliament’s services to send an annual reminder to Members in relation to this possibility; calls on the Bureau to regularly inform the discharge authority of the number of Members who have followed these recommendations;

68.

Highlights the fact that the 2018 Bureau decision on the general expenditure allowance stipulates that the Bureau will maintain this decision until the end of 2022 and will evaluate it on the basis of the experience gained during the 9th parliamentary term;

69.

Expresses its regret over the fact that the Bureau has not fully implemented the will of the Plenary expressed on several occasions to reform the General Expenditure Allowance (GEA), thereby preventing Union taxpayers' money, which amounts to 40 million Euro per year, from being spent in a more transparent and accountable manner; repeats its call for a reform of the GEA that would establish sample checks by Parliament’s services on 5% of Members’ GEA expenditure, and that would oblige Members to keep all receipts pertaining to the GEA, to annually publish an overview of expenditure by category as well as an independent auditor’s opinion on Parliament’s website, and to return the unspent share of the GEA at the end of the mandate; notes that the requested sample checks would pertain to checking 36 randomly selected Members per year and, based on a calculation by DG FINS, would require a maximum of 4 to 6 FTE posts;

70.

Recalls that the European Ombudsman, in her recommendation of 29 April 2019, in case 1651/2018/THH, found that Parliament’s refusal to grant public access to documents related to the revision of the list of expenses that might be covered by the GEA, constituted maladministration and recommended granting public access to a proposal from the Parliament Bureau’s ad hoc Working Group, including the options listed in that proposal; regrets that Parliament rejected the Ombudsman’s recommendation and urges Parliament’s administration to reconsider granting public access to the documents in question;

71.

Welcomes the fact that the Bureau, at its meeting of 5 July 2021, approved an amendment to Article 40 of its decision of 14 April 2014 on implementing measures for Title VII of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union to enable APAs, at their request, to be paid in euros in any bank within the Union;

72.

Recalls that current rules on the termination of contract for APAs do not foresee the possibility of a termination by ‘mutual consent’, which would be a way to recognise the special political relation between Members and APAs, where both parties can acknowledge the mutual trust no longer exists, and can benefit from a common solution without undermining the APAs’ social rights; regrets that this request has been included in several Parliament discharge resolutions without receiving a satisfactory response, and expects action to be taken as soon as possible;

73.

Reiterates its demand for APAs to receive the same subsistence allowance as the statutory personnel for their missions to attend the part-sessions in Strasbourg; acknowledges that any change to the legal framework, namely the Bureau decision on 2 October 2017, would require a revision of the applicable rules and thus, instructs the Secretary-General to submit this request for decision to the Bureau;

74.

Draws attention to the fact that the allowances for APAs on missions outside the three places of work of the Parliament have not been updated by the Commission since Commission Decision C(2002)98 of 24 January 2002, with a consequent increase in the gap between these allowances and current prices; calls on the Secretary-General to report to the Bureau so that Parliament formally requests the Commission to review the allowances;

75.

Regrets that no follow-up is given to the long-standing request to reconsider the possibility for APAs, under certain conditions to be determined, to accompany Members on official Parliament delegations and missions, as already requested by several discharge resolutions; calls on the Secretary-General to investigate the budgetary consequences, and the organisation and logistics of these missions;

76.

Rejects the compulsory appointment of APAs as representatives to deal with the Belgian authorities for the processing of the residence permit of third country trainees in Members’ offices; calls for an immediate revision of the applicable rules so that the administration takes over this function;

77.

Commends the exceptional work accomplished by the APA Front Office during 2020 in dealing with the professional difficulties encountered by APAs due to the COVID-19 pandemic, both in Parliament's places of work and in the countries of origin;

78.

Reiterates that APAs should not be compelled to be appointed as heads of visitors' groups and therefore assimilate the responsibility attached to the financial contribution offered by the Parliament to sponsored groups; insists on its demand that APAs be eliminated from the possibilities, leaving only a member of the sponsored group or a professional such as paying agents or travel agencies as heads of groups;

79.

Highlights that, as from mid-March 2020, Parliament’s administration went from an occasional teleworking scheme to teleworking being implemented between 70 % and 100 %, depending on the lockdown measure in force and on the need for physical presence;

80.

Takes note of the efforts of both Parliament and the Commission to ensure former APAs from the British delegations can transfer acquired pension rights to pension funds in the United Kingdom; calls on Parliament to ensure a solution is found;

81.

Calls on the Bureau to establish a system to allow APAs to take unpaid leave under similar rules as those applied to temporary or contract staff, who can take up to twelve months unpaid leave during their career;

82.

Notes that, in June and November 2020, Parliament conducted two institution-wide surveys among its members of staff on the future use of teleworking; recognises that the results of both surveys showed a high level of staff satisfaction with teleworking and that members of staff embrace a broader use of teleworking in the post-pandemic period; requests that as long as risks of infection with COVID-19 remain reasonably high even for vaccinated individuals, members of staff belonging to high risk groups should, upon providing proof of their condition, retain the possibility of teleworking full-time;

83.

Commends Parliament’s introduction of a range of measures to support the work-life balance of staff during the business-continuity teleworking, especially for those with more challenging personal circumstances; notes that the measures included flexibility (in terms of working time and output) for members of staff with demanding family situations, the possibility to work part-time outside the place of employment for members of staff that needed to take care of direct relatives, allowing carers of children with a disability to work 50 % with no corresponding loss of income during the period when schools and facilities for children with a disability were closed, and a temporary derogation from Staff Regulations to allow vulnerable members of staff to telework 100 % from their country of origin; calls on Parliament to ensure that the application procedure for such special schemes is well-communicated and clear and to avoid delays in granting the schemes;

84.

Welcomes the possibility offered by the Secretary-General’s decision of 31 March 2021 to work away from the place of employment; regrets, however, that this was only possible on a part-time basis with a corresponding reduction of salary; regrets that such decision forced staff and APAs out of Belgium at that time to choose between loss of earnings or returning to Parliament’s places of work, at a time when traveling was strongly discouraged; notes with satisfaction that the Bureau, on 17 April 2021, acknowledged the unsound nature of this decision and established a series of criteria under which APAs would be able to telework full time (including medical conditions, travel restrictions and border closures); notes with great concern that the obligation to telework from the place of employment during periods of near-complete lockdown has increased feelings of isolation and fuelled mental health problems among members of staff; calls on the administration to lift the obligation for all categories of staff, including trainees, in the future to telework from their place of employment in such exceptional and time-limited periods such as periods of near-complete lockdowns in place during parts of 2020;

85.

Notes that creating the permanent possibility for members of staff to telework from anywhere, under conditions to be specified, entails a great number of advantages for both members of staff and institutions including the improvement of staff well-being and increasing Parliament’s attractiveness as an employer, financial savings made through, inter alia, a reduced need for office space, a reduced environmental impact from staff commutes and a closer link between the Union institutions and citizens in Member States other than Belgium, France and Luxembourg; calls on Parliament to enter into an inter-institutional discussion with a view to reviewing the decision obliging staff to telework exclusively from their place of employment in exceptional circumstances, e.g. under the condition of temporarily forfeiting their expat allowance;

86.

Commends, at the level of the General Secretariat, Parliament’s support to members of staff through reinforcing existing resources and putting in place new measures, such as two helplines, psychological consultations and group sessions, social assistance, confidential counselling, and a network of mental health first aiders; welcomes the fact that a diverse set of awareness-raising initiatives and psychosocial support resources were offered to members of staff, including free online mindfulness classes for all members of staff from October 2020;

87.

Notes that two directorates-general put in place specific policies framing the right to disconnect while five others raised awareness among managers of the right to disconnect; calls upon Parliament to adopt guidelines on the right to disconnect including every category of staff for every directorate-general and make sure all directorates-general put such guidelines in place;

88.

Welcomes the achievements made so far as a result Parliament’s gender mainstreaming policy, in reaching gender parity at the level of directors, and 41,9 % of heads of unit posts being occupied by women; notes that there is still significant room for improvement at the level of directors-general with currently only 23,1 % of these posts being occupied by women; welcomes the fact that the Bureau approved on 13 January 2020 new and more ambitious targets for gender balance in senior and middle management posts in Parliament’s secretariat to be achieved by 2024: 50 % female heads of unit, 50 % female directors and 40 % female directors-general; reiterates that it is essential for staff representatives to be heard when the Bureau discusses general matters affecting its staff policy, and repeats its request to the Secretary-General to take the appropriate measures to implement this key approach; reiterates its request to the Secretary-General to take further steps to ensure transparency and fairness during senior management appointment procedures, in particular in light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice) of 14 July 2021 in Case T-670/19, Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament (6); notes the limitations through Article 3, fourth paragraph, of Annex III of the Staff Regulations concerning the participation of staff representatives in senior management selection panels; requests, furthermore, to ensure consistency when it comes to external publications of senior management posts and diligence in the publication of these posts as and when they fall vacant;

89.

Reiterates its call to the Secretary-General to insist on the importance of all recruitment being based on competency, while also respecting the need for geographical balance of all Member States at all levels of staff; is concerned by the difficulties encountered in recruiting certain nationalities and bringing certain job profiles in-house; requests further efforts to ensure that employment at Parliament is equally attractive to all Union nationalities; calls on Parliament to build its own outreach capacity, with the goal of attracting quality candidates, that Parliament needs, to competitions, in terms of profile, age, gender and nationality and in particular candidates under-represented countries;

90.

Recalls the staff committee’s resolution of 18 October 2021 on a new scheme put in place to offer contract agent posts to trainees; is of the opinion that recruitment procedures must be merit-based, competitive, fair and transparent while there must be no privileged access to contract agent posts or discrimination against staff and APAs; asks the administration to reconsider the new scheme involving the staff representatives in the process;

91.

Proposes that, in line with the fact that promoting equal opportunities remains a key component of Parliament’s human resource management policy, a greater focus is placed on equal opportunities for all, in particular increasing the number of people with disabilities working in Parliament’s administration; notes that within the Bureau a high-level group on gender equality and diversity already exists and requests that it conduct a study of effective measures taken in Member States and internationally to increase the participation of people with disabilities in the work place, including legislative measures; requests that the high-level group reports back to the Bureau with concrete suggestions once the study has been undertaken and the results analysed; calls for ambitious targets to be urgently set and for them to be achieved over a short time frame;

92.

Notes with serious concern that 17 new harassment cases were opened in 2020; stresses that efforts still need to be made to ensure that the two advisory committees dealing with harassment complaints concerning Members and all members of staff gain more trust from victims of harassment, who may fear that their career or position in Parliament would be at stake if they go through the whole harassment procedure, gather evidence and build their case; urges the Bureau and Secretariat to implement the actions as repeatedly called for in the resolutions on harassment of 26 October 2017 (217/2897 (RSP)) (7), 28 November 2019 (2019/2855 (RSP)) (8) and 10 December 2021 (2021/2986 (RSP)) (9), including, notably, publishing the results of an external audit on the current anti-harassment structure in place and making anti-harassment training mandatory for all Members and members of staff, including persons in managerial roles in the different directorates-general and political groups;

93.

Further calls on Parliament to ensure that reimbursement procedures for psychological treatment for any victim of harassment are not overly bureaucratic and are processed quickly;

94.

Recalls that Article 1.7 of the cleaning contract specifies that contractors must comply with social and labour law obligations as provided for by Union law, national law and collective agreements or by international obligations in social and labour law; recalls that where the responsible Parliament services detect or receive any information on possible breaches, and on the condition that the persons concerned have, to no avail, already raised the issue with their managers, the union representatives and the external service for prevention and well-being of the company, the relevant authorities need to be contacted; notes that neither an inspection of the national service 'Contrôle des lois sociales/Direction de Bruxelles' (2020) nor an analysis by the psychosocial department of the external service for prevention and protection at work in Brussels (2020) found any legal breaches related to social laws and working conditions for cleaning staff; calls for an immediate launch of a survey, conducted by an external company to guarantee confidentiality and anonymity for the respondents, that aims to reflect the actual state of the company’s employee satisfaction levels, engagement, commitment, loyalty, motivation, etc. and to identify weaknesses, problems or opportunities for improvement within the current cleaning company; calls on Parliament to take all necessary precautions to ensure that the highest standards of labour law for cleaning staff, are being upheld by external contractors, in particular with regard to psychological pressure and working conditions;

95.

Calls on Parliament to ensure that working plans for members of staff in shift work, including in particular members of staff in the Directorate-General for Security, are communicated well in advance and avoid modifications at short notice wherever possible;

96.

Welcomes the completion of the new wing at the Wayenberg crèche; regrets the successive changes and prolonged closures of sections due to the internal COVID-19 protocol which were communicated with minimal notice and without time to react; calls for a review of the COVID-19 health protocols to bring them in line with national protocols and to ensure that this important service continues to be provided as much as possible; calls on the DG PERS to make sure that changes in the crèche’s working time arrangements are introduced and communicated to parents in due time to allow them to perform their working obligations with minimum interruptions; reiterates its call to DG PERS to conduct a satisfaction survey among both the crèche’s employees and children’s parents to regularly get relevant feedback on the provider; takes note that a new call for tender in relation to the management of the Wayenberg crèche was launched in 2021 and that the new service provider took over on 1 February 2022; calls on DG PERS to closely follow the quality of services of the new provider, which retained existing workers in accordance with Belgian labour law; calls for a constant monitoring to ensure that the new provider offers good working conditions that help retain quality personnel;

97.

Calls for the timetables of Parliament’s staff and APAs to be taken into account in order to adapt the opening hours of the services provided within the Parliament, particularly the Sport Club, to provide service beyond peak working hours and thus allow a greater number of users to access them;

98.

Welcomes Parliament’s efforts to provide daily solidarity meals which have helped to reduce the financial, economic and social impact on its caterers and their employees; notes that Parliament is seeking to save as many jobs as possible that are reasonable from an employment point of view but also justifiable in the context of proper use of Parliament’s budget;

99.

Recalls that throughout 2020, the administration continued the implementation of Parliament’s ‘Building Strategy Beyond 2019’ as endorsed by the Bureau in April 2018; observes that that building strategy endorses flexibility as a key principle for allocating offices to both Members and members of staff and allows the space available to be used in an adjustable manner while adapting to all possible situations in the post-COVID-19 period;

100.

Notes that the decision to discontinue the distribution of warm water in Members’ offices in Brussels and Strasbourg was taken by the Quaestors on 24 October 2017 in connection with the health risk posed by the presence of harmful Legionella bacteria within the ageing and deteriorating hydraulic systems of the buildings; stresses that the fight against Legionella bacteria is one of the most important tasks in the field of water treatment and disinfection; asks the Secretariat to call for an in-depth study in order to find adequate solutions to this long-standing issue;

101.

Supports a debate on the space needs of Parliament in light of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, current and future increase in teleworking and, if appropriate, for the adaptation of its long-term building strategy; encourages the review of the building policy to see if a dedicated office space for each member of staff remains necessary, as a change might result in office space savings; encourages the administration to pool workstations as much as possible in accordance with members of staff’s teleworking, while continuing to guarantee an office space for each member of staff who so requests; points out, in addition, that consideration should be given to the potentially negative effects on health and staff satisfaction of practices such as open spaces, collaborative spaces and ‘hot-desking’; recalls the work done by the focus groups and the working group on buildings and requests their involvement in this debate; invites the Bureau to take the appropriate steps for the implementation of the recommendations of focus group 5, notably concerning the creation of more informal meeting rooms, multi-functional and enhanced video-conferencing rooms in line with Parliament’s environmental policy;

102.

Highlights that the mopping-up practice has favoured savings of more than EUR 100 million in interest payments in recent years and thus constitutes best practice for the use of taxpayers’ money in public institutions; encourages the Bureau to identify additional budget lines that could benefit from this practice; notes that this practice has helped prevent the spending of remaining funds on unnecessary expenses at the end of the year; recalls that the mopping-up transfer supports the long-term building strategy of Parliament of owning buildings instead of renting them; recalls that the ramassage enabled Parliament to buy the strategically important Scholl building in 2020 and pay the full buying price in one transaction thus avoiding further financing costs;

103.

Notes that an important part of Parliament’s building strategy is the new Adenauer building project, which brings all Parliament services operating in Luxembourg under the same roof; observes that the first part of this project (East Wing) was completed in October 2020, and that works to construct the final part - the West Wing - are underway; underlines that as in previous years, Parliament’s Committee on Budgets authorised in 2020 a mopping-up transfer for the pre-financing of the project, and that the part of this transfer dedicated to the new Adenauer building amounted to approximately EUR 63,35 million;

104.

Recalls that, concerning the acquisition of the Scholl building, at its meeting of 5 October 2020, the Bureau approved the launch of a local property market prospection in Brussels and that Parliament’s Committee on Budgets held an exchange of views on this subject at its meeting of 15 October 2020 in the context of Early Information;

105.

Understands that, in Brussels, the decision to purchase the Scholl building in 2020 allowed the completion of another step of Parliament’s building strategy, and that it will further consolidate Parliament real estate, underpinning the interconnectivity of the central buildings and contribute to improved security; stresses that this purchase was also the subject of a mopping-up transfer, using the financial resources saved during 2020 through, inter alia, reduced travel expenses, amounting to EUR 74,9 million;

106.

Notes the purchase of the Scholl building at EUR 74,9 million, while the market price of the building was previously estimated to be between EUR 42 and 65 million; notes that the difference between purchase price and the estimation by the external expert should be analysed against the situation where Parliament would not have acquired the building and would have lost already realised investments; notes that the usufruct contract signed by Parliament in 2009 regretfully did not include an exit clause, which meant that Parliament would have in any case had to pay the full amount for the remaining contractual period (~ EUR 24 million), even if it had not acquired the building;

107.

Highlights that, in Brussels, some buildings either currently occupied by Parliament or of major strategic interest due to their location and the related security aspects, are not part of Parliament’s portfolio, as was the case with the Scholl building before its acquisition; notes that Parliament’s ‘Building Strategy Beyond 2019’ underlines the importance of owning and interconnecting Parliament central buildings and mentions Trèves II as a building that is in Parliament’s interest to acquire; notes that while these criteria are important and should be carefully analysed when proposing the purchase of a new building, they should not be the only criteria considered;

108.

Underlines that staff of political groups have specific needs in term of flexible working arrangements which do not fit with the rules applied to the entry of buildings outside the main one (e.g. access not allowed after a certain time or during the weekend); regrets that after the entry into force of the temperature check requirement, the staff located in the Trèves I building have been obliged for some time to have the test done at the Altiero Spinelli building before being allowed to enter the Trèves I building;

109.

Express concerns about Trèves I building structural problems; underlines the urgent need for the building to be upgraded to the latest energy and environmental norms; underlines the need for urgent measures to fix the unstable heating system, the lack of air conditioning and toilets for persons with reduced mobility, the poor sound proofing, as well as the sewage problem;

110.

Notes that Parliament’s Committee on Budgets is responsible for opinions and decisions concerning building-related projects with significant financial implications according to Annex VI to the Rules of Procedure; notes the competences of the Committee on Budgets under Article 266 of the Financial Regulation in relation to buildings of all institutions, bodies and offices, including Parliament; underlines that this includes early information, information on transparent and detailed planning, scrutiny, and decision making as well as the authorisation of projects;

111.

Calls on the Bureau to take the new health and safety environment, as well as the increase in remote working, into account as criteria for the selection of proposals of renovation and reconstruction of the Paul-Henri Spaak building, given the change in working practices and potential future decrease in physical presence in Parliament;

112.

Expects more transparent and detailed planning and decision-making, including the provision of early information, having due regard to Article 266 of the Financial Regulation, in relation to Parliament’s building policy;

113.

Takes note of the unanimous decision of the Bureau of 23 October 2019 to approve the creation of an IDEA Lab in 2020 with the aim of testing new, innovative solutions in the context of offices and facility management; notes that the decision of the Bureau was not based on any specific cost estimate; further notes that as part of the IDEA Lab, one Member’s office, at a cost of EUR 486 012, and adjacent showroom, at a cost of at least EUR 203 978, were built and equipped over the course of 2020; considers prudent and expedient use of budget allocated to pilot projects of this nature to be important; reminds the Bureau that clear budget lines should be set prior to engaging in such projects and that expenditure should be accounted for transparently; considers the testing of innovative office and facility management solutions useful in general but considers that the costs need to remain reasonable and justifiable; notes that it is important that projects like this benefit from the assessment of a range of Members and APAs in order to guarantee the most valid test results;

114.

Recalls the recommendations of focus group 5 in evaluating the IDEA Lab IT tools, which included more and better equipped meeting rooms, offices with remote/web-streaming meeting facilities and improved videoconferencing with a broader range of features;

115.

Recalls that during the Bureau meetings of 16 December 2019, 22 July 2020, 24 September 2020, 16 December 2020, and 18 January 2021, the members of the Bureau suggested that the IDEA Lab test solutions in the area of environmental performance, energy efficiency, security(especially electronic locks), IT and teleworking as well as ICT innovation strategy;

116.

Notes that as part of the IDEA Lab, the area of and around one office on the 15th floor serves as test area and that this area was substantially adapted at a cost of EUR 629 259 over the course of 2020; recalls that the removal of modular bathrooms in Members’ offices has been tested in the IDEA Lab and is considered a potential space gain that could be achieved in all offices during the coming 5-10 years; recalls that only on the 15th floor is it possible to cut and isolate the existing water pipes and adjust the ventilation ducts without permanent water cuts for the other floors;

117.

Stresses that currently 20 % of the space is not properly used, such as the copy rooms or space initially intended as server rooms; further notes that the findings of the IDEA Lab will deliver data and experience for future renovation works not only in the Paul-Henri Spaak Building, but also in the Altiero Spinelli building which will be usable for another 20-25 years;

118.

Underlines that the Bureau in its constitutive meeting of 26 January 2022 renewed the support for the IDEA Lab; welcomes that the IDEA Lab is now entering a phase in which the reflections that have existed from the beginning can be implemented, namely to integrate the costs of testing and applications on one budget line for the project management of the IDEA Lab on the one hand, and on corresponding budget lines in the directorates-general in charge of the individual applications on the other;

119.

Welcomes the fact that the extension of the Wayenberg nursery in Brussels was completed in September 2020; regrets that the works have continued while children and their families have been attending school, in some cases having to pass very close to the works, considering the danger that this entailed; invites the Bureau to initiate in 2022 technical studies to identify additional possibilities to further reduce energy consumption and increase the production of renewable energy, and to implement them as soon as possible;

120.

Welcomes the fact that the strategic approach related to the implementation of Europa Experiences in all Member States by the end of 2024, as decided by the Bureau in November 2019, was reinforced in November 2020 with the adoption by the Bureau of a timeline for the deployment of the facilities in all Member States; strongly expresses the view that European Parliament liaison offices and Europa Experiences are some of the best soft tools the Union and Parliament have to promote the work of the institutions and benefits of the Union for citizens; encourages Parliament and the Commission to continue to establish new Europa Experiences in all capitals and locations of strategic importance in view of the next European elections 2024; supports a formalised contract to split the costs for all Europa Experience between the Commission and Parliament to ensure sound long-term financing of the venues;

121.

Recalls the added-value of free and open-source software in improving security since they make it possible for Parliament to identify and fix weaknesses, keep control over the data by hosting in its servers and designing solutions according to its own specifications, while being able to avoid vendor lock-in effects;

122.

Recalls its preference for free and open-source software solutions instead of proprietary ones when considering new internal applications; asks for situations to be reported to the ICT governing bodies when open-source solutions are not chosen;

123.

In line with the previous Parliament discharge resolution and in order to significantly increase the confidentiality of its internal communication, asks the relevant services to test the integration and deployment of solutions for instant messaging and virtual meetings that are open source based, hosted in the Parliament’s servers, and which enable secure communication such as Matrix and Jitsi;

124.

Appreciates the fact that Parliament’s services are working to further improve the quality and accessibility of the publicly available data of the institution by adopting open data principles for re-use and redistribution, which were presented to the Bureau working group on ICT Innovation in April 2021; welcomes Parliament’s open data portal initiative, which aims to accommodate publicly available datasets in an easily accessible and user-friendly way, as well as provide data in an interoperable, machine-readable format and thus put into practice the open data principles on technical, legal, practical and social openness;

125.

Notes that the number of cybersecurity attacks is rising sharply and that those attacks can cause considerable damage to Parliament’s IT systems, to the extent that they affect the institution’s ability to function; welcomes the fact that the Security-General adopted an information security policy in June 2020, identifying the different categories of data and establishing the related conditions that must be observed for their handling and storage, based on a data protection impact assessment and security assessment; notes with concern the critical issues raised by the Secretary-General regarding cybersecurity, including understaffing; encourages Parliament to quickly take all appropriate measures to bolster both its IT structure and its cybersecurity staff;

126.

Notes that a number of Members and their assistants frequently encounter problems when connecting to the Member’s mail account on their mobile devices after changing the password of the Member’s mail account; calls on Parliament to take all necessary measures to ensure that such technical difficulties do not occur;

127.

Recalls that as of 31 December 2020, the actuarial deficit of the voluntary pension fund amounted to EUR 371,3 million, compared to EUR 328,6 million as of 31 December 2019;

128.

Recalls that the fund was set up in 1990 to provide Members with an additional pension scheme on a voluntary basis; recalls that before the Members’ Statute was introduced in 2009, Members were already eligible for a pension equivalent to that of their colleagues in the national parliaments, with the exception of Italian, French and Luxembourgish Members, who could therefore contribute to special pension schemes of the European Parliament, which were created in 1981 solely for the needs of the aforementioned three nationalities; recalls therefore that the voluntary pension fund has always constituted a purely supplementary pension (10);

129.

Recalls that, at its meeting of 10 December 2018, the Bureau decided to modify the rules applicable to the pension scheme by increasing the retirement age from 63 to 65 years and introducing a levy of 5 % to pension payments for future pensioners with a view to improving its sustainability, to addressing the increasing liquidity problem and to reducing the actuarial deficit and the negative consequences for Union taxpayers; recalls that the Bureau decision of 10 December 2018 applies only to pensions established after 1 January 2019, and that as such, it does not affect beneficiaries who retired before that date;

130.

Points out that the Bureau’s decision was challenged before the Court of Justice by a number of members of the fund; stresses that in its judgements of 15 September 2021 in joined cases T-720/19 to T-725/19 (11), Richard Ashworth and Others v Parliament, the Court of Justice concluded that already acquired rights were not impacted by the contested Bureau decision and that the Court of Justice further confirmed the Bureau’s competence to adopt decisions aiming to improve the sustainability of the fund; notes that the Court of Justice also concluded that the Bureau decision of 10 December 2018 respected the principle of proportionality; notes that the judgments were delivered on 15 September 2021, and that Parliament is in the process of examining their implications with a view to submitting additional proposals to improve the sustainability of the fund to the Bureau;

131.

Observes with concern that the Court of Justice estimates that the fund will be insolvent by 2024, while the fund’s last payouts are estimated to be made only by 2091; reiterates that the Bureau’s own commitment to guaranteeing the fund does not constitute a legal obligation to guarantee particular levels of payouts of the fund as no contract between the fund and Parliament exists; appeals to the Bureau, the board of directors and the members of the voluntary pension fund to support measures aiming at limiting the deficit of the voluntary pension fund, while considering any further measures in this light;

132.

Notes with interest that, according to Parliament’s Legal Service, it follows from the two judgments that the Court of Justice confirms that acquired rights as such, of Members who have already fulfilled all the necessary conditions for the acquisition of the right to the additional voluntary pension, are fully protected under the general principles of Union law; notes, however, that the judgments also confirm that this does not prevent the Bureau from modifying the conditions as well as modalities of this group of Members on the condition that the principle of proportionality is duly respected, as well as for those Members who have not yet fulfilled all the conditions for the acquisition of pension rights and who therefore only hold future entitlements under the pension scheme, a situation which is further confirmed by the judgement of the Court of Justice of 24 September 2020 in Case C-223/19, YS v NK (12); asks the administration and the Bureau to guarantee that no taxpayer money is used for any future bail-out; considers that a review of the financial model of the fund would not be sufficient to prevent additional taxpayer money from being used for future payments; urges the Secretary-General therefore to also propose measures on adjusting the modalities of the fund, including a further increase of the retirement age and a reduction of pension benefits paid out;

133.

Notes that the Court’s audit work on the general budget and financial statements of the Union includes an examination of pension liabilities, including the voluntary pension scheme for Members; once again invites the Court to present a new opinion on the voluntary pension funds, investigating all possible options to limit its deficit, considering that this could help in further investigating measures to manage the funds;

134.

Recalls that the 2017 Parliament discharge resolution called for the Secretary-General to come forward with any findings in response to the investigation into the legal foundations of the scheme; underlines that this investigation should be carried out by an independent party;

135.

Stresses that Article 27(2) of the statute for Members states that Members who contributed to the fund acquired rights and future entitlements, which shall be maintained in full, and thus, do not cease if the fund terminates; recalls, moreover, that Parliament paid two thirds of the total contributions of the defined benefit pension scheme on a monthly basis, thus underlining its regular participation in the fund; stresses that Members who paid contributions to the voluntary pension fund and acquired rights and future entitlements did so in good faith, thus relying on Parliament to honour its financial obligations;

136.

Notes with concern the lack of understanding within the decision-making and approval forums of the joint sickness insurance scheme (JSIS) when it comes to new treatments, medical trends and not yet approved drugs particularly linked to novel appearances of nervous diseases, autoimmune disorders as well cancer diseases; 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; requests JSIS to show more flexibility when assessing clinical pictures as well as subsequent treatment and therapies that might help a patient; recommends the introduction of expert groups, which can assess and approve not-yet approved treatments, pharmaceutical drugs, and medications to improve the treatment quality of applicants, decrease bureaucratic burden, and accommodate the most recent medical information when handling reimbursement claims;

137.

Calls on the Bureau to ensure that JSIS shall provide a coherent and individual explanation for declining a reimbursement request; regrets the culture of declining a reimbursement request in pdf format without the possibility to challenge the decision in person; calls on the Bureau to introduce the possibility for local doctors in charge of the 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;

138.

Recalls that the Financial Regulation specifies the information to be provided to the budgetary authority and to the public concerning the award of contracts by the institution; notes that the Financial Regulation requires publication of contracts awarded with a value greater than EUR 15 000, a value that corresponds to the threshold above which a competitive tendering procedure becomes compulsory;

139.

Notes that, of a total of 198 contracts awarded in 2020, 60 were based on open or restricted procedures, with a value of EUR 405,2 million, and 136 were based on negotiated procedures, with a value of EUR 179,1 million; notes that the total number of contracts awarded by negotiated procedures increased in terms of value as a percentage of the total value of contracts awarded from 26 % in 2019 to 31 % in 2020 but declined in terms of volume from EUR 208,53 million in 2019 to EUR 179,1 million in 2020;

140.

Notes the following breakdown of contracts by type awarded in 2019 and 2020, including building contracts:

141.

Notes the following breakdown of contracts awarded in 2020 and 2019 by type of procedure used, in terms of number and value:

142.

Notes the fact that 72 % of exceptional negotiated procedures launched in 2020 by Parliament for contracts with a value of more than EUR 15 000 use Point 11.1(b) of Annex I to the Financial Regulation as their legal basis, referring to the use of a single economic operator for technical or artistic reasons, or for reasons connected with the protection of exclusive rights, and that 20 % used Point 11.1(c) of Annex I to the Financial Regulation as their legal basis, which relates to cases of extreme urgency for reasons not attributable to the contracting authority and 2 % (one procedure) used Point 11.1(a) as their legal basis, which relates to services where no tenders or no suitable tenders were submitted; observes, for instance, that the 26 exceptional negotiated procedures used by Parliament’s Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services in 2020 are based on point 11.1(b) of Annex I to the Financial Regulation relating to a single economic operator and the protection of exclusive rights concerned subscriptions to online databases or press agencies;

143.

Welcomes Parliament’s intention to introduce sustainability reporting, which will include social aspects of procurement, calls on Parliament to monitor developments in the field of social and sustainable public procurement, such as the OECD work on public procurement and responsible business conduct, as well as the upcoming Union legislation on corporate due diligence; believes that by incorporating responsible business standards in its procurement and purchasing policies, Parliament can lead by example, safeguard public interest and ensure the accountability of public spending; commends the responsible Parliament services for extending Parliament’s environmental management system to cover other sustainability elements, as well as the setting up of a working group on socially responsible public procurement;

144.

Welcomes the complete removal of thermal cameras produced by Hikvision used on Parliament’s premises; calls on Parliament to prevent the purchase and use of products that may have been produced in violation of sustainability standards and human rights in future; is convinced this can be achieved primarily by incorporating human rights and environmental due diligence standards and practices in Parliament’s procurement procedures;

145.

Notes that there were 1 415 single bidder tenders in 2020, 89 of which concerned contracts above the threshold of EUR 15 000, compared to 1 369 single bidder tenders in 2019, 102 of which concerned contracts above the threshold of EUR 15 000; reiterates that single bidder tenders carry a significant risk to the principle of competition and achieving the best value for public money; reiterates its call on Parliament to investigate the reasons for the apparent lack of competition and to take the necessary measures to reduce the number of single bidder tenders in future procedures;

146.

Notes that, in 2020, the appropriations entered under budget item 4 0 0, attributed to the political groups and non-attached Members, were used as follows (13):

147.

Welcomes the fact that independent external auditors for the political groups issued only unqualified opinions for the financial year 2020;

148.

Observes that, pursuant to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014, in 2019 the Authority reviewed for the first time the accounts of European political parties and foundations relating to the financial year 2018; welcomes the fact that the second review of the financial accounts of European political parties and political foundations relating to the financial year 2019 showed that they increasingly rely on formats and templates provided by the Authority, which increases the comparability and accuracy of the information submitted;

149.

Notes that the vast majority of European political parties’ funding comes from public sources and, therefore, requires the highest level of transparency and accountability; underlines that the Authority should provide information covering the registration and financial situation of European political parties and foundations to the greatest extent possible; welcomes the efforts made by the Authority to make a wide array of information accessible to citizens on its website; calls on the Authority to make sure that the documents published in its website are user-friendly, complete and updated and recognises the announcement of the Authority during its hearing to complete a website accessibility benchmarking exercise;

150.

Points out that the Authority has limited powers with regard to verifying whether a registered party or foundation is in breach of the Union’s core values and has never triggered the complex values compliance procedure thus far; calls for the strengthening of the current administrative set-up of the Authority in order to better monitor its compliance with the relevant rules and the implementation of sanctions, as well as to ensure its complete independence and neutrality;

151.

Notes that, in 2020, the appropriations entered under budget item 4 0 2 were used as follows (17):

152.

Notes that, in 2020, the appropriations entered under budget item 403 were used as follows (19):

153.

Recalls that, in accordance with Article 38 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014, Parliament adopted its report on the application of that regulation on 26 October 2021 (20); welcomes the Commission legislative proposal of 25 November 2021 to amend the regulation (21);

154.

Believes that European political parties and foundations should make greater use of new technologies in order to improve the transparency and traceability of donations and expenditure.

A.

whereas, under Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Parliament has the sole responsibility of granting discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the Union, and whereas the budget of the European Council and of the Council is a section of the Union budget;

B.

Whereas, pursuant to Article 15(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the European Council is not to exercise legislative functions;

C.

whereas, under Article 317 TFEU, the Commission is to implement the Union budget on its own responsibility, having regard to the principles of sound financial management, and whereas, under the framework in place, the Commission is to confer on the other Union institutions the requisite powers for the implementation of the sections of the budget relating to them;

D.

whereas, under Articles 235(4) and 240(2) TFEU, the European Council and the Council (the ‘Council’) are assisted by the General Secretariat of the Council (the ‘GSC’), and whereas the Secretary-General is wholly responsible for the sound management of the appropriations entered in Section II of the Union budget;

E.

whereas, over the course of almost twenty years, Parliament has been implementing the well-established and respected practice of granting discharge to all Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, and whereas the Commission supports that the practice of giving discharge to each Union institution, body, office and agency for its administrative expenditure should continue to be pursued;

F.

whereas, since 2009, the Council’s lack of cooperation in the discharge procedure has compelled Parliament to refuse to grant discharge to the Secretary-General of the Council;

G.

whereas in the context of the discharge procedure, the discharge authority wishes to stress the particular importance of further strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the Union institutions by improving transparency and accountability, and implementing the concept of performance-based budgeting and good governance of human resources;

H.

whereas the European Council and the Council, as Union institutions and as recipients of the general budget of the Union, should be transparent and democratically accountable to the citizens of the Union and subject to democratic scrutiny of the spending of public funds;

I.

whereas the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union confirms the right of taxpayers and of the public to be kept informed about the use of public revenue;

J.

whereas the recommendation of the European Ombudsman (the ‘Ombudsman’) in Case OI/2/2017/TE indicated that the Council’s practice with regard to transparency in the legislative process constituted maladministration and should be addressed in order to enable citizens to follow the Union legislative process;

5.

Notes that in 2020 the Council had an overall budget of EUR 590 633 000 (compared to EUR 581 895 459 in 2019); observes a budget increase of 1,5 % compared to 2019 which confirms a downward trend in the annual budget increase (1,6 % in 2019, 2 % in 2018 and 3 % in 2017); notes that the Council share under Heading 5 of the Multiannual Financial Framework has decreased from 6,3 % in 2015 to 5,8 % in 2020; notes a high global implementation rate of 93,15 % (compared to 92,3 % in 2019);

6.

Understands that the Council’s budget is mostly administrative with a large part of it being used for expenditure in relation to staff, buildings (including furniture and equipment) and miscellaneous running costs; reiterates its call, made in previous resolutions on the budget, for separate budgets for the European Council and the Council in order to improve transparency, accountability and expenditure efficiency for both institutions;

7.

Recalls that appropriations carried over from 2019 to 2020 amounted to a total of EUR 52 543 491 (compared to EUR 56 599 584 from 2018 to 2019) and welcomes the fact that implementation amounted to 86,4 % (EUR 45 375 664), concentrated mainly on buildings, computer systems, interpretation and technical equipment;

8.

Notes an increase in the carry-over of appropriations from 2020 to 2021 (12,6 % in comparison to 9,8 % from 2019 to 2020); reminds the Council that carry-overs are exceptions to the principle of annuality of the Union budget and could be an indicator of budget over-estimations, and calls on the Council to step up its efforts to prevent budget overestimates;

9.

Observes that in 2020 the Council’s payments represented 5,2 % of the Union budget; notes that the average payment time for invoices to the GSC was 20 days in 2020 (compared to 19 in 2019) while the maximum time limit is 30 calendar days as stipulated by Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);

10.

Notes that the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on the 2020 budget implementation; observes that fewer physical meetings led to lower spending on delegates’ travel expenses and interpretation costs; notes that this underspending was compensated at budgetary level by an increased spending on IT in order to rapidly develop the capacity for remote working and to guarantee business continuity; observes that such expenditure covered the relevant areas of new software acquisitions, external assistance and provision of hardware to facilitate home working;

11.

Notes that in 2020 the appropriations were reallocated by 46 transfers under Article 29 of the Financial Regulation; observes that those transfers aimed to reinforce the Council’s teleworking capabilities and videoconference infrastructure, including the purchase of additional IT equipment, licenses and communication tools; notes that, overall, the transfers were done from the budget lines for interpreting costs, cleaning and maintenance, buildings security and surveillance, and miscellaneous expenditure on internal meetings to the budget lines for installation works, acquisition of equipment and software, and assistance for the operation and development of computer systems;

12.

Notes that in 2020 the Court examined, without remarks, the public procurement procedures organised by the Council and three other Union institutions to acquire personal protective equipment for their staff and that the procurement included strict minimum requirements in the tender specification such as European reference quality standards; is aware that in four cases the successful bidder did not include full evidence that all minimum quality requirements were met at the time of contracting, leading the Council to organise laboratory tests that showed that the personal protective equipment was, indeed, compliant;

13.

Notes that the unexpected outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent exceptional situation required immediate action and organisational measures to ensure business continuity; notes with satisfaction that the Council’s timely and effective reaction to that crisis resulted in a number of structured measures in several areas to safeguard staff and to guarantee business continuity;

14.

Observes that the Council uses meetings, administrative modernisation and legislative activities as quantitative indicators of the level of activities carried out during the year; observes that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a decrease of 54,1 % (4 148) in the overall number of meetings that took place in 2020 compared to 2019; notes that in 2020 the GSC organised 3 086 institutional meetings and meetings with third countries (compared to 3 983 in 2019) and 434 other meetings (compared to 3 685 in 2019) and that 39,2 % of the meetings took place in remote or hybrid format;

15.

Welcomes the improvements in the GSC’s internal organisation, focusing in particular on dealing with the working limitations arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, such as an increase in the platforms and bandwidth for teleworking activities and the installation of appropriate videoconferencing equipment in small meeting rooms to facilitate hybrid meetings;

16.

Notes that in 2020 the Council maintained its legislative activity at the same level as in 2019 despite the challenging working conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with 1 328 legal acts published in the Official Journal of the European Union in 2020 compared to 1 326 in 2019;

17.

Acknowledges that an internal control framework is in place at the Council to provide reasonable assurance of achievement of objectives; is aware that risk management is carried out by keeping registers of the risks identified which are then assessed together with the impact of the mitigating measures adopted;

18.

Is aware that the Council’s internal auditor has performed a number of audits in the framework of the Council’s three-year risk-based strategic plan without issuing recommendations with high priority;

19.

Recalls that key performance indicators are a widely recognised tool for measuring achievement against targets set; calls on the Council to provide summaries of its key performance indicators and the related results in its management reports;

20.

Notes that the establishment plan for 2020 was fixed at 3 029 posts (compared to 3 033 in 2019) out of which 2 905 were occupied on 31 December 2020; observes that the occupation rate is close to 96 %;

21.

Regrets the lack of information on the implementation of the Council’s gender action plan and the measures taken to ensure equal opportunities for persons with disabilities at the Council as a workplace; calls on the Council to provide information to the budgetary authority on gender balance, geographical distribution and disabilities of its members of staff and on the related internal policies in force;

22.

Recalls its resolution of 17 December 2020 on the need for a dedicated Council configuration on gender equality as a dedicated institutional forum to ensure stronger integration of gender equality in Union strategies, coordination of all related policies and progress in the main files related to gender equality, as well as harmonisation of the protection of women’s rights and gender equality; regrets that the Council has thus far ignored this call by Parliament;

23.

Recalls that according to Article 286(2) TFEU the Council appoints the members of the Court after consultation with Parliament and understands the difficulties in achieving gender balance as nomination of candidates is the sole responsibility of the Member States and each Member State can only nominate one candidate at a time; finds it unacceptable, however, that the Court has had only 16 female members out of a total of 112 members since its establishment in 1977 (85,7 % male and 14,3 % female) and that in 2020 the Court had only 8 female members compared to 18 male members; calls on the Council to consider the overall composition of the Court so that gender balance, in particular, is considered in the nomination decisions, as well as to tackle this problem with concrete actions, such as presenting Parliament with at least two candidates from each Member State, one being a woman and one being a man;

24.

Notes that the internal psychosocial risk prevention plan 2020-2022 was adopted with a main focus on burnout prevention and good relations at work; observes that the plan was fully integrated into the GSC’s COVID-19 response with psychosocial risk surveys, dedicated information and training sessions, and various interventions by the social service; notes with appreciation the extensive support offered to staff, teams and managers by the organisational and clinical psychologists and social workers whose interventions in 2020 were significantly linked to COVID-19;

25.

Notes that in 2020 a total of 385 people (in active service as well as retired) called on the social service, with a total of 4 425 interventions, some of which were linked to the management of stress generated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the internal psychologist processed a total of 164 individual requests; appreciates the fact that psychologists and social workers are an integral part of the psychosocial intervention plan in the event of a critical incident;

26.

Notes that the traineeships office processed more than 10 000 traineeship applications, out of which 110 trainees were selected, including a number of trainees with disabilities under the new positive action programme; reiterates the call on the Council to make sure that all of its trainees receive a decent remuneration;

27.

Notes that awareness-raising actions on ethics and expected behaviours were pursued; notes that the next ethics strategy was in preparation at the end of 2020, and that work advanced on developing a new user-centred ethics hub on the Council intranet; regrets, nevertheless, not having received information about the code of conduct applicable to all members of staff;

28.

Welcomes the political agreement on the Transparency Register for interest representatives, reached by Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 15 December 2020 (2); regrets, however, the limitations considered in Article 5 of Parliament’s decision of 27 April 2021 on the conclusion of an interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission on a mandatory transparency register (3), such as the fact that the Transparency Register applies to the Member States’ Permanent Representatives only under voluntary schemes; insists that all Permanent Representations should take an active part in it through voluntary schemes during and after their Member State’s Council presidency; calls on the Council, including the Member State representatives, to harmonise, improve and enforce the existing ethics rules, in particular with regard to conflicts of interest, revolving doors and lobby transparency rules; expresses its concern that legislative files are escalated to the European Council on an increasing basis, which has neither a legislative nor an executive function, does not apply the same transparency standards as the Council and is not being held accountable;

29.

Regrets the use of corporate sponsorship to cover some of the expenses incurred by Member States to finance their Council presidency; reiterates its concern that such practice has caused and might cause reputational damage in the future because any actual or perceived conflict of interests jeopardises the reputation of the Council and the Union as a whole; recalls the petitions launched by organisations active in the areas of transparency and accountability, asking the rotating Council presidencies to decline any sponsorship; regrets that a common set of clear, concrete and binding rules was not set out in the guidance on sponsorship included in the Council’s Presidency Handbook in 2021; understands that the financial resources from national budgets vary significantly among Member States and that each Member State, independent of its size and budgetary means, should have equal opportunities to organise a successful Council presidency and therefore, reiterates its call on the Council to examine budgeting the Council Presidency in order to ensure continuity and efficiency of the working process;

30.

Is aware of the Council’s key role in nomination and appointment procedures for the Union institutions and bodies, in particular the President of the European Council, the President of the Commission, the Members of the Court, and the Members of both the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee; strongly recommends a review of the exercise of that prerogative with a view to guaranteeing and strengthening the democratic participation of relevant stakeholders; regrets that the Council repeatedly failed to take into consideration the recommendations of Parliament in its consultative role regarding the appointment of the members of the Court;

31.

Is reminded of the Court’s statement in its ‘Special Report No 13/2019: The ethical frameworks of the audited EU institutions: scope for improvement’ that ethical conduct ‘contributes to sounder financial management and increased public trust, which is indispensable if public policies are to succeed’ and, in particular, that ‘any unethical behaviour by staff and Members of the Union (EU) institutions and bodies attracts high levels of public interest and reduces trust in the EU’; makes a strong call on the Council, therefore, to respect the opinions of Parliament and reject the appointment of candidates who could potentially damage the credibility of the Union, for instance due to insufficient professional competence or established unethical behaviour;

32.

Reiterates its full endorsement of the Ombudsman’s recommendations on transparency of the Council legislative process following its strategic inquiry (Case OI/2/2017/TE), in particular making the Member States’ positions more accessible, in a machine-readable format, which has already been established in 2013 by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its case-law (4) on transparency and access to documents; believes that compliance with the Ombudsman’s recommendations would enable citizens to be more involved and to better understand Union law making; welcomes the measures adopted by the Council in July 2020 to strengthen legislative transparency in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations, including the proactive publication of progress reports on negotiations on draft legislative acts as well as the Council mandate for negotiations with Parliament; regrets, however, that the decision-making process in the Council is still far from fully transparent; calls on the Council to take all the necessary measures to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations and the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

33.

Reiterates its deep concern with respect to the confirmed conflicts of interest of Member State representatives involved in policy and budget decision-making processes; follows up Parliament’s previous strong calls on the Council to ensure that Member State representatives who stand to benefit directly from Union subsidies through the businesses they own do not participate in related policy or budgetary discussions and votes; requests the Council to provide Parliament with information on the necessary measures put in place to avoid conflicts of interest;

34.

Shares the Court’s concern about the absence of a common Union ethical framework governing the work of Member State representatives in the Council, expressed in the Court’s Special Report No 13/2019; recalls the Council’s obligation to deal with and resolve high-level conflicts of interest and revolving door issues and to extend the existing mandatory lobby transparency rules;

35.

Strongly reiterates its call on the Council to bring the code of conduct for the President of the European Council in line with those of Parliament and the Commission in order to have rules in place to approve activities related to Union legislation after the President of the European Council leaves his or her post;

36.

Notes that the final budget appropriations made available to the Directorate-General for Digital Services increased substantially at the mid-term and year-end reviews by EUR 10,6 million, reaching a final amount of EUR 54 675 000 and achieving an execution rate of 99,99 %;

37.

Reiterates its call on the Council to use open-source technology in order to prevent vendor lock-in, to retain control over its own technical systems, to provide stronger safeguards for the privacy and data protection of its users, and to increase security and transparency for the public;

38.

Observes that the Council’s buildings policy since 2004 has aimed to ultimately accommodate all its activities in Brussels in geographically concentrated buildings under its ownership; encourages the Council to adjust its building strategy in order to take into account the working arrangements that will likely become part of long-lasting or permanent working modes, in particular with regard to shared spaces or multipurpose areas;

39.

Welcomes the efforts by the Council to reduce its environmental footprint across its buildings which have been registered under the European eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) since 2016; welcomes the publishing of a detailed environmental statement in October 2020, based on 2019 data;

40.

Notes that on 31 December 2020 the Council was in possession of 3 469 Green Energy Certificates; is aware that such certificates are allocated by the regional energy market regulator based on the energy produced in 2020 by solar panels located on the roof of Council buildings, and that, following the appropriate sales procedures, these will be sold on the open market in 2021;

41.

Calls on the Council to explicitly engage in a ‘zero paper campaign’ and to adopt a structured approach to enhance the sustainable mobility of members of staff; encourages the Council to engage in sustainability reporting on energy management in buildings, thus making it possible to take precise actions towards the reduction of energy consumption;

42.

Notes the increased audience on several social media platforms from 2019 to 2020 with approximately 443 000 followers on Facebook (an increase of 8 %), approximately 561 000 followers on Twitter (an increase of 22 %) and approximately 167 000 followers on Instagram (an increase of 37 %); observes an increase of 39 % in visits to the Council’s website, reaching more than 16 million visits in 2020; encourages the Council to establish a presence on open-source social media networks to achieve further transparency and broader outreach to Union citizens;

43.

Notes that, in the context of its increased cooperation with the Member States on COVID-19 communication, the Council worked with the European External Action Service to set up the Communicators’ Portal, a secure platform used to share reusable digital content with Member States;

44.

Is aware that the Council was the first Union institution to create a COVID-19 information hub on its website with the aim of explaining, in a regular and comprehensive manner, the response of the Union in general and the Council in particular to the COVID-19 pandemic;

45.

Calls on the Council to comply fully with the obligations set out in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2020 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management, as well as on new own resources, including a roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources (5);

46.

Expresses its belief that the Conference on the Future of Europe can provide the opportunity for Union citizens and civil society organisations to express their views and to discuss proposals to enhance transparency and democratic accountability with regard to the Union budget and, in particular, proposals to improve the transparency and readability of the Council’s budget;

47.

Emphasises Parliament’s prerogative to grant discharge pursuant to Article 319 TFEU as well as the applicable provisions of the Financial Regulation and Parliament’s Rules of Procedure in line with current interpretation and practice, namely, the power to grant discharge in order to maintain transparency and to ensure democratic accountability towards Union taxpayers;

48.

Stresses the well-established and respected practice followed by Parliament over the course of almost twenty years of granting discharge to all Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies; recalls that the Commission has declared its inability to oversee the implementation of the budgets of the other Union institutions; stresses the reiterated view of the Commission that the practice of giving discharge to each Union institution for their administrative expenditure should continue to be pursued directly by Parliament;

49.

Stresses that the current situation, where Parliament can only check the reports of the Court and of the Ombudsman as well as the information on the Council’s website but does not receive written or oral answers from the Council during the annual discharge procedure, i.e. the Council refuses to collaborate with Parliament in the context of the annual discharge procedure, makes it impossible for Parliament to make an informed decision on granting discharge;

50.

Deplores that the Council for more than a decade has shown that it does not have any political willingness to collaborate with Parliament in the context of the annual discharge procedure, which makes it impossible for Parliament to make an informed decision on granting discharge; underlines that this attitude has had a lasting negative effect on both institutions and has discredited the management and democratic scrutiny of the Union budget and on the trust of citizens in the Union as a transparent entity; deeply regrets the Council’s continuing refusal to engage in loyal cooperation in the framework of the discharge procedure that has lasted for more than a decade;

51.

Stresses that, while the current situation has to be improved through better interinstitutional cooperation within the framework of the Treaties, a revision of the Treaties could render the discharge procedure clearer and more transparent by giving Parliament the explicit competence to grant discharge to all Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies individually;

52.

Recalls that the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union supports the right of taxpayers and the public to be kept informed about the use of public revenues; demands, therefore, full respect for Parliament’s prerogative and role as guarantor of the democratic accountability principle; calls on the Council to duly follow up on the recommendations adopted by Parliament in the context of the discharge procedure;

53.

Considers it unacceptable that the COVID-19 pandemic and the exceptional situation experienced have been used as an excuse for not resuming interinstitutional negotiations on the discharge procedure; remains, nevertheless, convinced that an agreement on this matter is possible if the Council were to show any political willingness to collaborate; calls, therefore, on the Council to resume negotiations with Parliament without undue delay in order to find a solution in the current framework of the discharge procedure if it is interested in showing Union citizens that it takes proper budget control and transparency seriously while respecting the respective roles of Parliament and the Council in the discharge procedure.