European Parliament / Historical archives

 

As it stated in its resolution of 11 June 1992 on the institution's preliminary draft estimates for 1993, the European Parliament 'considers it necessary, for the creation of 94 jobs, that an evaluation of all the Secretariat's services be conducted in order to enable the institution's needs to be more fully established in the light of the consequences arising from the application of the new Maastricht Treaty in 1993' (paragraph 12 of the resolution).

In this document, the Secretary-General clarifies the aim of this exercise as being: 'to determine the actions to be taken in order to eliminate possible overlaps between the responsibilities of the General Secretariat's different services, to identify the services that have become peripheral following the change in the institution's work priorities and to ensure the best cooperation possible between the Directorates-General. This exercise is urgent if we are to provide timely justification to the political authorities that will enable the unblocking of those posts within the organisational structure that are judged necessary for the institution to be able to meet the needs arising, in particular, from the Maastricht Treaty...

The Secretary-General insisted that the political authorities conduct this process through the institution's internal procedures rather than through external consultants, as such involvement would have led to extremely long delays, with doubts as to the effectiveness of the expected results in terms of the real needs of an institution such as ours'.

A committee was consequently established at the level of the Bureau, on the one hand, and a working group set up within the General Secretariat, on the other. The latter focused more specifically on the technical aspects of the work. It was chaired by the Human Resources Director, Mr Cointat, whose name it took. This working group presented two reports: the first giving an overview of the current situation and the second proposing an ideal solution. These two reports are indexed, respectively, in the collection as follows:

The report concluded that 'despite the objective difficulties... the General Secretariat is operating in a satisfactory manner'. The Secretary-General indicated that the main objectives were to strengthen the support structures for parliamentary activity, public information and the 'Organisation and Methods' service. These objectives were set, more specifically, in order to unblock posts in the organisational structure, as this was the most urgent goal decreed by the Secretary-General.

The screening exercise continued after the approval of the 1993 budget for which it had been established. On 17 August 1994 no less, the Secretary-General presented his report:

This report followed in the wake of another position taken by the Parliament in its resolution of 24 June 1993, on the institution's draft estimates. The report's conclusion states that 'the structure of the General Secretariat as a whole ... responds well to the needs: no overlaps have been noted, nor evident gaps in responsibilities'. Nonetheless, a certain number of reorganisations, which were not undertaken until 1996, were proposed in it and the restructuring consisted essentially of a redeployment of 15 members of staff, pursuant to Article 41 of the Staff Regulations.

The Treaty of Rome restricted itself to establishing the seat of the European Parliament's General Secretariat, without any further specification with regard to where meetings were to be held, and Strasbourg was the initial choice. Very quickly, however, and particularly following the direct elections to the European Parliament, the institution's activities were spread between Luxembourg, Brussels and Strasbourg, without any formal decision having been taken, but with structures, departments and buildings being established in Strasbourg and Brussels.

In December 1992 the Edinburgh European Council decided that the European Parliament's part-sessions (12 a year) would be held in Strasbourg, and that only additional sessions would take place in Brussels, the seat of the parliamentary committees, while the General Secretariat would remain in Luxembourg.

This decision did not resolve the issue, as the European Parliament continued to be subject to growing pressures, particularly from a fairly large number of Members who wished to see the bulk of activities moved to Brussels. These pressures led to problems in staff management, due to the transfer of a growing number of officials, the drafting of a property policy as well as difficult relations with France and Luxembourg, who were both mindful of the issue of the EP's seat.

These papers comprise several documents, two letters, one from Mr Barnier, French Minister for European Affairs, and one from Mr Zeller, President of the Alsace Regional Council, forwarding a motion of the Regional Council to Mr Hänsch, President of the European Parliament, followed by responses. They demonstrate the level of pressure the Parliament was under at the time: when informed that the EP intended to relocate 400 officials from Luxembourg to Brussels, the French Minister for European Affairs reminded the President of the EP of the terms of the Edinburgh decision. In his response, Mr Hänsch re-affirmed that Parliament's decision complied with Community law.

These papers comprise several documents all relating to the same issue, notably a briefing note for the Bureau, which describes an agreement between Parliament and Luxembourg regarding an exchange of information on the mutual interest project and the requirements of the two parties. In this context, Parliament undertook to guarantee 2 000 jobs in Luxembourg, and to endeavour to maintain 2 185 until 30 June 2004.

The property policy typified the material aspect of the issue of the Parliament's seat and aroused a similar amount of interest from the Member States in question. In fact, the Member States were directly involved in building the infrastructure at Strasbourg and in leasing the buildings in Luxembourg, in contrast to Brussels, where Parliament was in contact with private companies. Faced with the dual problem of establishing committees, political groups and thus Members in Brussels, but also of ensuring the effective running of the General Secretariat from the same site, between 1988 and 1996 the European Parliament embarked on a property development policy based on an emphyteutic lease that was signed only after long and difficult negotiations.

These papers contain a letter from the President of the European Parliament responding to a number of Members' concerns with regard to the contract for the Espace Léopold in Brussels, the grandeur of which bewildered some of Brussels' inhabitants. The complexity of the legal/financial set-up of the contract and rumours regarding its rental cost, which were, moreover, exaggerated (talk was of 100 million ECU), made the front pages and caused some controversy. Some Members were concerned in this regard, and the President re-established the truth of the matter.

Over the course of Mr Vinci's 10-year term of office, first the GDR (former East Germany) acceded to the European Union in 1990, following German reunification, and then Finland, Austria and Sweden in 1995 (EU15). From an administrative and logistical point of view, the accession of these new Member States meant that the European Parliament's Secretariat had to anticipate and bring about significant changes, with the active and essential cooperation of all the Directorates-General.

The report below, dated 14 October 1994, gives a detailed impression of the a priori impact of enlargement on the functioning of the European Parliament's General Secretariat. Adaptation of the budget was undoubtedly the organisation's main focus, as it had to consider all expenditure and measures relating to 'pre-enlargement', without which the enlargement itself could be compromised if they were not correctly anticipated.

The organisational structure changed, with the recruitment of numerous officials, particularly for the translating and interpreting services, which had to observe a principle of geographical distribution according to the distribution of MEPs. A lack of interpreters in the Finnish and Swedish languages was, however, noted and training courses rapidly put in place. It has to be said, however, that the needs as a whole were only gradually met. It was against this backdrop that the President of the European Parliament, Klaus Hänsch, was to ask Members to raise their governments' awareness of the issue of training interpreters in their own countries, alongside the efforts being made by the Parliament.

Work commenced to adapt the buildings with a view to extending the facilities; offices, rooms and seats in the Chamber were also redistributed.

In terms of logistics and supplies, all departments were involved in one way or another; increased activity in the transport services is worth mentioning, for example, along with an increased volume of photocopying, but also more trivial - though no less necessary - changes, such as ensuring new pigeonholes were made available for official mail. Later, the European Parliament would also handle the opening of information offices for the institution in the new Member States.

The European Parliament was often asked to subsidise or sponsor different events or associations of a cultural or sporting nature, either within or outside the institution. This support sometimes took the form of financial assistance, while on other occasions it was material, making premises or facilities available, for example. The possibilities were never-ending: from a sporting point of view, sponsorships related in particular to such disciplines as football, basketball, volleyball, handball, table tennis, motor racing, pétanque, skiing, horse riding, athletics, parachuting, golf, shooting, gymnastics, and even marathons and events involving mountaineering, weightlifting, sailing and cycling.
Sponsorship of cultural events was just as diverse: politics, the environment, law, education and the education sciences, medical science, health, the visual arts, literature, the performing arts, traditions and customs, etc. Mr Vinci and his staff gave their invaluable support to these events. The correspondence that took place between the General Secretariat and the applicants bears witness to the variety of requests received but also, from a more anecdotal but no less enjoyable point of view, to the applicants' powers of persuasion.

The European Parliament was not only involved in supporting such events; it was also heavily involved in organising them. In this context, the General Secretariat was actively involved in organising seminars, conferences, hearings, meetings or even summits on topical or cross-cutting issues relating to the values of the European Union, such as 'Europe against Racism' (1989), 'A strong Europe: a competitive industry' (1989), 'Migrant Workers' (1991) and 'Europe, in touch with its Youth' (1992), to name but a few. Mr Vinci's archive collection bears witness to the work that was undertaken to design and organise the logistics of such events (sending out invitations, discussing the programme, dealing with translation problems, publishing reports, etc.). The files relating to these events also contain numerous talks, speeches and summaries of debates, such as those that took place during the 'Conference on Nature Protection "Europe 2000"' organised by the WWF and the European Parliament on 25 and 26 September 1991.

Finally, the European Parliament was behind the initiative to award different prizes and launch different competitions with the general aim of involving the Member States' citizens in the European integration process. Such decisions were normally taken first by the Bureau or the Conference of Presidents, at the proposal of the President or MEPs.

The most famous of these is the 'Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought'. This is awarded each year to people or groups working to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms. Since it was first awarded in 1988, the choice of winner has been the subject of much debate and award of this prize has attracted strong reactions from opponents of the prize winners as well as poignant reactions, as can be seen from the documents below in relation to the 1993 prize, awarded to the Sarajevo daily newspaper Oslobođjenje.

The archives of the Office of Mr Vinci (1986-1997) are organised in three large collections (Organisation of the General Secretariat, Organisation of the European Parliament, and Internal and external relations), relating to the Secretary General's specific duties, i.e. the administrative organisation of the Secretariat and the follow-up of some of the European Parliament's strategic files. The third collection reflects his internal and external relations in the context of his duties.

These collections are subdivided into organic series and series.

The main activity headings are as follows:

Office of Secretary-General Enrico Vinci

Organisation of the General Secretariat
(SG 04EV A)

The first organic series of this collection reflects the Secretariat's 'General organisation' and concerns various matters relating to the administrative and operational organisation of the different directorates-general, such as: the delegation of powers of appointment and signature, meetings with the directors-general, contacts with advisory bodies and the management of invitations to tender.
(Organic series SG 04EV A0100/ORG-GEN).

As its title suggests, the second organic series, 'Staff management', covers information on human resources management within the General Secretariat. The most significant series relates to the screening of services (internal audit). The second series on GS staff management relates to the agreement on 'the method' of adjusting the remuneration of officials of the European Communities. The other largest collections contain archives relating to the medical office and to the Staff Committee and the unions.
(Organic series SG 04EV A0300/PERS).

The third organic series, 'Directorates-general', contains documents on the organisation of the Secretariat and more specifically of the seven directorates-general that make it up. One series relates to each of them, in addition to a series on the 'Directorate for information technology and telecommunications'.
(Organic series SG 04EV A0600/DG).

Organisation of the European Parliament: General organisation
(SG 04EV B)

This collection contains documents on the general organisation of the European Parliament and is sub-divided into ten large series. The first two relate to two highpoints of European integration, i.e. the European elections and enlargement of the Community.

The next two series relate to economic matters; one concerns the 'Monetary Union' task force and the other budget and finance.

The next series concerns the Maastricht European Council, from the point of view of its implications for the EP.

In addition to a separate series on the thorny and fascinating question of the seat of the European Parliament, there are series on property policy and management.

A final series covers sports, artistic and cultural activities, seen from the point of view of events organised by the EP, works of art and celebrations to mark the 30th and 40th anniversaries of the Treaty of Rome.
(Series SG 04EV B0300/ELE to SG 04EV B1950/ACT-OEU).

Internal and external relations
(SG 04EV C)

The final series concerns the Secretary General's various relations, in the framework of his activities: firstly his internal relations with the political groups, then his external relations with other Community institutions, bodies and agencies, as well as with other national institutions and lobbyists. Finally, he also has relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries on the basis of the various association agreements.
(Series SG 04EV C0100/GRPOL to SG 04EV C0900/LOBBY).

Each of the headings listed above includes case files on the various procedures initiated by the Secretary General during his term of office. Each file contains a number of documents tracing the procedure and the final decision.

In general, within the series, the archives of Mr Vinci's Office are currently arranged in 518 files containing more than 2 338 items.

It should be noted that additional documents have subsequently been added to the initial fonds and will be processed very shortly.

 

•    Nationality British, born 26 May 1950 in Croydon, United Kingdom. Deceased 22 April 2017.
•    Graduated with honours in 1972 from Balliol College, University of Oxford in philosophy, politics and economics
•    From 1974 to 1976, President of the Young European Federalists

Political posts held:

•    1973-1983: entered the European Parliament as an administrator, then principal administrator in the secretariat of the Committee on Budgets
•    1981-1983: Chair of the Staff Committee in the European Parliament
•    1984-1987: Head of the department for the Parliamentary Committee on Energy, Research and Technology
•    1985-1987: Co-Chair of the Committee for the Staff Regulations of the European Community
•    1987-1989: Director of the Directorate-General for Committees and Delegations, with specific responsibility for budgetary affairs and the single market
•    1989-1994: Secretary-General of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament
•    1994-1997: Head of the Cabinet of President of the European Parliament Klaus Hänsch
•    1997-2007: Secretary-General of the European Parliament, stepping down after 10 years in office

A working group on the Statute for Members was set up in 1997. The group's initial remit was to gather information on the rules governing the performance of the duties of the members of the national parliaments. By decision of 22 July 1997 the Bureau instructed the Secretary-General to submit a draft Statute for Members, setting out a number of options.

The draft statute was tabled in plenary on 3 December 1998 and endorsed on 5 May 1999. It covered a number of legally significant issues, namely:
- Institutional provisions (incompatibility, independent mandate, immunities, verification of credentials, vacant seats, substitutes, etc.)
- Community scheme for MEPs' pay
- Transitional arrangements
- Rules governing parliamentary allowances
- Pension scheme

Throughout the fifth parliamentary term, the Committee on Legal Affairs and its rapporteur, Mr Rothley, endeavoured to secure the adoption of the statute on the basis of Article 190(5) of the EC Treaty. The aim of the exercise was to amend the rules on MEPs' salaries and social security, pension and tax arrangements and the rules applying to assistants, and two outside firms were commissioned to carry out studies.

The first study was to comprise as comprehensive a description as possible of the work of an MEP and an assessment of that work on the basis of the principles and methods generally applied in the private sector. The second was to show how the salary of a member of a national parliament compared with the salaries commanded by other political offices and senior civil service posts in the Member States. The cost of the Statute for Members was put at €60 million for the 626 MEPs sitting in 1999

On 17 February 2000, the Conference of Presidents set up a Group of Independent Eminent Persons, made up of Mr Ersbøl, former Secretary-General of the Council, Lord Williamson, former Secretary-General of the Commission, Mr Klepsch, former President of the European Parliament, Mr Subirats, former MEP and Vice-President of the Court of Auditors, Mr Secchi, former MEP and former Vice-President of Bocconi University in Milan, and Mrs Rehn, former minister, former MP and former MEP. The group was given responsibility for drafting a recommendation on the appropriate level of remuneration for MEPs.

On 6 June 2000 the group submitted recommendations based on the following principles: equality between MEPs, same pay for all, with no disguised payments, transparency and clarity, pensions from the age of 65. The Committee on Legal Affairs delivered a favourable opinion on 11 July 2000. It was hoped that the new statute would come into effect at the start of the new parliamentary term in 2004.

However, the draft ran into trouble in the Council over the taxation arrangements and the principle of non-discrimination in tax matters. A compromise on the issue of taxation was reached under the Belgian Presidency.

On that basis, the Committee on Legal Affairs adopted an opinion for the President on 9 April 2002. On 14 November 2002 the Conference of Presidents decided to ask the Committee on Legal Affairs to draft a fresh resolution on the Statute for Members. The draft report was adopted on 21 May 2003. On the basis of that report, Parliament adopted the latest version of the draft Statute for Members on 3 and 4 June 2003.

The Council's approval was now required under Article 190(5) of the EC Treaty. In a letter of 25 June 2003, the Council Presidency stated that, owing to differences of opinion between the national delegations (in particular over primary entitlements, the tax arrangements, the retirement age and pay levels), it had been impossible to achieve the majority required in order to adopt the statute. Following a number of informal meetings, Parliament adopted a compromise stance, as set out in its resolution of 17 December 2003.

Following the plenary sitting of 28 January 2004, the Council Presidency once again notified Parliament that it had proved impossible to achieve the qualified majority required in order to approve the Statute for Members on the basis of that compromise. The stalemate was being caused by four Member States, namely: Austria, France, Germany and Sweden. At its meeting of 13 July 2004 the Bureau decided to suspend the discussions until the start of the next parliamentary term, in order to give the new Bureau a free hand.

On 7 September 2004 the Bureau decided to set up a Working Party on the Statute for Members, which sat from 2004 to 2005. The statute was finally adopted on 28 September 2005, and was scheduled to take effect in 2009.

In May 1998 the Conference of Presidents instructed the Secretary-General to look into the implications of the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty for Parliament's organisational setup and working arrangements.

The increase in Parliament's legislative powers stemming from the treaty called for an in-depth reorganisation of the institution's committees: in view of Parliament's new budgetary responsibilities, a committee of inquiry needed to be set up to raise the alarm if resources were misused or poorly managed; the need for a consistent approach to external relations called for rationalisation of the structure and activities of the parliamentary bodies with responsibility for such matters; the work of Parliament's committees and joint committees needed to be coordinated and reorganised with a view to forthcoming enlargements; and sufficient resources needed to be provided for the parliamentary bodies with responsibility for coordinating the dialogue required in order for Parliament to exercise its powers of scrutiny over the European Central Bank.

The Secretary-General was instructed to set out detailed proposals and options. An internal organisation unit was accordingly established in September 1998 to review Parliament's organisational setup and propose ways of making it more effective. This was carried out against a background of increasingly complex political and decision-making procedures and an increase in the number of MEPs and of working languages. The review took the form of detailed interviews.

In 1999 it became apparent that internal reform was necessary in order to reduce bureaucracy and enhance the role played by MEPs. There was found to be a lot of duplication of effort inside the institution. What is more, plenary was not the place to deal with technical issues; its sole focus should be political matters. A reorganisation was therefore required, but one that would be carried out in line with the Staff Regulations.

The aim of the exercise was not to cut costs but to ensure that Parliament had a coherent organisational setup in which to discharge its political remit. This process of rationalisation would involve reducing the number of committees and concentrating their responsibilities. No MEP would be able to sit on more than one committee, each of which would have an average of 42-43 members. This clarification of the responsibilities of the individual committees would result in fewer conflicts of competence.

The priorities were therefore to rationalise parliamentary work, improve the assistance provided to MEPs (for example by creating the policy departments and a new concept for the library), strengthen the administrative framework and establish proper codes of conduct (to include a clear distinction between political and administrative functions) and update voting procedures.

The internal reform process ran into difficulties, however, as it was not consistent with the agreements concluded between Parliament and the Luxembourg Government. The Luxembourg foreign minister stressed the importance that the Luxembourg Government attached to ensuring a continuing, prominent EU presence in Luxembourg, stating that it could not allow Luxembourg as a site to be scaled down and front-line activities to be transferred to Brussels.

Julian Priestley therefore decided that the first step should be to reorganise the work of the committee secretariats in order to improve the assistance provided to MEPs in their legislative work and, in particular, the circulation of parliamentary documents and the breakdown of activities between Strasbourg and Brussels. It was also necessary to reorganise the parliamentary bodies themselves and redefine their powers and responsibilities and the rules governing their membership.

The interinstitutional discussions on the reform of the Staff Regulations were set in motion by the 'Williamson' think tank, which was set up on 24 June 1998. Parliament wished to be involved in the proceedings and accordingly set up a technical monitoring committee. What emerged was a commitment to maintaining certain principles in place, for example the idea that there should be one set of Staff Regulations for all the institutions or respect for acquired rights. The main points discussed were the general European civil service environment, better utilisation of human resources, a balanced incentive and penalty system, modernisation of the Staff Regulations, and interinstitutional cooperation.

The drafting and publication of a white paper to launch the reform was handled by the Kinnock working party. The principal areas covered by that document were the Staff Regulations and human resources. The reform would entail staff redeployment and an overhaul of recruitment, training, management, careers (promotion, assessment, discipline, retirement), pay, and equal opportunities. The white paper was adopted on 1 March 2000.

The Commission proposal had been drafted as a set of new rules, as opposed to a mere recast. The reform revolved around several key concepts: the concept of service, activity-based management, matching human resources to the tasks assigned, and the financial accountability of decision-takers.

The problem was that the measures had been tailored to the Commission's way of working and therefore did not fully meet the concerns of the other institutions. Interinstitutional dialogue was essential in order to make the adjustments necessitated by Parliament's specific needs, because, as stipulated in the legal basis, Parliament had the right merely to be consulted.

In February 2001 the Commission published a document entitled 'Towards a new staff policy'. Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs pointed out that the proposals amounted to a new style of management for the Commission, with a genuine human resources policy (single career structure and promotion on merit). The document set out a new philosophy on the Commission's relations with the Council and Parliament and put forward codes of conduct.

The elections were to be held, in accordance with the established rule, during the period from 10 to 13 June 1999. Parliament's information and communication policy was to focus on two key areas.

The first was the implementation of joint activities with the Commission. The information services at the EP and the Commission organised their work on the basis of a 'European information system'. The purpose of the system was to create a connection between the EU and it citizens, to decentralise action to regional and local level, to tailor messages to the EU's political priorities and to publicise the institutions' activities.

The second key area was a specific information campaign on the European elections to encourage more people to vote. The aim was to raise the turnout by coordinating a neutral institutional information campaign: additional educational activities to highlight Parliament's role as the voice of the people and campaign aimed more specifically at the general public. A budget of €5 500 000 was earmarked for these information campaigns.

In the same way as in 1999, a programme of information and communication activities for the 2004 EU elections was drawn up. To make sure that everything ran smoothly, a task force was set up and its action plan was adopted by the Bureau on 9 October 2002. The main messages were constitutional change, the European Convention, the Intergovernmental Conference and the enlargement process.

The aim of the programme was to complement the individual campaigns run by the political groups, making regular liaison and coordination essential. The objective was to raise awareness among EU citizens of Parliament's work, its role and its activities. The information offices had a key role to play as the main interface between Parliament, citizens and the national media in each Member State.

New audiovisual tools were developed to meet journalists' needs. One example was 'Helpdesk TV', set up to promote audiovisual coverage of the work of Parliament and of the MEPs. Seminars were organised for journalists in five modules to cater for different audiences, and an online database containing datasheets was set up. In addition, a website was developed to serve as the main information and communication channel.

The election campaign was overshadowed by fears that a possible agreement on Cyprus could affect the EU elections, and talks did indeed resume between the Government of Cyprus and representatives of the Cypriot-Turkish community, under the auspices of the UN.

To prepare for the biggest enlargement in the EU's history, a task force was established by decision of the Secretary-General of 11 September 1997, with the approval of the President of Parliament. Initially, it was an administrative inter-departmental working group.
 
In February 2000, Parliament, the Council and the Commission met to assess the progress of the work being carried out in preparation for the administrative aspects of the enlargement. It was suggested at that meeting that an interinstitutional task force should be established to identify the problems facing all the institutions and those requiring political decisions.

Subsequently, when they met on 12 May 2000, the College of Heads of Administration (Secretaries-General of Parliament, the Council and the Commission) recommended that Parliament's task force responsible for examining the administrative aspects of EU enlargement should be expanded to include representatives of all the institutions.

The first meeting on 3 July 2000 was attended by representatives of the Commission, the Council and Parliament. The political and budgetary authorities recommended that interinstitutional cooperation should be as systematic and dynamic as possible to ensure that no important administrative issues would be overlooked. This would also ensure that the institutions had the chance to intervene in the budget procedure if specific measures became necessary.

The task force's four main objectives were to draw up as comprehensive a list as possible of administrative issues needing to be dealt with as part of the preparations for EU enlargement, to identify areas where cooperation between the institutions needed to be established or strengthened (including human resources, multilingualism and buildings), to make recommendations concerning the arrangements for interinstitutional cooperation, and finally to report to the relevant authorities of each of the institutions represented on the task force by the end of 2000. However, by the time the final report was published no decision had been taken on the precise date of the enlargement, or the definitive number of countries that would be joining, so it was impossible to set out a precise scenario.

The enlargement would have a major impact on the functioning of the institutions, particularly in terms of increased staffing levels, new languages, new cultures and different administrative practices; this would be the biggest challenge. The previous enlargement had involved only three countries and two additional languages, whereas on 1 May 2004 a total of 10 new countries would be joining, with nine additional languages.

As early as October 1999, Vice-President Podesta was given specific responsibility for 'enlargement', reflecting the importance of this issue in the fifth parliamentary term. A note dated 11 October 1999 set out the remit of the Vice-President with responsibility enlargement, as follows: responsibility for relations with the national parliaments of the candidate countries, for managing relations with the administrations of the national parliaments to facilitate understanding of the EU parliamentary system by means of traineeships, conferences and exchanges of officials, for coordinating Parliament's activities in this area and for acting as the main point of contact for the other institutions.

At that time it was expected that on 1 July 2004 there would be 700 MEPs, six new countries and five new languages. The consequence in term of staffing levels would be an additional 742 officials, and in terms of premises an additional 832 offices across the three places of work.  The total cost was estimated at €150-160 million. Increasing the number of offices would require a budget increase, more missions, professional training, office supplies, etc.

Vice-President Podesta's report of 27 June 2001 addressed various problems in a number of areas like the publication of the legislation in force, human resources and working conditions, professional training and multilingualism, buildings policy.

At the same time, extension work was being carried out on the Strasbourg and Brussels chambers. It would not be possible to have assigned seating for all the observers; there were not even fixed offices, only bureaux de passage.

As part of the approach of bringing the services together, the 'Europe Houses' policy - i.e. having a single building housing both Parliament's Information Office and the Commission Representation - was strongly encouraged.

The enlargement would also require close coordination with the national authorities and national parliaments. The observers, appointed as full members by their countries, would be taking office between 1 May and 19 July 2004, ahead of the elections. Parliament welcomed 162 observers from the candidate countries, making for a total of 788 MEPs in office during this period. That figure would fall back to 732 after the elections.  

At that time there was nothing in the Rules of Procedure on the status of observers, except for the former GDR observers, for whom a specific transitional provision had been included. The Legal Service's proposal was either to amend those provisions of the Rules of Procedure or to lay down specific provisions for the new observers.

To prepare for these new arrivals, on 6 February 2003 the Secretary-General decided to set up a Task Force on Reception Arrangements for Observers. That task force comprised representatives of the main directorates-general concerned, the political group coordination units and the offices of the Secretary-General and of the President. Its task was to lay down, coordinate and oversee the implementation of the measures needed to receive observers from the candidate countries. A dedicated website was created and information seminars were held. In plenary, arrangements were made for observers to sit with members of their political groups. Nevertheless, a degree of caution would still be needed during show-of-hands voting, since observers were not allowed to vote.

Language assistance would be provided insofar as the recruitment of translators and interpreters made that possible. Language courses would be offered to observers (EN, FR, DE, IT and ES), but that would require changing the financial arrangements applying to observers.

An official ceremony was held to mark the fourth enlargement of the EU. Symbolically, the masts for the new countries' flags were ordered from the Gdańsk shipyards in Poland.

Following the 2004 enlargement, the Bureau decided, on 7 September 2004, to establish a working group on the functioning of Parliament after enlargement to ensure that the decisions taken at the time were properly applied, to assess the results and to take any corrective action necessary. In addition, the working group would also be required to provide the political impetus needed to prepare for the next enlargement, including one official per country being sent to act as a liaison officer. 'Pre-accession' information offices were opened in Sofia and Bucharest.

On 13 April 2005, the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union was approved in plenary, and the accession treaty was signed 12 days later. Observers from the two candidate countries followed Parliament's work from 26 September 2005 until the accession treaty entered into force. Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU on 1 January 2007, but there were still a number of problems to be overcome, such as tackling corruption, environmental protection and the question of minorities, and the actual date of joining could be put back by a year if they were not satisfactorily addressed. Impact of the accession on Parliament's budget: a three-year financial package provided a total of €12.4 billion for structural funding, nuclear safety, institution building and the implementation of Schengen.

To facilitate the reception of the observers, a dedicated website was set up together with a telephone helpdesk. The working group on enlargement envisaged that 15 Romanian and Bulgarian translators would be recruited by September 2005, and 30 interpreters would be accredited. To that end, a call for expressions of interest was published, in partnership with the Commission, for freelance interpreters. The observers had a dedicated badge and could choose the language it was written in, so it was important to ensure that the Cyrillic alphabet could be used, and keyboards with Cyrillic characters therefore needed to be obtained.

The observers were permitted to take part in working groups of the political groups and parliamentary committees: they were authorised to speak but did not have the right to vote or stand for election. Access to the drivers' service and the official car service; installation of pigeonholes.

The financial arrangements for the observers were exactly the same as those used for the previous enlargement: reimbursement of travel expenses on the basis of actual cost and the submission of supporting documents, and payment of a subsistence allowance equivalent to that of MEPs for confirmed days of attendance at plenary sessions and meetings of committees, delegations and political groups at Parliament's places of work (attendance list).

The archives of Mr Priestley's Cabinet (1997-2007) are organised into three large collections relating to the Secretary-General's specific duties: i.e. the administrative organisation of the Secretariat, action taken on some of the European Parliament's strategic issues and a third collection reflecting his internal and external relations in the context of his official duties.

These collections are subdivided into 'organic series' and 'series'.

The main activity headings are as follows:

Cabinet of Secretary-General Julian Priestley

Organisation of the Secretariat
(SG 05JP 0500, 1000, 1500)

The first organic series of this collection covers the 'Organisation and strategic orientation of the Secretariat' and concerns various matters relating to the administrative and operational organisation of the different directorates-general, such as: the delegation of powers of appointment and signature, meetings with the directors-general, contacts with advisory bodies and the management of invitations to tender.

As its title suggests, the second organic series, 'Staff management', covers information on HR management within the Secretariat. The most significant series relates to the screening of the departments (internal audit). The second series on the management of Secretariat staff relates to the agreement on the 'Method' for adjusting the remuneration of officials of the European Communities. The other large collections contain archives relating to the medical service, the Staff Committee and the unions.

The third organic series, on the 'Organisation and management of administrative bodies', contains documents on the organisation of the Secretariat and, more specifically, of the seven directorates-general which it comprises. A series is dedicated to each of them, in addition to a series on the 'Directorate for Information Technology and Telecommunications'.

Organisation of the European Parliament: Action taken on strategic files
(SG 05JP 2500, 3000, 3500, 4000, 4500, 4700, 5000, 6000, 7000, 7500)

This collection contains documents on the general organisation of the European Parliament and is sub-divided into 10 major series. The first two relate to two high points of European integration: the European elections and the enlargement of the Community.

The next two series relate to economic matters; one concerns the Monetary Union task force and the other budget and finance.

The next series concerns the Maastricht European Council, from the point of view of its implications for the EP.

In addition to a separate series on the thorny and fascinating question of the seat of the European Parliament, there are series on property policy and management.

A final series covers sports, artistic and cultural activities, seen from the point of view of events organised by the EP, as well as works of art and celebrations to mark the 30th and 40th anniversaries of the Treaty of Rome.

Relations
(SG 05JP 6100, 6200, 6500)

The final series concerns the Secretary-General's various relations in the context of his activities: first, his internal relations with the Office of the President and the political groups, then his external relations with other Community institutions, bodies and agencies, as well as with other national institutions and lobbyists. Finally, he also maintains relations in the context of various associations with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.

Each of the above headings includes case files on the various procedures initiated by the Secretary-General during his term of office. Each file contains a number of documents retracing the procedure and the final decision.

In general, within the series, the archives of Mr Priestley's Cabinet are currently arranged in 697 files containing more than 5 626 items.