In March 2001, 9 MEPs from four political groups founded the Campaign for Parliament Reform (CPR). CPR seeks fundamental changes to the way the European Parliament functions on a day to day basis, in order to make it more transparent, more accountable and more efficient. When CPR was founded, we invited other MEPs to join us, and our membership today stands at 90 MEPs, representing almost every political group in Parliament as well as 13 out of 15 nationalities. 

Since 1999, much has done to improve the way Parliament works. The following, in our view, are among our most important achievements, many of which are the result of the work of individual Members of CPR working through Parliament's committees and official bodies to achieve change.

In May 2006 Members of CPR launched the first European Citizens Initiative www.oneseat.eu in order to stop the monthly traveling circus of the European Parliament.

For four days every month, the European Parliament treks from Brussels to Strasbourg at a cost to the European taxpayers of almost 4 million euro. This long-standing "travelling circus" was formalised in the Treaty of Amsterdam against Parliament's will.

Firstly, it is a waste of money, and damaging to the institution's credibility. According to the European Parliament's Secretary-General's report on the cost of maintaining three places of work, the additional cost to the taxpayer will be over € 200 million per annum following enlargement. Citizens rightly ask themselves why taxpayers' money is spent on unnecessary travel costs and a building in Strasbourg that stands empty for over 300 days a year. Many citizens see the three locations as yet another example of the expensive bureaucracy of the EU.

Secondly, the three working places arrangement causes a great deal of inefficiency of the work of the European Parliament.  The constant travelling makes it difficult for MEPs to do their job properly. Strasbourg is difficult to reach, and most staff and facilities stay behind in Brussels. The European Parliament is now a full-time Parliament like every other Parliament, and an arrangement which may have worked in the early years of the Union's existence, when the Parliament was a part-time assembly, is no longer workable.

 Finally, we believe that like all other Parliaments, the European Parliament should have the sovereign right to decide its own working arrangements.

CPR urged National Ministers to reconsider the question of the seat within the premise of the upcoming debates on the future of Europe and the draft Constitution.  Qualified majority should be introduced in the Council in deciding on seats of the Institutions.  This would be in line with the general move towards qualified majority voting in most areas. 

 Click here to view CPR In The Press

• The European Parliament is the only assembly in the world not having a sole seat. The European Parliament now spreads over 22 buildings in three cities in three founder member states of the former European Community: Luxembourg, France and Belgium.
• All 785 MEPs have individual offices in Strasbourg and Brussels. The EP administration has offices in Luxembourg or Brussels and shares a smaller number of offices in Strasbourg.
• At the moment, Luxembourg holds 20% of the total surface area of European Parliament buildings and 2000 offices. Brussels holds 50% total surface area of European Parliament buildings and 4800 offices, whilst Strasbourg holds 30% total surface area of European Parliament buildings and 2650 offices.
• The cost of geographical dispersion is estimated to be 15% of EPs budget (but only 0,13% of the total EU budget). The main part of this sum is the costs of having 12 plenary sessions for 48 days a year in Strasbourg: 13% total budget of the EP.
• A study by Prof S. Hix (London School of Economics) in 2000 shows that: one quarter of MEPs regularly fail to turn up for votes throughout the 4 day-long plenary session.
• The new building in Strasbourg has cost 457 million Euro. In 2006 the EP has additionally bought the SDM and WIC building in Strasbourg after it was discovered that the EP had been paying too much rent to the city of Strasbourg.
• Before Enlargement, 3000 people travelled from Brussels to Strasbourg and back (a total distance of 856 km) for four days every month- with 10 new member states and over 100 new MEPs, this number has increased dramatically.  We are waiting on response from the Commission on questions detailing the exact number and cost.
• Before enlargement 2004, the work time loss over these travels is estimated to be over 1 million Euro.
• 48 days costs of gas, water and electricity (GWE) for the building in Strasbourg is only 70% for the yearly costs for GWE of the Brussels building. 
• The lack of a single seat costs over €200 million a year. If the EP did its work in only one place- it would save the €200 million.
• Next to the monetary costs you also have to take into account the CO2 emissions caused by a building which is standing empty for 9/10 of the year. This stands in crass conflict to the current debate concerning the protection of our climate and environment. The CO2 emissions of the building and the 3.000 commuters that travel back and forth every month add up to 20.000 tons of CO2 emissions a year. This does not include the 15.000 lobbyists, 12.000 journalists and the Commission and Council staff also travelling to Strasbourg every month.

• In the 1990s, the Parliament discussed the seat question almost yearly in the plenary to set the schedule of meetings for the upcoming year
• Dec 10, 1999: 250 MEPs signed a letter indicating that: ‘the transhumance for one workplace to another and the difficult conditions governing our work and our access to Strasbourg no longer permit us to exercise our mandate with the dignity and commitment befitting a MEP Not to mention the drawbacks of the new building and the exorbitant costs deriving from the geographical fragmentation of the European Parliament’.
• April 13, 2000: in a resolution adopted with 401 to 77 votes,. the EP again strongly demanded for the right for the European Parliament to decide for itself where it should meet
• In its proposals for the 2000 IGC, the Parliament put forward a revision of Treaty article 289 so that it would be in its legal right to decide its own seat. This proposal did not survive and did not even make it into the 2007 IGC.