B Explanatory memorandum
by Mr Xuclà, rapporteur
1 Introduction
1. The present report has its
origins in the request made by the Bureau of the Assembly to the
Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs
on 3 October 2014 to consider the follow-up to be given, in terms
of the Rules of Procedure, to
Resolution
2018 (2014) on the progress of the Assembly's monitoring procedure,
through which the Assembly amended
Resolution 1115 (1997) (modified) with regard to the functioning of the Monitoring
Committee, its composition and the monitoring procedure. More specifically, the
Committee on Rules of Procedure was asked to consider “modifying
the Rules of Procedure in order to involve members not belonging
to a political group and members of partner for democracy delegations
in the work of the Monitoring Committee”.
2. It is also true that, under well-established practice, the
committee is available to examine proposals for amendment to the
Rules of Procedure submitted to it, in connection with procedures
needing to be changed or adapted to parliamentary practice or rules
requiring clarification. The rapporteur nevertheless points out
that the committee's last report resulting in amendments to the
Assembly's Rules of Procedure was debated by the Assembly in June
2014
Note following a long process of consultation
with members of the Assembly, national delegations, political groups
and committees. Consequently, it did not appear necessary to repeat
this exercise in connection with the present report, and consideration
of possible amendments to the Rules of Procedure has instead been
limited to the questions raised in meetings of the Bureau and the
Presidential Committee and motions for resolutions referred to it.
2 Possible amendments to the Rules of
Procedure regarding the composition and functioning of the Monitoring
Committee, following the adoption of Resolution 2018 (2014)
2.1 Reminder
of the changes made to the monitoring procedure in 2014
3. Within the framework of its
annual progress report for 2014,
Note the
Monitoring Committee carried out an in-depth analysis of the effectiveness
of the monitoring procedure and the means of strengthening the impact of
this procedure for all Council of Europe member States.
Resolution 2018 (2014) incorporates the concrete recommendations made by the
Monitoring Committee and its Ad hoc Sub-Committee on the functioning
of the parliamentary monitoring procedure, namely:
- the establishment of a periodic
review, on a country-by-country basis, of the honouring of the Council
of Europe accession obligations for the 33 countries not subject
to a monitoring procedure sensu stricto or engaged
in a post-monitoring dialogue;
- the introduction of issue-based, cross-country monitoring
in close co-operation with the Assembly committees;
- the appointment of two co-rapporteurs for each member
State engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue, according to the same
criteria as those established for the appointment of the co-rapporteurs responsible
for the monitoring procedure sensu stricto of
a member State;
- the improvement of members’ geographical representation
and a limit of four members from any one national delegation of
a State not subject to a monitoring procedure or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue;
- for post-monitoring dialogue, the preparation of a clearly
defined timetable with exact deadlines for fulfilment of the remaining
undertakings, governing closure of the post-monitoring dialogue
or alternatively reverting to a complete monitoring procedure.
4. These recommendations were amplified in
Resolution 2018 (2014) via modifications made to
Resolution 1115 (1997) (modified), which defines the monitoring procedure,
and to the Monitoring Committee's terms of reference. However, these
are complementary texts, and the recommendations did not result
in any amendment of the Rules of Procedure in the strict sense of
the term.
Note
2.2 Examination
of proposals to modify the composition of the Monitoring Committee
5. In
Resolution 2018 (2014), the Assembly “invites the Bureau to consider the possibility
of involving in the work of the Monitoring Committee members not
belonging to a political group and countries engaged in the partnership
for democracy”. Consequently, the Bureau asked the Committee on
Rules of Procedure “to consider modifying the Rules of Procedure
in order to involve members not belonging to a political group and members
of partner for democracy delegations in the work of the Monitoring
Committee”.
2.2.1 Participation
of members not belonging to a political group
6. It should be recalled that
the members of six of the nine Assembly committees are nominated
by the national delegations, and the members of the Monitoring Committee,
the Committee on Rules of Procedure and the Committee on the Election
of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights are appointed by
the Bureau of the Assembly on the basis of candidatures put forward
by the political groups, using the d’Hondt method. At present, only
the Committee on Rules of Procedure has two members not affiliated
to a political group among its 37 members (Rule 44.3.b of the Rules of Procedure).
7. At the end of the fourth part-session of 2015, the Assembly
had 52 members who did not belong to any of the five political groups.
Note It might seem fair therefore, at first
view, to allow minimum representation of non-affiliated parliamentarians
on the Monitoring Committee.
8. At its meetings on 26 March and 29 September 2015, the Committee
on Rules of Procedure examined a proposal to enable the Bureau to
appoint members not affiliated to any political group to the Monitoring Committee.
The great majority of the committee's members were against doing
so; a number of them arguing that non-affiliated members were not
representative, had highly diverse political leanings, stood for
opposing ideologies and did not share any common opinions or causes.
If they were not affiliated to one of the five political groups,
they represented only themselves and, at best, could support no
more than a national position.
9. Moreover, were the Assembly to agree to minimum representation
of non-affiliated parliamentarians on the Monitoring Committee,
in addition to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, they might also
lay claim to representation on the Committee on the Election of
Judges to the European Court of Human Rights.
10. Finally, if the Rules of Procedure were to be modified in
this connection, establishing the number of non-affiliated members
who could be appointed to the Monitoring Committee would not be
without its problems: while the notion of fairness does not need
to prompt an all-out drive for strictly proportionate representation,
if we bear in mind that the smallest group in the Assembly is represented
by five members on the Monitoring Committee, appointing any fewer
than four non-affiliated members would not really seem acceptable.
– Proposal
11. In view of the serious reservations expressed by the majority
of the committee's members, the rapporteur considers that there
are no grounds for formulating a proposal to amend the Rules of
Procedure to allow representation of non-affiliated members on the
Monitoring Committee.
2.2.2 Participation
of the members of partner for democracy delegations
12. The question of whether and
in which way the countries engaged in the partnership for democracy
could be associated with the work of the Monitoring Committee was
discussed in the Ad hoc Sub-Committee on the functioning of the
parliamentary monitoring procedure (of the Monitoring Committee),
without it coming to a final conclusion. It should also be noted
that the idea considered by the sub-committee was to associate the countries
engaged in the partnership for democracy so that they could be “also
monitored in accordance with modalities to be established”. The
Monitoring Committee’s rapporteur observes in the aforementioned
report that “the modalities for such involvement are not clear and
would need further reflection by the committee”.
13. Under the Assembly's Rules of Procedure, the members of delegations
of partners for democracy cannot participate in or even attend meetings
of the Monitoring Committee:
Rule
48.6: “Meetings of the Joint Committee, the Monitoring Committee,
the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs and the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European
Court of Human Rights shall not be open to members of special guest,
observer and partner for democracy delegations.”Note
14. It may be recalled that the
Committee on Rules of Procedure had the opportunity to comprehensively discuss
partner for democracy status in 2009, when it was instructed to
determine its configuration and define in particular the rights
and obligations of the parliaments concerned (see
inter alia Rules 62.5 and 62.6 of
the Rules of Procedure). At that time, the Assembly clearly indicated
that, while the contribution of non-member State delegations to
the proceedings of the Assembly and its committees deserved to be
optimised, it nevertheless considered that “in accordance with the
principles of good governance, members of non-member States' delegations
cannot enjoy rights identical to those of members of the Assembly
in the full exercise of their parliamentary prerogatives and functions.
This applies in particular to procedures linked to the obligations and
responsibilities of members or of their national delegations”.
Note
15. It should also be borne in mind that the implementation of
the undertakings made by partners for democracy when requesting
that status is assessed in the framework of periodical reports by
the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy (with opinions
from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee
on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Rule 62.7 of the Rules of Procedure).
That is why members of the partner for democracy delegations actively
and regularly participate in meetings of those committees, which
are mutually beneficial.
16. Finally, it is to be noted that the positions expressed by
the committee members at the meetings held on 26 March and 29 September
2015 did not make it possible to reach consensus in favour of the
proposal to allow participation of members of partner for democracy
delegations in Monitoring Committee meetings.
– Proposal
17. In the absence of an unequivocally positive position on the
question on the part of the Monitoring Committee itself (and of
more advanced discussion on the setting up of a “monitoring procedure”
in respect of their obligations and commitments other than the existing
one) and given the lack of consensus on the issue within the Committee
on Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur considers it premature to
seek to amend the Rules of Procedure with a view to allowing participation
of members of partner for democracy delegations in meetings of the
Monitoring Committee.
2.2.3 Confidentiality
of proceedings of the Monitoring Committee
18. Finally, the report of the
Ad hoc Sub-Committee on the functioning of the parliamentary monitoring procedure
mentions another question, secondary but nonetheless worth clarifying
in the Rules of Procedure. The sub-committee in fact considered
it appropriate to introduce into the Rules of Procedure the possibility
for the Monitoring Committee to lift the confidentiality clause
for a specific event, such as a joint hearing with another committee.
19. Rule 48.3 states that “… The Monitoring Committee and the
Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human
Rights meet in camera”. It could therefore be amended, so as to
include a possibility of derogation from the rule.
– Proposal
20. In view of the widely differing positions expressed by a majority
of committee members on this issue, and even hostile to any change
to the rule, the rapporteur proposes that Rule 48.3 of the Rules
of Procedure should not be amended.
3 Other
proposals to amend the Rules of Procedure
21. Within the framework of the
present report, the committee also has the task of examining any
proposals for modification of the current regulatory provisions
it receives, either from the Bureau of the Assembly or the Presidential
Committee or from Assembly members in the form of motions for a
resolution, particularly with regard to rules and procedures requiring
clarification, changes or adaptation to parliamentary practice.
3.1 Upgrading
of the status of the immediate past President of the Parliamentary
Assembly
22. On 9 March 2015, the motion
for a resolution tabled by Mr Pedro Agramunt and other Assembly members
(
Doc. 13686) on the status of former Presidents of the Parliamentary
Assembly was referred to the Committee on Rules of Procedure so
that it could be taken into account in the next report on amendments
to the Rules of Procedure. The motion called for a change to Rule
20.3 of the Rules of Procedure, making the immediate past President
of the Assembly an
ex officio member
not only of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy but
also of the Monitoring Committee and the Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs, for as long as he or she continues
to be a member of the Assembly without interruption.
23. At present, the immediate past President of the Assembly is
an
ex officio member of only
one Assembly committee: the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.
This ad hoc status was introduced into the Rules of Procedure in
2002 by
Resolution 1284
(2002).
Note In 2012, the Assembly granted
the status of
ex officio members
of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and the Monitoring
Committee to the chairpersons of political groups, in addition to
the Committee on Rules of Procedure.
Note In
2014, the status of the immediate past President of the Assembly
was aligned with that of the chairpersons of the political groups with
regard to rights within the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.
Note
24. Accordingly, the Committee on Rules of Procedure must therefore
consider the expediency of upgrading the status of the immediate
past President of the Assembly. The following factors should be
taken into account in this respect:
- granting the status of ex officio member
in a number of Assembly committees to the immediate past President
of the Assembly hinges on the argument that the political experience
of the immediate past President of the Assembly could be capitalised
on through his or her participation in the proceedings of the committees
concerned, where these relate to areas where a former president
of the Assembly has had occasion to play a leading role and where
his or her experience may prove useful (as the aforementioned motion
for a resolution explains);Note
- the reference to taking advantage of the experience gained
by the president during his or her term of office could provide
justification for his or her participation in any Assembly body
on an ad hoc basis: ultimately, the Committee on Rules of Procedure
might be required to examine proposals to grant the immediate past
President a member's seat on the Presidential Committee, the Bureau
of the Assembly and all the Assembly's committees. That is why the
question must be comprehensively discussed and the immediate past
President's scope for action carefully delineated;
- no member of the Assembly can be a full member of more
than two committees (with the exception of the three committees
whose members are nominated by the political groups) – Rule 44.6
of the Rules of Procedure;
- granting the immediate past President of the Assembly
the status of ex officio member
of several committees is tantamount to allocating an additional
seat on those committees to his or her national delegation, resulting
in an imbalance in the representation of delegations.
25. During the exchanges of views in committee, some members of
the Committee on Rules of Procedure were openly hostile to the proposal.
However, a majority of them appear to favour a possible compromise solution,
recognising that it would be useful for the Committee on Political
Affairs and Democracy and the Monitoring Committee to be able to
benefit from the informed views of the immediate past President
of the Assembly on questions of international politics or relating
to the situation in member States.
– Proposal
26. If the Committee on Rules of Procedure votes in favour of
a new upgrade of the immediate past President's status, it should
firstly determine which committees he or she would sit on as an ex officio member. The rapporteur
proposes to retain the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy,
the Monitoring Committee and the Committee on Rules of Procedure,
as proposed in the motion for a resolution. The committee shall
also decide whether Rule 44.6 of the Rules of Procedure, which stipulates
that no member of the Assembly may be a full member of more than
two committees (with the exception of the committees whose members
are appointed by the political groups), should or should not apply,
given that this provision is not applicable to the heads of the
political groups, ex officio members
of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, the Monitoring
Committee and the Committee on Rules of Procedure (Rule 19.5).
27. The committee might also consider whether the question of
the immediate past President's rights within those committees should
be revisited. At present, as an ex officio member
of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, the immediate
past President enjoys the same rights as the other members, including
the right to be chair or vice-chair of the committee or its sub-committees
and to be appointed rapporteur.
28. The exact wording of the amendments to be made to the Rules
of Procedure will therefore depend on the answers to these questions.
Whatever the case, several provisions of the Assembly's Rules of
Procedure would have to be modified. It is suggested that:
- Rule 20.3 of the Rules of Procedure
be worded as follows: “The immediate past President, as long as he
or she remains a representative or substitute in the Assembly without
interruption, shall be an ex officio member
of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, the Committee
on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States
of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) and the Committee
on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, but
may not take part in votes. Rule 44.6 shall not apply to him or
herNote”;Note
- if the outgoing president is an ex
officio member of certain committees and has the same
rights as the other members, Rules 44.1, 44.3 and 49.3 will have
to be amended with regard to the number of seats on the Monitoring
Committee and the Committee on Rules of Procedure, as well as the
complementary texts covering committees' terms of reference.
3.2 Increase
of the term of office of presidents to three years
29. Within the framework of the
present report, the committee must also examine the motion for a
resolution tabled by Mr Axel E. Fischer and other Assembly members
on the duration of the term of office of the President of the Assembly
(
Doc. 13858), who propose that this be modified by reintroducing
a three-year term of office, both for the President of the Assembly
(Rule 15.5 of the Rules of Procedure) “in order to allow them to
give full effect to their political duties outside of and towards
the Secretariat of the Assembly”, and for the chairpersons of the
committees (Rule 46.7) and sub-committees (Rule 49.7).
30. The question has been debated at length several times in recent
years, in 2007
Note and
latterly in 2013.
Note
31. Whenever the Assembly has examined the question of the duration
of the term of office of committee chairpersons, it has always sought
to strike a balance between the advantages brought by stability
in the exercise of presidential office and the need to renew office-holders.
In its 2007 report on the application and amendment of various provisions
of the Parliamentary Assembly's Rules of Procedure, the Committee
on Rules of Procedure observed that “fixing the duration of committee
chairmanships means regularly finding a compromise between two conflicting
principles: the maintenance of some continuity in the action and
work of committees and the need to achieve a rotation of chairmanships.
… It is generally admitted that distributing functions in the Assembly
such as chairmanships and rapporteurships to a larger number of
members would be appropriate”. In a previous report, in 1978, the
Committee on Rules of Procedure had already pointed out that having
more of its members, from more national delegations, entrusted with
important responsibilities, gaining a deeper knowledge of the Organisation
and ultimately taking a stronger interest in its activities could only
be of benefit to the Assembly.
32. The current wording of Rule 15.5 (Election of the President)
and Rule 46.7 (Bureaux of committees) – instituting a once-renewable
consecutive or non-consecutive annual term – was established by
Resolution 1584 (2007) on the basis of discussion in the Committee on Rules
of Procedure. Limiting the terms of office of Assembly presidents
and committee and sub-committee chairpersons to a maximum of two
years was intended, through faster periodical renewal, to promote
an increased and balanced rotation of presidencies and chairmanships
between the political groups and between the national delegations
and ensure a better gender balance. Indeed, since 2008, it is undeniable
that the rotation of presidencies and chairmanships of the Assembly
and the committees has strictly adhered to a two-year cycle and
that the objectives of this reform have been achieved.
33. Moreover, the question is closely intertwined with the permanency,
or if not the calling into question, of the political agreement
that exists between the political groups in the Assembly where the
rotation of presidencies is concerned.
34. It must be pointed out, however, that a change was made to
the status of committee chairpersons and vice-chairpersons in 2014,
with the result that, from now on, when their initial two-year term
of office expires, and on expiry of a period of four years, they
may again be elected to the bureau of the committee concerned for
two new consecutive or non-consecutive (annual) terms.
– Proposal
35. The proposal to reintroduce a three-year term of office for
the President of the Assembly and members of committee and sub-committee
bureaux was examined by the Committee on Rules of Procedure at its meeting
on 29 September 2015. As in the past, the committee came out unanimously
against any change to the Rules of Procedure which would entail
returning to the situation prior to 2008, because of Assembly members'
positive assessment of two-year terms of office.
3.3 Replacement
of committee chairpersons who are ex officio members of certain
committees
36. Rule 44.1 on the appointment
of committees stipulates that the chairpersons of the Committee
on Political Affairs and Democracy and the Committee on Legal Affairs
and Human Rights are ex officio members of
the Monitoring Committee and that the chairpersons of the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee on Equality
and Non-Discrimination are, for their part, ex
officio members of the Committee on the Election of Judges
to the European Court of Human Rights. However, recent practice
has shown that these committees could be deprived of their chairperson
and that the Rules of Procedure do not authorise them to appoint
a vice-chairperson to take part in the meetings of the committees
of which the chairperson is an ex officio member.
– Proposal
37. As this is an amendment of a technical nature, the rapporteur
proposes that the footnotes concerning Rule 44.1 be changed to mention
the possibility for a vice-chairperson of the committees concerned
to replace the chairperson in his or her absence:
- footnote under point 7 related
to the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments
by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee):
“...; plus the chairpersons of the Committee on Political Affairs
and Democracy and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, as ex officio members, or, in their
absence, a vice-chairperson. …”;
- footnote under point 9 related to the Committee on the
Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights: “Plus
the chairpersons of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
and the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, as ex officio members or, in their
absence, a vice-chairperson.”
3.4 Bureaux
of the committees
38. Rule 46.7 of the Rules of Procedure
on bureaux of committees was substantially revised in 2013
Note and 2014.
Note However, whereas it is
now permitted for former chairs or vice-chairs of committees or
sub-committees to stand for election to the same position after
a waiting period of four years, it is no longer permitted for the outgoing
chair or vice-chair of a committee to stand for election to the
same position in another committee before expiry of a two-year waiting
period. From a practical viewpoint, this measure poses problems
with regard to its implementation and requires clarification by
the committee.
– Proposal
39. The Committee on Rules of Procedure could therefore consider
amending Rule 46.7 to make the rules on bureau membership more flexible
and to restrict the application of these waiting periods to the
outgoing chairs of committees alone. The rapporteur proposes therefore
that Rule 46.7 be reworded as follows:
“The chairperson and the vice-chairpersons
of a committee shall remain in office until the opening of the next
ordinary session of the Assembly. They may be re-elected for one
further term, consecutive or not. A committee chairperson or vice-chairperson
elected in the course of a session for an incomplete term may be
re-elected for two further terms. A former chairperson of a committee
may stand for the office of chairperson or vice-chairperson of the
same committee on expiry of a period of four years for two further terms,
consecutive or not. The outgoing chairperson of a committee may
stand for the office of chairperson or vice-chairperson of another
committee on expiry of a period of two years.”
3.5 Procedure
for examining amendments in plenary sitting
40. Following the June 2015 part-session,
the Bureau of the Assembly raised the issue of modifying the procedure
for examining amendments in plenary sitting so that the rapporteur
– and not only the chairperson of the committee responsible for
the report being debated – can also state their own view on the
amendments being discussed.
41. Under current practice in plenary sittings when the Assembly
examines amendments tabled for a draft text, the person chairing
the sitting systematically asks the chairperson of the reporting
committee to state the committee's position on each amendment. Given
that this concerns a report presented by a committee and a draft
text adopted by it, it seems self-evident that it is precisely that
committee's opinion on amendments potentially altering the text
which the members present at the sitting should hear. Moreover,
a draft text adopted by the committee might not reflect the rapporteur's
views at all or might even contradict them, which has sometimes
been the case where highly controversial or sensitive issues have
been concerned.
42. The Rules of Procedure do offer a degree of flexibility, though,
with regard to the procedure to be followed in a sitting where amendments
are examined, as the floor may be given to either the chairperson
of the committee or the rapporteur. The complementary provisions
on Assembly debates (Organisation of debates) actually state that
“[w]hen amendments are being considered, unless the Assembly decides otherwise,
the only members who may speak shall be one of the authors of the
amendment, or another member speaking in its favour, one member
opposed to the amendment and the Rapporteur or the committee chairperson
…”.
Note
43. Even so, it is important to point out that since committees
are supposed to adopt a stance on tabled amendments to their reports
before these are discussed in the plenary Assembly, they also have
the responsibility of appointing a spokesperson tasked with expressing
that stance (chairperson or rapporteur). This decision must be indicated
in the synopsis or minutes of the meeting, and the person chairing
the sitting should be notified of it. In Assembly practice, it is
assumed that this prerogative falls to the chairperson of the committee,
who is a guarantor of a certain neutrality, although this does not
prevent a rapporteur from fulfilling the task if duly authorised
to do so by the committee.
44. In addition, it would be wrong to believe that rapporteurs
are deprived of the right to speak when amendments are examined.
On the contrary, in practice, they are often the first to be given
the floor by the person chairing the sitting in order to speak against
an amendment that has been tabled. Some Assembly members even feel,
against the flow of comments made in the Bureau in June 2015, that
there is too much emphasis on the rapporteur's role in debates on
amendments, at the expense of other members who ask for the floor
in vain.
45. On the other hand, the question has been raised several times
in recent sessions regarding the interpretation of Rule 34.9, which
stipulates that “[a] rapporteur may not move any amendment which
has been rejected by the committee on whose behalf he or she is
reporting”, asking exactly what a rapporteur can or cannot do: is
it simply that they cannot speak to such an amendment in the sitting
or are they also forbidden to sign such an amendment? The old wording
of the rule
Note was
certainly clearer (“A Rapporteur may not, even in a personal capacity,
be the co-author of an amendment previously rejected by the committee
on whose behalf he is reporting”). Accordingly, the committee might
decide to clarify Rule 34 on this point too.
– Proposal
46. The rapporteur proposes revising the wording of Rule 34.9
to include the necessary clarification regarding the respective
prerogatives of the committee, in the prior examination of amendments,
and the committee’s chairperson and rapporteur, in presenting the
committee's position during the sitting, and on the limits of rapporteurs'
right of amendment. Rule 34.9 could therefore be reworded as follows:
“When
an amendment or sub-amendment is called, only the following shall
be heard: one of the signatories (or if none of them do so, any
other member of the Assembly), in order to move it, one member to
speak against and the chairperson or rapporteur of the committee
seized for report to express the committee’s opinion. An amendment
or sub-amendment which is not moved shall not be considered. An
amendment or sub-amendment which has been withdrawn by its signatories
may be moved by any other member of the Assembly. A rapporteur may
not sign or move any amendment or sub-amendment to a draft text
presented by the committee on whose behalf he or she is reporting
except for amendments or sub-amendments tabled on behalf of that
committee.”
A footnote would indicate how the committee's position shall
be presented (namely by “in favour” or “against”), in order to prevent
any misunderstanding in the plenary.
3.6 Participation
of secretaries of political groups in committee meetings
47. One issue was raised recently
regarding participation in committee meetings, pointing out that
the Assembly's Rules of Procedure do not mention the possibility
of secretaries of political groups attending them.
48. Consequently, Rule 48.8 of the Rules of Procedure could be
supplemented as follows: “Secretaries of national delegations and
secretaries of political groups may attend the meetings of committees
of the Assembly, except for those of the Monitoring Committee and
the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of
Human Rights.”
49. At a more general level, in view of the practice followed
by the committees with regard to participation in their meetings,
in particular during part-sessions, it may be useful to review and
harmonise the existing complementary texts. The Bureau of the Assembly
may therefore be instructed to prepare a memorandum to revise and
consolidate the regulations on access to committee meetings, for
further ratification by the Assembly.
4 Conclusion
50. Over the two years of preparation
of its 2014 report on the evaluation of the implementation of the
reform of the Parliamentary Assembly (
Doc. 13528), the Committee on Rules of Procedure examined in detail
and in depth a large number of proposals concerning improvement
of its functioning, of its organisational structure and of its means
of action, which came from members of the Assembly, the national
delegations, the political groups and the committees. This is why
the committee has not thought it desirable to restart a further
general process of consultation less than a year after delivering
its previous conclusions. Nonetheless, the rapporteur thought it
useful to ask the chairs of political groups to submit any proposals
to the Committee on Rules of Procedure. The committee members themselves
were invited to fuel this discussion.
51. The Committee on Rules of Procedure examined the rapporteur’s
proposals for amendments that might be made to the Rules of Procedure.
It recommends:
- regarding possible
amendments to the Rules of Procedure pursuant to Resolution 2018 (2014) in respect of the composition
of the Monitoring Committee, not to follow up on the
proposal to appoint members not belonging to a political group or
the proposal to allow participation of representatives of delegations
of non-member States;
- regarding the confidentiality
of the proceedings of the Monitoring Committee and the Committee on the Election of Judges
to the European Court of Human Rights, not to modify
Rule 48.3 on the in camera status of the meetings;
- regarding the upgrading of
the status of immediate past Presidents of the Assembly,
that Rule 20.3 of the Rules of Procedure be amended, as well as
Rules 44.1, 44.3 and 49.3 accordingly, so that the outgoing president
of the Assembly will be an ex officio member
of the Monitoring Committee and the Committee on Rules of Procedure
in addition to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy;
- regarding the status of chairpersons
of political groups, that Rule 19.5 of the Rules of Procedure
be amended, and Rule 44.1 accordingly, so that the chairpersons
of political groups will be ex officio members
of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, in addition
to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, the Monitoring
Committee and the Committee on Rules of Procedure;
- regarding the duration of
the term of office of the President of the Assembly and members
of committee and sub-committee bureaux, not to follow
up on the proposal to increase their term of office from two years
to three years;
- regarding replacement of committee
chairs who are ex officio members of certain committees, that
Rule 44.1 be amended for clarification purposes;
- regarding bureaux of committees,
that Rule 46.7 be amended for clarification purposes;
- regarding the procedure for
examining amendments in plenary sitting, that Rule 34.9
be amended for clarification purposes.
52. In view of the practice followed by the committees with regard
to participation in their meetings, the committee could inform the
Bureau of the Assembly of the need to review and harmonise the existing complementary
texts regarding the regulations on access to committee meetings
and submit the proposed changes for subsequent ratification by the
Assembly.
53. Finally, the committee decided to change the title of the
report to “Amendments to the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure”, since
there was no longer any need to refer to a follow-up to
Resolution 2018 (2014) in the light of the proposals made in the report.
