B Explanatory memorandum
by Ms Petra Bayr, rapporteurNote
1 Introduction
1. The members of the Parliamentary
Assembly are its greatest asset. Deeply rooted in their constituencies,
they guide its deliberations, drive its actions and guarantee the
legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness of its work. At a time
when both multilateralism and democracy are under threat, the role
of Assembly members becomes even more critical in demonstrating
that parliamentarians have a place in international affairs, parliamentary
diplomacy has an impact, and that the voice of elected representatives should
also be heard in intergovernmental organisations.
2. A unique feature of Assembly members is their dual mandate,
serving simultaneously as parliamentarians at both the national
and European levels. This dual role is invaluable because it enables members
to bridge national and European political arenas, enriching debates
with perspectives grounded in their domestic contexts while advancing
shared European values. It creates an interface between the Council of
Europe and the 700 million Europeans living in its 46 member States,
in their diversity of backgrounds, needs, expectations and political
views.
3. The fundamental premise of this report is that the Assembly’s
strength depends on the full engagement of its dual-mandate members.
Increasing participation, however, presents a multifaceted challenge
based on a wide range of personal and institutional factors.
4. The issue of member participation has been considered by the
Assembly on several occasions. In 2007, the Committee on Rules of
Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs conducted extensive
work, which culminated in the adoption of
Resolution 1583 (2007) “Improving the participation of members in Parliamentary Assembly
plenary sessions and committee meetings”. The related report examined
attendance at plenary sessions and committee meetings, proposing
measures to make meetings more interesting and livelier, reduce scheduling
conflicts and ensure that participation statistics were collected
and analysed systematically.
Note
5. The issue of participation was examined again in 2011 by the
ad hoc Committee on the Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly, which
was tasked with drawing up a report containing measures to make
the Assembly more politically relevant, effective and visible, and
to improve participation of Assembly members, while reinforcing
interaction between the Assembly and national parliaments.
Note This work resulted in the current committee
structure of the Assembly as well as in innovations to working methods
which are still applied today.
Note
6. Subsequently, in 2018 the ad hoc Committee on the role and
mission of the Parliamentary Assembly brought to the attention of
the Bureau a number of issues pertaining to the internal functioning
of the Assembly, including the number of part-sessions per year
and their duration, as well as members’ participation in plenary sittings
and in committee meetings.
Note
7. Building on previous reflections, the present report addresses
the issue of members’ participation in the work of the Assembly.
It takes into account lessons learned from previous reforms and
recent experiences, such as remote working methods. The report aims
to propose measures that would enable Assembly members to engage
more extensively in its deliberations, while enhancing the relevance,
timeliness, dynamism and inclusivity of these activities.
2 Consultation process
8. To ensure that this report
addresses the real concerns and aspirations of Assembly members,
the Committee on Rules, Ethics and Immunities (hereafter the Rules
Committee) initiated an extensive consultation process. A questionnaire
was distributed to all members, inviting detailed responses on a
wide range of participation-related issues. Questions addressed
members' experiences with plenary and committee attendance, speaking
opportunities, motivations for engagement, barriers encountered,
and suggestions for improvement. The questionnaire also solicited
views on procedural innovations such as interactive debate tools
and remote participation.
9. In addition, the Rules Committee consulted all Assembly committees
to gather concrete feedback on participation challenges faced during
their work.
10. Finally, this report is informed by valuable feedback from
a committee hearing with a member from the Greek delegation and
a former member from the United Kingdom delegation to the Assembly,
featuring national examples.
2.1 Key
findings from the questionnaire
11. Eighty-seven members of the
Assembly replied to the questionnaire. Their responses highlighted several
impediments to active participation, including insufficient time
for Assembly work and session preparation. Some members noted that
distance between the matters dealt with by the Assembly and their constituents’
concerns diminished their engagement, while other challenges cited
were limited time to accommodate speakers, insufficient prioritisation
by their national parliaments, and overlapping Assembly and national
parliamentary sessions. A few respondents also mentioned travel
difficulties to Strasbourg. Scheduling conflicts, particularly between
Assembly committee meetings held during part-sessions, emerged as
another issue.
12. A significant majority – 78% – of respondents felt that their
voices were heard within the Assembly. All respondents from the
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) and the Group
of the Unified European Left (UEL), as well as respondents not belonging
to a political group reported feeling adequately heard. The European
Conservatives, Patriots & Affiliates (ECPA) group, however,
registered the highest percentage of negative responses, with 43%
of the ECPA respondents indicating they did not feel heard. In general,
opposition members felt less heard than those in the governing majority,
with 35% of opposition respondents as opposed to 11% among the majority
expressing this sentiment.
13. Other key findings from the questionnaire include:
- Strong desire for clearer purpose
and visible impact: Many respondents emphasised that feeling their work
contributes meaningfully to Council of Europe values is a primary
motivator for participation. Some members reported frustration when
contributions seemed to have limited visibility or practical effect.
- Recognition and encouragement are important: Responses
highlighted that recognition could sustain members’ motivation.
Enhanced visibility of Assembly work remains a priority, as many
members report that their efforts are insufficiently recognised
by both constituents and national parliaments. This perceived lack
of recognition impacts their ability to justify greater participation.
Suggestions included public acknowledgment of active participation,
transparent reporting of contributions and voting records, and incentives
such as priority in the lists of speakers.
- Challenges for smaller delegations: Members from smaller
delegations frequently cited difficulties in covering all committee
work due to their limited number. This creates pressure and may
reduce the quality or breadth of their involvement. They recommended
more equitable distribution of roles and enhanced support for multitasking
members.
- Need for transparent and timely management of the lists
of speakers: Perceived lack of transparency about the rules defining
the compilation of the lists of speakers and late publication were
identified as deterrent to effective debate preparation and delegation
co-ordination.
- Remote participation as a vital accommodation: The value
of in-person meetings for fostering international parliamentary
dialogue was constantly highlighted. Health issues, caring responsibilities, and
travel constraints were however repeatedly mentioned as factors
limiting physical attendance at committee meetings. There is growing
support for enabling remote participation under specific, justified circumstances,
such as parental leave or serious health condition. This approach
aligns with the provisions of Resolution
2615 (2025) “Promoting inclusive participation in parliamentary
life: gender equality, accessibility and inclusive policies”, which
advocates the facilitation of online participation in committee
meetings for members unable to attend in person due to caring responsibilities.
Allowing remote attendance under defined conditions was seen as
an important step toward inclusivity.
- Communication and support services: Several respondents
requested better advance communication about meeting schedules,
lists of speakers, and deadlines. Calls for improved media coverage
and strategic communications were reiterated. There was widespread
appreciation for the pace-apps Help Desk but there were calls to
enhance its visibility and capacity. It was also suggested that
training sessions, informational resources, introductory seminars,
and mentoring programmes would benefit new members and enhance their
active involvement.
14. Members expressed differing views on committee membership,
with some preferring to focus on a single committee and others supporting
involvement in multiple committees. To incentivise participation,
proposals included offering prioritised positions on the lists of
speakers for active members in committee meetings and improving
follow-up mechanisms for Assembly resolutions, alongside clearer
national-level guidance. Frustrations were noted about time constraints
limiting speaking opportunities.
2.2 Key
feedback from committees
15. On 18 December 2024, the Chairperson
of the Rules Committee initiated a consultation with chairpersons
of other committees to explore measures that would encourage greater
participation of parliamentarians in the Assembly’s work. Responses
were received from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights,
the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, and
the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development,
providing valuable insights.
16. The committees offered recommendations on the format and structure
of meetings, with the majority favouring in-person committee meetings
as the standard, reserving hybrid formats for exceptional cases.
They also suggested more engaging and collaborative meeting formats,
such as targeted workshops and increased co-operation between committees
and networks. While there was general satisfaction with the frequency
of meetings, concerns were raised about agenda clashes during part-sessions
and whether the current committee structure adequately addresses
pressing issues.
17. Additionally, the need to enhance the Assembly’s visibility
at national level through more frequent oral debriefings in national
parliaments and broader dissemination of decisions via social media
was highlighted. While digital tools like pace-apps were valued,
their usability was sometimes problematic. Suggestions to boost engagement
included organising more country visits and strengthening co-ordination
through parliamentary networks and alliances.
18. The consultation outcomes have informed the proposals set
out in this report, ensuring they reflect both practical concerns
and motivational dynamics reported by members themselves.
3 Active
participation and motivation
19. This report’s fundamental aim
is to increase both the number of members participating in the Assembly work
and the extent and quality of their engagement. Engagement encompasses
attendance, speaking opportunities, contributions across committees
and debates, and the role in shaping Council of Europe policies.
20. Increasing active and meaningful participation in a parliamentary
assembly requires more than procedural obligations, it depends on
fostering the right internal motivators: sense of purpose, ownership, recognition
and impact. To truly strengthen participation, parliamentary institutions
must nurture all four creating an environment where members not
only feel that their work matters, but also see that it belongs
to them, is valued, and makes a difference.
21. Four key motivators should guide the aim of increasing participation:
- Sense
of purpose: It is essential that members understand and
embrace the vital role of the Assembly as the “engine” of the Council
of Europe, where ideas are generated, momentum is built, and the Organisation’s
values are promoted through permanent interparliamentary dialogue.
Members are more willing to participate in the Assembly's activities
when they feel that their motivations and values are aligned with
those of the Assembly. A strong sense of purpose can come from members
feeling that their work contributes to a meaningful purpose and
that they are participating in a “mission” rather than a mere duty.
This sense of purpose can foster a feeling of belonging to the institution,
the Assembly, and the Council of Europe, as well as the “European
family” at large, thereby encouraging collaboration. It must go
beyond simple partisan logics and remind members that their work
has practical value for many people beyond short-term interests.
This fosters long-term engagement, where members feel committed even
after they have left the Assembly.
- Ownership: Members
should feel that their influence on the Assembly agenda and outcomes
is real and valued, fostering greater investment and initiative.
when members feel that they are the driving force behind what happens
in the Assembly, they are encouraged to contribute more actively
and to be more critical and proactive. This, in turn, increases
their sense of responsibility and accountability, resulting in more
consistent attendance and engagement. The Assembly needs to find
more ways to encourage all members to become proactive participants
who can influence its work. While this is already the case for many
members, it should be the norm. Moreover, a sense of ownership encourages
members to propose new ideas and innovations. They invest in the
Assembly's future rather than being temporary participants, and
this makes the Assembly, on the one hand, more sustainable and,
on the other, more responsive to members' needs and proposals. At
the same time, members are more willing to defend and promote the
Assembly and the values of the Council of Europe when they feel
they are part of it and are proud of their contribution, impact
and legacy
- Recognition:
Active members should receive visibility and formal acknowledgment,
reinforcing motivation and rewarding contributions. the Assembly
should do more to recognise the work and contributions of its members.
This would foster continued engagement and motivate members to stay active
and committed. Recognising members' work can lead to increased engagement,
highlight positive role models and set standards for new members
of the Assembly. Effective recognition of their merits within the
Assembly can also create future opportunities and become a strong
motivator
- Impact: Member
participation must produce tangible outcomes both in the Assembly
and nationally, positioning Assembly members as influential ambassadors
of the Council of Europe. If members can visualise the result of
their efforts and realise that their work has led to real change
(e.g. shaping national laws, influencing policy, improving constituents'
lives and fostering and protecting human rights, democracy and the
rule of law across Europe and the world) they are more likely to
stay engaged. This can be particularly effective if members can
see that their contribution to the Assembly’s work (motions, reports,
speeches and amendments, for example) influences debates in their
national parliaments. Working in the Assembly, a pan-European parliamentary
body, where members from different countries, cultures, languages,
and religions can co-operate towards a shared goal, can foster members’
views of their role as public servants and their sense of belonging
to an organisation that transcends party, election periods, and
national boundaries
22. These four elements are not
standalone, they are interdependent. A sense of purpose might remain abstract
without concrete results, and a sense of ownership can help engagement,
but it needs to be recognised in order to be sustainable. These
four dimensions – purpose, ownership, recognition, and impact –
must be balanced and mutually reinforcing for sustainable engagement.
4 How
to increase active participation and enhance motivation?
23. To meet these ambitions, the
report proposes a set of concrete measures, articulated under four
broad priorities:
- sustaining
the Assembly’s engagement with Council of Europe priorities and
its responsiveness to the evolving political context;
- strengthening member engagement;
- facilitating participation;
- amplifying impact and visibility.
4.1 Sustaining
the Assembly’s engagement with Council of Europe priorities and
its responsiveness to the evolving political context
24. To remain effective and relevant,
the Assembly must not only uphold its core functions but also adapt
its working methods to evolving political realities and emerging
priorities of the Council of Europe. This requires a careful balance
between innovation and the preservation of established procedures,
ensuring that new initiatives strengthen – rather than dilute –
the Assembly’s deliberative and oversight roles. The following measures
are aimed at enhancing responsiveness, fostering engagement, and
aligning parliamentary work more closely with the Organisation’s
strategic objectives.
4.1.1 Strengthening
collaboration through networks to enhance member engagement and
committee work
25. One of the most significant
innovations in the last decade within the Assembly has been the
emergence of networks, which offer a valuable platform for fostering
connections among members, enabling more dynamic collaboration and
dialogue on specific themes or areas of interest. Their number having
increased over the years, the Assembly currently counts six networks:
on the situation of the children of Ukraine, for a healthy environment,
women free from violence, No Hate Parliamentary Alliance, for free
and fair elections and for the rights of LGBTI people.
Note The characteristic of networks is
that their membership is open across committees, which enables them
to potentially attract a diversified pool of members.
26. While networks have succeeded in adding dynamism and encouraging
a broader range of contributions, a balanced approach is necessary
to ensure that members continue to invest time and effort in committee
work, as the latter is central to the Assembly’s deliberative function.
27. Further adjustments may be introduced to ensure that networks
are designed, managed and phased out in a way that complements rather
than divert attention from committees, ensuring that they act as
a catalyst for deeper involvement on a few priority issues. This
balanced approach would ultimately strengthen both member engagement
and the quality of the Assembly work, ensuring that efforts are
focused rather than dispersed.
4.1.2 Special
committees
28. To strengthen the Assembly’s
capacity for in-depth examination of specific issues – particularly
those aligned with the priorities defined by the Committee of Ministers
– the Bureau may consider establishing special committees, subject
to ratification by the Assembly or the Standing Committee. These
committees would operate under a clear, time-limited mandate (one
year, renewable once); deliver a single, high-quality output (typically
a report); and be limited in number (no more than two active at
any given time). When deciding on establishing such a special committee,
the Bureau will decide on its exact size and composition, including on
whether the members will be appointed by national delegations or
political groups.
29. Special committees would enable focused analysis of matters
of cross-sectional importance – such as, for example, artificial
intelligence or the New Democratic Pact – while promoting interdisciplinary
approaches, encouraging targeted research, and enhancing the quality
of resolutions and recommendations.
30. This model would allow the Assembly to address emerging or
complex issues effectively, without overburdening existing structures
or creating new permanent bodies.
4.1.3 Meaningful
participation of high-level speakers invited to address the Assembly
31. While the presence of guest
speakers at the Assembly adds visibility and prestige, their contribution
to the substantive work of the Assembly can appear limited at times.
This raises the question of how the Assembly could make the most
of these opportunities, not only in terms of visibility, but also
in terms of meaningful engagement for members, for the Organisation,
and for the guest speakers.
32. Speakers invited to address the Assembly should, irrespective
of their status, answer questions from members of the Assembly.
This should ensure that their presence can be part of a fruitful
exchange. This is important because of the function and nature of
the Assembly as the deliberative organ of the Council of Europe
and as a forum for discussion and debate.
4.1.4 Having
a holistic picture of the whole Organisation to create synergies
33. It is essential to maintain
a comprehensive view of the Organisation as a whole in order to
identify and strengthen possible synergies. This includes opportunities
for meaningful exchanges with representatives of the Council of
Europe and its bodies, such as the Court, the Commissioner for Human
Rights, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice
Commission), expert bodies, and steering committees within the Organisation
or its institutions, depending on the subject matter. The aim should
be genuine co-operation and constructive dialogue, rather than purely
formal or procedural interactions.
4.2 Strengthening
member engagement
4.2.1 Introducing
“blue card questions”
34. The Assembly will trial a “blue
card” mechanism inspired by the European Parliament, allowing speakers on
behalf of political groups and rapporteurs to ask direct questions
to speakers from other political groups. This will increase interaction
and foster structured, timely interventions. Additional time (thirty
seconds) will be afforded for replies. The procedure will be trialled
and may be adapted or discontinued if ineffective. The Rules of
Procedure will be amended by inserting a paragraph after Rule 37
to provide the legal basis for this measure.
35. In order to improve the interactivity of parliamentary debates
and to encourage more interactive and responsive discussions, a
system of “blue card questions” could be introduced, modelled on
Rule 178(10) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.
While Rule 37 of our current Rules of Procedure allows a speaker
to be interrupted with the President's permission for a question
or a point of order, this possibility is seldom exercised and primarily
serves as a procedural device for raising points of order. In contrast,
the “blue card” system provides a more structured framework designed
to enhance the interactivity – and therefore the quality – of debates.
36. This mechanism should be adapted to fit the specific context
of our Assembly and, for now, be limited to speakers who are representing
political groups and to the rapporteur(s). Each of these speakers
would be permitted to use a maximum of two blue cards per debate,
and this rule would apply equally to current affairs debates and
debates held under urgent procedure.
37. It is important that the "blue card" system be used only in
debates where the President deems it appropriate. Notably, this
system would not apply to exchanges involving guest speakers. The
primary objective of this measure is to stimulate greater interaction
and engagement among speakers and to enable timely, well-structured
interventions that contribute to a more dynamic and deliberative
debate.
38. To implement this proposal, a new Rule should be introduced,
to follow Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure. The proposed rule would
read as follows: “During a debate, the President may give the floor
to rapporteur(s) and to members speaking on behalf of their political
groups who indicate, by raising a blue card, their intention to
ask another member not belonging to the same political group, in
response to that member’s speech, a question lasting no more than
thirty seconds, directly related to the speech and the subject of
the debate. The member to whom the question is put may respond within
the same time limit. The rapporteur(s) may make use of at most two
blue cards per debate, members speaking on behalf of their political
groups one blue card per debate.”
39. Discussions at committee level showed that members would welcome
the idea of “blue card questions” or similar mechanisms to increase
interactivity during debates. Many expressed the view that such
features would make sessions livelier and foster more dynamic exchanges.
Nevertheless, the use of “blue card questions” should be introduced
on a trial basis during a specific part-session, with the possibility
of discontinuing the practice if it is found to disrupt the debate
or fails to be utilised.
4.2.2 Increasing
speaking opportunities
40. To allow more members to participate
in debates with many registered speakers, the Bureau may reduce individual
speaking time from three to two minutes at the start of a part-session,
with early notification to speakers for better preparation, while
political group representatives would keep three minutes; strict enforcement
of these limits, possibly by cutting microphones, is also recommended
to ensure fairness and order. When speaking time is reduced for
others, committee chairpersons’ reply time would also be shortened accordingly.
41. In their contributions to the work on this report, members
of the Assembly often mentioned the importance of being able to
speak during a debate and the need, where possible, to avoid cutting
the list of speakers. While one way of addressing this in recent
years has been to reduce the speaking time to two minutes rather
than three, after thorough discussions in the committee, it is proposed
to keep to the existing rule which sets three minutes’ speaking
time per speaker. Should there be a particularly high number of registered
speakers, the Bureau of the Assembly will continue the practice
it has already put in place over the past few years to reduce the
speaking time to two minutes, on an ad hoc basis, to allow a greater
number of members to take the floor in the relevant debates. It
is proposed that speakers on behalf of political groups should continue
to have three-minute speaking time. This decision shall be taken
by the Bureau at the start of the part-session, so that members
are informed early enough to adjust their speeches to the allocated
time.
42. Consequently, I propose that the Bureau should reduce the
speaking time to two minutes only for debates where there is a high
number of registered speakers, in order to maintain a reasonable
pace and allow more members of the Assembly to express their views.
This practice, which has already been successfully applied in recent
part-sessions in such circumstances, appears to make discussions
more fluid and inclusive.
43. Therefore, in the additional provisions relating to Assembly
debates concerning “Speaking time”, paragraph 1 should state: “Speakers
registered for a debate, including youth rapporteurs, shall have
three minutes’ speaking time, unless the Bureau decides at the start
of the part-session that, due to the high number of registered speakers,
the speaking time for that particular debate shall be reduced to
two minutes. Speakers on behalf of political groups shall have three
minutes’ speaking time.”
44. It should be noted that speakers are also expected to conclude
their remarks within the allocated time, which is not always observed.
It has been noted in discussions that members who frequently use
more than the allotted three minutes are, in essence, depriving
other colleagues of the opportunity to speak, especially when the
list of speakers must be cut. Rules Committee discussions have suggested
that the President or the vice-President presiding over the sitting
should intervene to enforce time limits, thereby ensuring orderly proceedings
and an equitable opportunity for all members. It is suggested that
one way of ensuring this may be to automatically cut the microphone
once a speaker has reached the time limit.
45. Chairpersons of committees submitting a report could also
have a reply time of two minutes instead of three, when the speaking
time has been reduced to two minutes for other speakers. Thus, in
the additional provisions relating to Assembly debates concerning
the “Speaking time”, at the end of paragraph 4, I propose adding
at the end of the paragraph the sentence “It shall be two minutes
if the speaking time has been reduced to two minutes for the other
speakers.”
46. If a member asks for the floor for the very first time, he
or she should be placed on a position on the list of speakers that
would allow him or her to take the floor.
4.2.3 Rewarding
voting participation
47. To foster consistent active
involvement in plenary debates, the ten members with the highest
voting participation during the previous part-session will advance
seven places on the list of speaker for the next part-session (currently
they are only moved up three positions). The additional provisions
relating to Assembly debates, paragraph 10 on the order of speakers,
should be amended accordingly.
4.2.4 Distribution
of rapporteurships
48. The responses to the questionnaire
revealed that 51% of respondents had never held a “special role”, such
as rapporteur, (vice-) chairperson, member of an election observation
mission or general rapporteur. In contrast, a minority of respondents
(3%) had held one of these “special roles” more than 15 times. This suggests
that more can be done to encourage more active engagement by a broader
range of members of the Assembly.
49. To better distribute roles and positions in the Assembly,
the maximum number of regular reports a member can hold at any one
time should be limited to three. This number would not include reports
prepared in the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments
by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee),
under the urgent procedure, opinions on the reports of other committees
and reports where the chairperson necessarily needs to be the rapporteur
as is the case for certain reports of the Monitoring Committee and
the Rules Committee.
50. For similar reasons, youth rapporteurships and general rapporteurships
should also be subject to a limitation on the number of mandates.
I propose that no member can have more than one role as general
or youth rapporteur at any one time.
51. Additionally, I propose that no committee may simultaneously
have more than four general rapporteurs at any one time. This will
allow committees to allocate adequate time, resources, and attention
to each general rapporteurship, ensuring that the work produced
is of consistently high quality.
4.3 Facilitating
participation
4.3.1 Helping
new members integrate
52. In recent years, the Assembly's
accelerated pace of work has significantly enhanced its ability
to respond promptly to emerging and pressing issues. This has proven
invaluable in times of rapid political change. However, the intensity
and speed of proceedings can present challenges for newcomers, who
may need additional time to familiarise themselves with the Assembly
and its procedures before they can contribute fully and confidently.
This could be addressed through more continuous training for new
members, introductory seminars, mentoring schemes and regular informational
sessions, building on existing practices, that explain procedures
and share practical insights into the Assembly’s work.
4.3.2 Remote
participation in committees
53. Ensuring diverse participation
– particularly by pregnant women or parents of very young children
and those facing health or caregiving challenges – strengthens the
Assembly’s inclusivity and decision making, and
the Assembly Resolution 2615
(2025) “Promoting inclusive participation in parliamentary
life: gender equality, accessibility and inclusive policies” supports
limited, exceptional online participation to accommodate such circumstances,
with safeguards to maintain the quality of committee work. Proposed
changes would trial and review remote attendance options, aligned
with the Council of Europe’s Gender Equality Strategy.
54. Ensuring a diversity of voices is essential to making the
work of committees and the Assembly as robust and inclusive as possible.
55. Full participation of women in all Assembly activities – including
panels, hearings, debates, and expert consultations – is crucial
for inclusivity and representative decision making. The Assembly
should be especially vigilant in avoiding all-male panels and should
systematically invite female experts to hearings and events. This practice
aligns with the Council of Europe’s
Gender
Equality Strategy, which highlights the importance of equal access to
political decision-making spaces.
56. It should be recalled that paragraph 14 of
Resolution 2615 (2025) states: “The Assembly invites the Committee on Rules,
Ethics and Immunities and the Bureau of the Assembly to consider
taking necessary steps to enable the online participation in committee
meetings of members who are unable to attend in person due to care
responsibilities, including caring for children under the age of
three.”
57. In their responses to the questionnaire, members emphasised
the value of in-person exchanges and the need to prevent a shift
towards predominantly online meetings. While alternates may attend
in place of absent members, accommodations should exist for those
facing significant difficulties. Such provisions should extend online
attendance to those with serious health conditions preventing travel,
as well as to primary carers of children under the age of three.
Third-trimester pregnancy, complicated pregnancies, childbirth,
or miscarriage should also qualify as grounds for requesting online
attendance due to “serious health issues.” These measures should
be introduced on a trial basis and regularly reviewed to ensure
they do not adversely affect the quality of Assembly committee meetings,
bearing in mind that alternates can attend meetings as needed.
58. To enable exceptional online attendance, the Assembly should
entrust the Secretary General of the Assembly, on the basis of guidelines
approved by the Bureau of the Assembly, with the implementation
of
Resolution 2615 (2025), including support for limited, exceptional online attendance
in committee work for pregnant members, members caring for children
under the age of three, or facing health and caregiving challenges.
4.3.3 Managing
the lists of speakers in a timely and transparent manner
59. It is recommended to enhance
transparency of the list of speakers by creating clear explanatory materials,
publishing the provisional list earlier before debates, giving new
members priority speaking positions to encourage participation,
and better distributing the Members’ Handbook through QR-coded posters
and delegation secretaries. These measures aim to improve communication,
accessibility, and inclusivity within the Assembly.
60. Several members have expressed concerns about insufficient
clarity and transparency regarding the criteria and procedures for
compiling the list of speakers, as set out in the additional provisions
relating to Assembly debates, on “
Order
of speakers”, of the Rules of Procedure. This lack of accessible
information, particularly for new members, has fostered a perception
of opaqueness and hindered engagement.
61. To address these concerns, several measures could be proposed:
- The secretariat should prioritise
the creation of clear, user-friendly explanatory materials on the
list of speakers process and relevant Rules of Procedure. This should
include succinct info-graphics, step-by-step guides, and, in particular,
a one-pager outlining how the list of speakers is formed and managed. Distribution
of these materials should target new members but they should remain
accessible to all.
- To facilitate transparency and allow members adequate
time to review and raise any issues, the provisional list of speakers
for upcoming debates (except under urgent procedure) should be published at
least 12 hours before the opening of the relevant sitting, subject
to necessary revisions. Implementing this measure would require
amending paragraph 4 in the additional provisions relating to Assembly debate
concerning the list of speakers, ensuring a sufficient interval
between the closure of the list and its publication.
- The “Members’
Handbook” provides a helpful summary of plenary rules and the
list of speakers procedure. To increase its visibility and ease
of access, I recommend displaying posters with QR codes linking
directly to the handbook throughout Council of Europe premises and
ensuring that secretaries of national delegations share this resource
with their members.
4.3.4 Encouraging
joint committee hearings and timely rapporteur appointments
62. Joint hearings have proven
effective in enhancing co-operation and limiting duplication. Committees
are encouraged to continue this practice. Rapporteurs for opinions
should be invited to relevant hearings in the committees preparing
the report (at no extra cost for the Assembly).
63. Since committee and plenary meetings are limited and members
of parliament must travel from all the member States, it is important
that the Assembly focuses on its main work when it meets. Therefore, administrative
tasks should take as little time as possible, so there is more time
for discussions, debates, and hearings. Tasks like candidate calls,
progress reports, reporting back on the participation to events
should be handled insofar as possible quickly, ideally in writing
or without debate, unless explicitly asked for, to save time for
substantive matters.
64. Committees could inform members immediately when they receive
a reference and start a written process to invite candidates for
rapporteur roles. This would give members more time to think about
standing and encourage wider participation. It would also save time
in meetings by speeding up the appointment of rapporteurs and allowing
work to begin sooner.
4.3.5 Streamlining
periodic tasks to prioritise Assembly debates
65. It would be helpful to review
how periodic tasks are managed in the Assembly and committees to
make sure they take the minimum necessary time. This would free
up more time for debates and hearings.
66. The Monitoring Committee’s progress report could be debated
every two years, matching the term of its chairperson. This would
make the debate more focused and thoughtful, highlighting progress
and challenges, including in countries where no report has been
possible.
67. Likewise, the chairperson of the Committee on the Election
of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights could present a
short report every two years as part of the Bureau’s progress report.
This would provide a useful update on working methods.
68. Furthermore, in order to ensure that all members are fully
informed, the chair or vice-chair of the Committee on the Election
of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights could be invited,
at the opening of the relevant agenda item during the debate on
the progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly, to make a very
short oral intervention – for example, one minute per list – to
present the committee’s recommendation on the list of candidates
submitted by a member State for the post of judge.
4.3.6 Good
practices in national parliaments to avoid scheduling conflicts
and improve participation
69. National parliaments can introduce
formal or informal methods to help their members take part in Assembly
work. Raising awareness of these best practices can encourage wider
use across different countries.
70. Some parliaments, like those in Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands,
Sweden, and the UK, use a system called “pairing”. This pairs members
from the majority and opposition, allowing each paired member to
miss a vote without changing the overall balance.
71. Parliaments in Andorra, Austria, North Macedonia, and Ukraine
co-ordinate their schedules with the Assembly calendar to avoid
conflicts and better plan plenary sessions.
72. Enhancing co-ordination of dates with other supranational
parliamentary bodies, such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Parliamentary
Assembly of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the
Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), is important, as many Assembly
members also serve as delegates to these assemblies.
73. Additionally, when holding meetings between part-sessions,
notably in Paris, committees should consider rotating the days of
the week on which they meet. This would accommodate members who
have recurring national obligations on specific weekdays and enable
them to participate more often.
4.4 Amplifying
impact and visibility
74. Impact and visibility are key
elements, both for the institution and for its members. For the
Assembly, greater visibility increases its capacity to shape policy,
attract broader support, and demonstrate accountability to citizens
and stakeholders. From the perspective of members, enhanced impact
and recognition make their efforts more valued, motivating them
to participate actively and ensuring that their contributions resonate
both within the Assembly and in their home parliaments. This, in
turn, enables members to act as stronger ambassadors of the Council
of Europe’s values, building closer connections between the Assembly
and national legislatures.
4.4.1 Pace-apps
and help desk visibility
75. The ease of use of IT tools
was highlighted in both the survey and consultations with committees.
It would certainly ease the members’ work if the Assembly were to
develop a dedicated mobile application for pace-apps, ensuring that
it integrates best practices by reviewing and considering existing
applications used by other international parliamentary bodies.
76. One should also consider implementing appropriate communication
tools, such as Signal or WhatsApp Channels, to enable members to
quickly and easily receive relevant public updates about the Assembly’s activities.
Participation should remain voluntary, with special attention given
to how to keep former members who wish to stay informed about the
Assembly's work engaged. An acoustic voting alarm in the building
and, if possible via an app should be introduced 5 minutes before
the rapporteur’s reply to the debate.
77. The visibility and accessibility of the pace-apps help desk
during part-sessions should be increased to provide enhanced user
support and facilitate quicker resolution of technical issues.
78. Furthermore, a number of members would appreciate if the secretariat
could evaluate the possibility of streamlining the login process
by reconsidering the necessity of two-factor authentication where
it is reasonable to do so, in order to improve ease of access to
pace-apps.
4.4.2 Clearer
communication in report titles
79. Since the title of a report
is often the first thing that external audiences – such as journalists, parliamentarians
and the public – see, the use of clear and concise titles should
be encouraged. To help with this, the secretariat, especially the
communications team, could offer editorial support to rapporteurs
and committees to create titles that are expressive, easy to understand
and suitable for the media.
4.4.3 Improving
communication and co-ordination with national parliaments
80. To increase the visibility
of the Assembly and its members at the national level, the secretariat
of the Assembly could set up arrangements with national parliaments
to broadcast its plenary sessions live on national parliamentary
TV channels, where possible. These broadcasts could focus on highlighting
the contributions and activities of the national delegations through
their own parliamentary television channels or other media platforms.
81. To strengthen the connection between the Assembly and national
parliaments, national delegations are also encouraged to take a
more active role in promoting and reporting on the Assembly’s work
within their own countries. This could include:
- Actively sharing information
about the Assembly’s work. National delegations could establish
regular briefings for their national parliaments. These could cover
the outcomes and priorities of each part-session, committee meetings
and special events. Briefings might be written summaries, oral presentations
during parliamentary sessions, dedicated meetings for relevant parliamentary
committees or informal meetings for interested fellow MPs.
- Using the Assembly’s newsletter, “PACE – This Week in
Brief”, which is prepared by the Secretariat and sent out every
Friday, as a resource for these briefings. This newsletter provides
a clear overview of the week’s key events. Delegations are also
invited to inform the secretariat about any communication tools that
might improve information sharing and understanding between the
Assembly and national parliaments.
- Adopting more formal approaches such as regular plenary
debates, written reports to parliamentary offices or specific agenda
items at committee meetings, which are directly related to the Assembly’s work.
82. Some national delegations already have reporting systems in
place. For example:
- The French
national delegation publishes a report on attendanceNote for each part-session and committee meeting.
After each part-session, the head of the delegation produces a detailed
reportNote covering all topics discussed in
the plenary and all members’ contributions.
- The Swiss Parliament maintains a dedicated webpageNote for its Assembly delegation’s activities.
They publish annual reports on this page, which are submitted to
both parliamentary chambers, along with summary reports after each
part-session. These include key topics, members’ speeches, the list
of elected European Court of Human Rights judges, and any special
events held during the week.
- The Italian Chamber of Deputies has a webpageNote where all adopted resolutions are
published in Italian. After each part-session, they release a newsletter
that summarises the main discussions and members’ participation,
following a similar format to the Swiss reports.
- The Swedish parliament (Riksdag) requires its delegation
to submit an annual report on its activities. This report is considered
by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, followed by a debate in the
full Chamber.Note
- In the UK Parliament, internal reports are produced on
part-session activities. Occasionally, debates are organised to
discuss specific issues related to the Council of Europe or the
work of the Assembly.
83. To complement or follow up this report, best practices should
be collected on how parliaments of the member States follow up on
and increase the visibility of Assembly activities at the national
level. This could start with a request through the European Centre
for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD) to national
delegations and might then include discussions with heads and secretaries
of national delegations to share good practices.
84. Some parliaments already have arrangements, such as designating
rapporteurs for international co-operation or human rights or including
regular agenda items on Assembly developments. By identifying and sharing
these examples, we can offer practical guidance and inspiration
to other delegations and parliaments.
85. Each Assembly committee should be encouraged to establish
links with its equivalent committees in national parliaments. The
goal would be to develop a more complementary network between committees
at the national and Assembly levels. This could include holding
joint hearings – for example, the Committee on Legal Affairs and
Human Rights has done this with the UK Joint Committee on Human
Rights – as well as regular meetings between committee chairs, both
in person and online. These meetings might take place during visits
or events in member States. There could also be more structured
communication on topics of mutual interest between the relevant
national and Assembly committees.
86. Communication should go both ways. National parliaments reporting
on Assembly activities should also be encouraged to share information
on their own debates, decisions and initiatives related to Council
of Europe values and priorities. This would ensure that discussions
in the Assembly benefit from national parliamentary input. It would
also promote coherence between the Assembly’s work and national
priorities, as well as encourage parliamentary diplomacy.
87. The Assembly should continue to promote study visits by staff
from national parliaments. These visits help increase mutual understanding
and awareness of the Assembly’s work and procedures.
88. Parliamentarians are strongly encouraged to consult the handbook,
“National
parliaments as guarantors of human rights in Europe”, which is available in 13 languages. This practical
guide offers useful advice and examples of how Assembly members
can improve their legislative, oversight and representative roles
to better protect human rights. Chapter 6 highlights the special
role of national parliamentarians, especially Assembly members,
as key links between the Council of Europe and national parliaments.
It explains how Assembly members help ensure that international
human rights standards are reflected in national laws and practices. The
chapter encourages all parliamentarians to engage with the Council
of Europe’s bodies, use its resources, follow up on its recommendations
and learn from the human rights work of other member States.
89. These actions will strengthen the connection between national
parliaments and the Council of Europe, highlight the Assembly’s
important role in human rights, and provide members with tools to
help in their daily work. Ultimately, this will encourage greater
participation and commitment across member States.
4.4.4 Addressing
Strasbourg accessibility
90. Travelling to Strasbourg is
a challenge for the Assembly members. Data on travel to Strasbourg
for official purposes at the Council of Europe should be collected
and shared with regional and national authorities to advocate for
improved public transport connections.
5 Conclusion
91. Since its establishment, the
Assembly has embodied a pioneering vision: ensuring that parliamentarians are
involved in a multilateral organisation and contribute to its ambitious
mission of promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
92. However, today this mission is facing unprecedented challenges.
In an era characterised by democratic decline and diminishing support
for multilateral institutions, the Assembly's role is more crucial
than ever. Whether the Assembly remain an authoritative interlocutor
within the Council of Europe's institutional framework depends on
its members. Their knowledge, expertise, commitment, and unique
dual mandate – representing both their national parliaments and
the broader Council of Europe – form the very foundation upon which
the Assembly’s legitimacy and effectiveness rest.
93. The proposals in this report are intended to create a framework
to enable Assembly members to fulfil their role. Only a framework
that values purpose, offers ownership, recognises effort, ensures
impact and protects equality can empower Assembly members to act
as true ambassadors of Council of Europe values, bridging European
ideals and national realities.
94. Implementing these measures will reinforce the Assembly’s
relevance and enhance its institutional legitimacy, ensuring its
continued impact in shaping a Europe grounded in shared values and
capable of withstanding the complex political challenges of our
time.
