B Explanatory
memorandum, by Mr Jurgens
1 Introduction
1. The Rules of Procedure adopted
by the Assembly on 4 November 1999 (
Resolution 1202 (1999)) came into force on 24 January 2000. In the meantime
these revised rules have been amended by the adoption of various
resolutions. Traditionally, during the “lifetime” of completely
revised rules, one or more reviews of their operation are made (for
example,
Resolutions
602 (1975),
895 (1988),
1234 (2000)).
2. A motion for a resolution on the application and amendment
of various provisions of the Rules of Procedure presented by Mr Gross
and others (
Doc. 10915) was transmitted to the Committee on Rules of Procedure
and Immunities for report on 26 June 2006. Two other motions for
a resolution presented by Mr Severin and others on the need to modify
the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly in order to promote its external
relations (
Doc. 11000) and by Mr Wodarg and others on the election of committee
chairpersons and their term of office (
Doc. 11122) were also transmitted to the committee on 2 October
2006 and 16 March 2007 respectively for taking into account in the
framework of the preparation of this report.
3. Moreover, under the terms of Rule 66.2, the Bureau of the
Assembly has,
inter alia,
instructed the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities to
examine the following matters:
- criteria
for the drawing-up of the list of speakers and list of questions
during part-sessions (AS/Bur (2006) 53 and synopsis of the meeting
on 29 May 2006);
- procedure in committee for examining and adopting draft
texts (synopsis of the meeting on 2 October 2006);
- procedure and practice for the examination of motions
for resolutions and recommendations (synopsis of the meeting on
2 October 2006);
- the composition of the Joint Committee regarding the Assembly
(synopsis of the meeting on 2 October 2006);
- the possibility of addressing spontaneous questions to
the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers when he or she addresses
the Assembly (synopsis of the meeting on 6 October 2006).
4. The review operated by the Committee on Rules of Procedure
and Immunities did not consist of a complete sift of all provisions
of the rules but was rather aimed at examining:
- provisions which have not given
complete satisfaction or no longer correspond to Assembly or Standing Committee
practice, including major lacunae in the rules;
- instructions by the Bureau of the Assembly to the Committee
on Rules of Procedure and Immunities to examine the operation of
various rules;
- proposals by committee members.
5. On the basis of these categories the rapporteur has identified
the rules which should be discussed or amended (completed) by the
committee.
6. Although priority was given to the rules proper of the Assembly,
this did not exclude the consideration of any complementary texts
to the rules which have given rise to questions. During his preparatory
work the rapporteur had contact with the President of the Assembly,
the chairpersons of political groups and of several national delegations
to whom he had sent his preliminary proposals, other Assembly members
and high officials of the Assembly. He is grateful for their suggestions,
most of which have been borne in mind for this report.
2 Rules which have not given
complete satisfaction or no longer correspond to Assembly practice (including
major lacunae in the rules)
2.1 General
7. In the last seven years since
the entry into force of the completely revised rules (see
Resolution 1202 (1999)) one notes the following problems:
- giving more information on the
role and functions of the Bureau of the Assembly and absence of
any explicit reference to the Presidential Committee in the Rules
of Procedure;
- need for a more detailed description of the functions
of the President of the Assembly and of his/her term of office;
- reviewing the modalities for the election of committee
chairpersons and vice-chairpersons and their term of office;
- reviewing the duration (end) of the term of office of
Assembly members following general (parliamentary) elections in
member states;
- need for streamlining of the procedure for examining amendments;
- simplifying terminology with respect to the agenda, order
of business and orders of the day of the Assembly;
- reviewing and/or updating of the provisions concerning
observer and special guest status (see Resolution 1506 (2006));
- reviewing some aspects of the Assembly’s relations with
the Committee of Ministers (spontaneous questions to the Chair,
composition of the Assembly’s delegation to the Joint Committee).
These
issues will be analysed below.
8. In addition, there are some rules where specific questions
or problems have arisen. They will be discussed in Section III below.
2.2 More information on the
role and functions of the Bureau of the Assembly
9. Currently, Rule 12 of the Rules
of Procedure deals with the Bureau of the Assembly and lists just
three of its activities:
- co-ordination
of the work of the Assembly and its committees;
- assistance to the President in his functions;
- guiding the Assembly’s external relations.
10. It results from other provisions in the rules (for example,
Rules 15.4, 17, 24, 25, 38, 43.3, 43.4, 50, 52, 55, 59, 60, 63)
and in the complementary texts to the rules (for example, additional
provisions relating to Assembly debates; special rules concerning
relations with parliamentary and inter-parliamentary assemblies of
non-member states,
Resolutions
1115 (1997) and 1431 (2005) concerning the Assembly’s monitoring activities)
that the Bureau has further major tasks and functions. Further duties
of the Bureau are to:
- draw
up a list of candidates for the European Committee for the Prevention
of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)
on the proposal of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights;
- decide on the observation by the Assembly of elections
and referendums (see guidelines for the observation of elections);
- authorise committee meetings elsewhere than in Strasbourg
or Paris;
- organise the institutional representation of the Assembly
at various Council of Europe and outside events;
- take certain decisions in relation with the Assembly’s
budget (financial appropriations of political groups);
- take various other decisions of an administrative character
such as access of the public to the Palais de l’Europe, declassification
of documents, and granting the titles of Honorary President or Secretary General
of the Assembly.
11. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities agreed
that it would not be appropriate to mention all these (and further)
Bureau functions in Rule 12. It proposes to include in a new paragraph
of Rule 12 the major task of the Bureau to take decisions on the
organisation of part-sessions and plenary sittings. Furthermore,
this new paragraph should mention that the Bureau carries out other
duties assigned to it under the Rules of Procedure, by the complementary
texts to the rules, or according to decisions taken by the Assembly.
2.3 Possibility for the Bureau
to submit to the Assembly reports with substantive parts
12. Proposals have been made to
enable the presentation to the Assembly (or the Standing Committee)
of reports of the Bureau or of Bureau ad hoc committees which contain
a draft resolution or draft recommendation.
13. Rule 33.1 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure stipulates
that: “Each item on the order of business shall be considered on
the basis of a report from the relevant committee or from the Bureau”.
However, reports of the Bureau may not include a draft recommendation
or resolution. Indeed Rule 33.4 which stipulates that: “Following
the debate on the committee’s report, the Assembly shall vote on
the draft text or draft texts which it may contain”, reserves this
possibility to Assembly committees. It does not mention the Bureau.
14. It has happened in the past that the Bureau has presented
to the Assembly reports containing a draft resolution or a draft
recommendation which was voted by the Assembly. Such reports dealt
with relations with national parliaments, events in Greece, reactivation
of the Council of Europe, rationalisation of Assembly committees,
etc. However, this practice which was based on paragraph 1 of Rule
33 in its pre-1999 version, has given rise to criticism and was
even contested in plenary (see report of the Assembly sittings held
on 30 and 31 January 1968, pp. 713 et
seq. and 771 et seq.)
It was then argued that under the rules it was for committees to
submit to the Assembly reports containing draft texts.
15. In the light of this experience the Bureau should not be able
to submit to the Assembly or the Standing Committee reports with
draft texts which fall under the competence of a general Assembly
committee. This is, however, not the case for reports on the observation
of elections. It should therefore be allowed by the Rules of Procedure
that the conclusions of such reports be integrated in draft resolutions
(or recommendations) which would also be subject to amendments.
A corresponding proposal has been included in the draft resolution contained
in this report.
16. Also, the progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee,
which is presented during each part-session, does not include draft
texts. After having been debated by the Assembly the report is then approved
in its entirety by the Assembly. Since the report may contain political
decisions – such as the closure of a post-monitoring procedure –
some members have wondered if such decisions should appear in a
draft resolution to be submitted for formal adoption by the Assembly.
Already in the current circumstances the progress report is prepared
under a heavy time pressure. Therefore, the rules should specify
that the progress report may contain a special section or an appendix
listing the Bureau decisions to be ratified by the Assembly.
2.4 Proposal for changing the
composition of the Bureau
17. Both the membership in the
Bureau of Assembly vice-presidents, as representatives of national parliamentary
delegations, and the modalities of their election have given rise
to questions.
18. Since 1998 when the system was simplified (
Resolution 1160), there have been no more contested elections of vice-presidents.
The single candidates proposed by national delegations were always
simply declared elected (Rule 14.3), unless there was no candidate
and the seat remained vacant. The democratic character of this system
has been the subject of criticism. It should be noted, however,
that Rule 14.4 (second and third sentences) does not exclude elections.
19. The rotation system for the attribution of Assembly vice-chairships
to the smaller national delegations which can propose a candidate
every so many years does not guarantee continuity of the Bureau.
Furthermore, the vice-chairships of the delegations with between
five and ten seats in the Assembly
Note last two years
only. The situation is not better for delegations with between two
and five seats in the Assembly. This limits the chances of the Assembly
vice-presidents concerned to take real responsibilities.
20. Furthermore, the following questions remain open: do Assembly
vice-presidents regularly consult national delegations before Bureau
meetings and report to them afterwards on what contributions they
made to the meeting? Do vice-presidents belonging to national delegations
without a permanent Assembly vice-chairship also represent those
countries of their group (see the system for the attribution of
vice-chairships) not currently having a seat in the Bureau of the
Assembly? The participation of vice-presidents in Bureau meetings in
2004 was 65.3% and respectively 61.3%, 57.9% and 48.3% in the Bureau
meetings held in 2005, 2006 and (so far) in 2007. This shows the
current limits of the representation of national delegations concerned
in the Bureau.
21. It is therefore not astonishing that since at least 2003 (see
paragraph 32 of
Doc. 10185) it has been more or less regularly proposed that all
Bureau members should be appointed through political groups, proportionally to
their strength. This could be done on the basis of the D’Hondt system,
once the Bureau’s size has been fixed. The supporters of this idea
consider that, composed in this manner, the Bureau would be truly
representative.
22. Admittedly, this would have an inconvenience. The presence
in the Bureau of national delegations through vice-presidents, which
has existed since 1949, would be terminated. The reform discussions
in the Assembly over the past year and some consultations and meetings
with those national delegations (for instance, during the January
2007 and June 2007 part-sessions) which have permanent seats in
the Bureau have also shown that a majority of these delegations
do not, for the time being, wish for further changes in the balance
between national delegations and political groups to the advantage
of the latter.
23. In order to make the Bureau politically fully representative
of the Assembly, the rapporteur has proposed that the Bureau should
henceforth be composed:
- of
the President of the Assembly, the chairpersons of the political
groups and of the Assembly’s general committees (current situation);
and
- of a number of members (between 10 and about 20) appointed
by the political groups according to the d’Hondt principle, which
would enable each group to nominate at least one representative
to the Bureau.
24. However, at its meeting on 3 October 2007, the Committee on
Rules of Procedure and Immunities expressed itself clearly against
this proposal and decided to leave the rules as they are. It is
therefore no longer necessary to discuss the possible consequences
for the functions of the Assembly vice-presidents and different
organs of the Assembly.
2.5 The Presidential Committee
25. The Presidential Committee
was first established on 25 March 1993 as an ad hoc committee of
the Bureau. It is composed of the President of the Assembly, the
chairpersons of the Assembly’s political groups and the Secretary
General of the Assembly. Its original mandate is to assist the President
in the co-ordination of the Assembly’s activity and in the implementation
of decisions (see AS/Bur (44) PV 11). The Presidential Committee
does not take decisions. It is currently a consultative body for
the President of the Assembly and the Bureau and also has certain
preparatory and liaison tasks. It is therefore teasingly referred
to by Parliamentary Assembly members as “the Politburo”. It represents
the Assembly during joint meetings with the Conference of Presidents
of the European Parliament (and occasionally, similar bodies of
other international institutions) and meetings with the Bureau of
the Ministers’ Deputies.
26. The Presidential Committee is not mentioned in the Rules of
Procedure, which may lead to the absence of a clear-cut definition
of its functions and a certain lack of transparency. The agendas
and conclusions of the Presidential Committee are not public and,
in particular, not distributed to members of the Assembly, including those
of the Bureau which usually meets immediately after the meeting
of the Presidential Committee. This and further aspects have been
the subject of some criticism.
27. During the rapporteur’s discussions with Assembly members,
some considered that membership of the Presidential Committee should
be increased. However, no formal proposal on this issue was received.
The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities agreed to propose
that a new paragraph on the Presidential Committee be added to Rule
12 which deals with the Assembly’s Bureau. This new paragraph should
list the current members of the Presidential Committee and its main
functions:
- to be a consultative
body for the Bureau and the President of the Assembly;
- to prepare meetings of the Bureau and to be entrusted
by the Bureau with liaison tasks.
2.6 The term of office and functions
of the President of the Assembly
2.6.1 Functions of the President
28. In so far as the rules are
concerned the main duties of the President are set out in Chapter
V of the Rules of Procedure (Rules 18 to 21). According to these
provisions, they include:
- formal
functions (opening, chairing, suspending and closing of Assembly
sittings);
- controlling and conducting functions concerning the proceedings
of the Assembly (the rules, maintenance of order in the Assembly
chamber and in the galleries); calling on speakers; ascertaining that
the quorum is present; putting questions to the vote; and announcing
the result of votes.
29. According to other provisions in the rules:
- the President decides in cases
of doubt whether a question raised in the course of a session is
within the agenda of the Assembly;
- he/she decides if motions, amendments and written declarations
tabled by members are in order;
- the credentials of members are sent to him/her;
- the President chairs the Joint Committee, the Bureau (and
the Presidential Committee) and the Standing Committee and conducts
their proceedings.
30. The President has, in addition, important external functions:
- he/she is the representative
of the Assembly as a whole and is the natural channel for all formal communications
with outside authorities or persons;
- he/she ensures liaison with other Council of Europe organs
and institutions; he/she addresses, on behalf of the Assembly, Council
of Europe summits and sessions of the Committee of Ministers;
- he/she represents the Assembly in its international relations
(national parliaments, governments and international organisations)
and, in this connection, undertakes official visits within and outside
the Council of Europe; he/she signs co-operation agreements with
other national or international parliamentary institutions.
31. Furthermore, the President has different functions concerning
such matters as requests for the waiver of members’ immunity, list
of speakers, budget and petition procedures, distribution of and
access to documents, requests for exhibitions and similar.
32. It would not be appropriate to include all the above tasks,
which are not exhaustive, in the central Rule 18.1 relating to the
President of the Assembly. Therefore the Committee on Rules of Procedure
and Immunities proposes to complete Rule 18.1 by adding some important
functions which are also to be found in the relevant rules of comparable
international parliamentary institutions:
- the duty of the President to rule on the admissibility
of motions for recommendations and resolutions, amendments and written
declarations tabled by members;
- his/her functions with respect to the Standing Committee
and the Bureau and his/her duty to chair the Presidential Committee
and the Joint Committee;
- his/her representation of the Assembly in its external
and international relations.
2.6.2 Term of office of the President
33. The Assembly’s Rules of Procedure
do not specify the number of terms of office the President of the Assembly
may serve. However, a tradition and practice reaching back to 1959
and which has never been departed from, restricts in fact to three
the number of annual mandates of the President.
34. At the meeting of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and
Immunities on 14 September 2007 it was proposed to limit to two
years the term of office of the President. This would require a
change of Rule 13.5 as follows:
- inserting
a sentence saying that the President may be re-elected once for
a further term consecutive or not;
- specifying that the President, if elected in the course
of a session for an incomplete term, may be re-elected for two further
terms.
2.7 Duration of the term of
office of Assembly members
2.7.1 Consequences of the loss
of membership of the national parliament
35. Problems have arisen in ascertaining
how long following parliamentary elections those Assembly members
who did not stand in these elections or were not elected, could
remain in the national parliamentary delegation to the Council of
Europe. It has been proposed, in particular during the 2004 European
Conference of Presidents of Parliaments, that the term of office
of Assembly Representatives and Substitutes should expire the moment
they cease to be members of their national parliament. This would
conflict with Rule 10.3 of the Assembly’s rules according to which:
“Following parliamentary elections the national parliament concerned
or other competent authority shall make appointments to the Assembly
within six months of the election. The credentials of the existing
delegation shall expire at the opening of the first sitting of the
Assembly or meeting of the Standing Committee following the appointment
of the new delegation by the national parliament or competent authority”.
36. This rule is based on the principle of continuity of membership
which is in the interest of the Assembly, as it limits vacancies
of seats.
37. Some of the national parliaments have fixed dates for the
expiry of the mandate of Assembly members which do not necessarily
correspond to those of the Assembly; they either are different from
the Assembly’s rules concerning the substance or differently worded.
The regulations in force for the Swiss delegation to the Assembly
stipulate, for instance, that the mandate of Swiss members who leave
the national parliament, expires at the latest at the end of the
following Parliamentary Assembly part-session.
38. The rapporteur considers that it is up to member parliaments
to decide whether it suits them to continue the membership of Parliamentary
Assembly Representatives and Substitutes who are no longer members
of their parliament, while respecting the provisions of Rule 10.3.
2.7.2 Six-month time limit in
Rule 10.3 and opening of the new parliamentary year
39. Since the preparation of the
previous version of this memorandum a new question relating to Rule
10.3 was raised. In the meeting of the Bureau of the Assembly on
22 January 2007 a member pointed to the inconsistency between the
six months time limit granted to national parliaments to make changes
to their delegation to the Assembly and the obligation to renew
these delegations at the opening of the annual session of the Assembly
in January of every year.
Genesis of the relevant provisions
in the rules and Statute of the Council of Europe
40. In its initial version of 1949
the Council of Europe’s Statute does not mention the end of Assembly members’
mandate. When the Assembly adopted revised Rules of Procedure in
December 1951, the wording of draft Rule 7 on the duration of the
term of office of Representatives and Substitutes was reserved and referred
back to the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Privileges for reconsideration.
41. The committee first proposed to complete Article 25.
a of the Statute by two sub-paragraphs
(
Resolution 18 (1952)). The Committee of Ministers accepted the proposals
in that resolution without change and the revised text of the Statute
entered into force in May 1953. Since that time the second sub-paragraph
of Article 25.
a of the Statute
reads as follows. “The term of office of Representatives thus appointed
will date from the opening of the next ordinary session following
their appointment; it will expire at the opening of the next ordinary session
or of a later ordinary session, except that, in the event of elections
to their parliaments having taken place, member states shall be
entitled to make new appointments.”
42. The Assembly also agreed to insert similar provisions in Rule
7 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure (
Resolution 19 (1952)). However, during the preparatory work for the changes
of the Statute (Article 25) and of the Assembly’s rules (Rule 7)
the problem arising from the fact that after elections it takes
time to constitute a new delegation to the Assembly was not discussed
and played no role.
43. In 1970 the Assembly discussed a report on a new change to
Article 25 of the Statute (
Recommendation 600
(1970)). The main objective was then to ensure that seats in
the Assembly were occupied by parliamentarians and not by former
parliamentarians (for more than a year) as had occurred in the past
(see the report,
Doc. 2745 paragraph 3 and AS/Pro (21) PV 3). Following the adoption
of
Recommendation 600 (1970) and its acceptance by the Committee of Ministers, Rule
25.
a of the Statute was amended
as follows: “The Assembly shall consist of Representatives of each
member, elected by its parliament from among the members thereof,
or appointed from among the members of that parliament in such manner
as it shall decide, subject, however, to the right of each member
government to make any additional appointments necessary when the
parliament is not in session and has not laid down the procedure
to be followed in that case”.
Recommendation
600 (1970) also included paragraph 4 which is worded as follows:
“Considering that when necessary a reasonable delay should be granted
to member states in the appointment of a new parliamentary delegation
but that this delay should not exceed six months”. When accepting
Assembly
Recommendation
600 (1970) the Committee of Ministers made no comments concerning
paragraph 4. According to the report (
Doc. 2745, paragraph 7) the six months clause has merely been
introduced “to take into account the practical difficulty of appointing
a new national delegation immediately after elections, particularly
if these take place immediately before the opening of an Assembly
session”. In the report on action to be taken regarding the amendment
of Article 25 of the Statute of the Council of Europe (
Doc. 2855) it is observed that the six months rule is a flexible
means of interpreting the new provisions of Article 25 of the Statute.
Since 1999/2000 this deadline is explicitly referred to in Rule
10.3 of the Rules of Procedure.
Recent practice of the Assembly
44. When a parliamentary election
is held in a member state in the autumn, and no new delegation is appointed
in time for the opening of the new parliamentary year in January,
the Assembly’s practice used to follow two alternative scenarios:
- either the delegation is simply
set up at the January session on the basis of the complete former delegation,
including members not re-elected in their national parliament,Note and the new
delegation will be set up later (normally at the March Standing
Committee or the April part-session); members who were renewed in
January could then be invited to resign from the delegation in order
to give up their places to new members;
- or the credentials of the delegation are presented to
the Assembly on the basis of the former delegation but only with
the names of the members who have been reelected in their parliament.Note
45. This situation is the result of the existence at Assembly
level of two competing principles: that of the continuity of the
membership of the Assembly and that of the opening of a new Assembly
session in January of each year. The opening of the new “parliamentary
year” implies, in particular, the ratification of members’ credentials,
the reconstitution of committees and the election of the President
and committee chairpersons.
46. However, in recent years one notes a tendency, based on the
wording of Article 25.a of
the Statute, to avoid continuing the six months deadline referred
to in Rule 10.3, beyond the opening of the new parliamentary year.
According to this practice, even if no new parliamentary delegation
has been appointed following parliamentary elections, the term of
office of members of the former delegation not re-elected or no
longer being parliamentarians ends in all circumstances at the opening
of the January part-session. The aforementioned statement made in
the Bureau on 22 January 2007 reflects this practice, which is in
line with the Assembly’s efforts in recent years to increase its
representative character and to strengthen its authority.
Opinion of the rapporteur and
the committee
47. The rapporteur considers (see
the explanations in paragraphs 44 and 48 of Document AS/Pro (2007)
11 rev. 2) that it should be more clearly stipulated in the rules
(Rule 10.3) when the mandate of delegation members who are no longer
Assembly members should end in any case. Furthermore, the six months
rule should be equally applied to members elected/appointed during
the first and the second half of the year.
48. The rapporteur has submitted proposals to this end. However,
the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities agreed with a
clear majority that the existing provisions should not be changed.
2.8 Agenda of the Assembly,
order of business and orders of the day
49. Differently from most of the
comparable international parliamentary institutions, the Assembly
has not just an “agenda” but also an “order of business” and “orders
of the day”. This may lead to unnecessary complication (see, for
example, Rule 25.6. according to which both the agenda and the draft
order of business have to be communicated to members) and/or to
confusion of new Assembly members. The special situation is probably
due to the fact that during its first session the Assembly did not
have the facility to decide alone on its agenda and that until 1999-2000
the Assembly had a “register” listing official Assembly documents.
Only questions on the Assembly’s register could then be placed on
the draft agenda. The rapporteur proposes therefore to simplify
the procedure by abandoning the functions currently attributed in
the rules to the “order of business” and the “orders of the day”.
At the same time, the current notion of “agenda” should be enlarged
to also include the present functions of the order of business.
50. This requires the following rule changes which are proposed
in the draft resolution contained in this report:
- everywhere in the rules and
the complementary texts replace “order of business” with “agenda”;
- delete Rule 32 and the words “orders of the day” in Rules
35.7 and 41.1;
- review, where appropriate, the use of the current word
“agenda” and adapt the corresponding provisions (for example, Rules
50.1 and 52.1).
51. It is understood that the first version of the draft agenda
will be prepared on the basis of a list of reports already approved
by committees but not yet debated and of reports to be approved
in time for a part-session.
2.9 Moving of procedural motions
52. Due to the different wording
of the last sentence of Rule 37.1 in the English (“none of these
motions may be moved more than once during an item of business”)
and French editions of the rules (direct translation: “Each of these
procedural motions can only be moved once during the same debate”)
different interpretations were given to this provision. The last
Assembly President allowed for such a motion both during the opening sitting
when the draft order of business is adopted and, if rejected, also
when the report comes up for debate.
53. The rapporteur proposes to replace Rule 37.1.d with the following: “to move reference
of the report back to committee either during the opening sitting
when the draft agenda is adopted, or when the report is debated anytime
before the vote on the whole of any text begins”.
54. Following the Assembly’s debate on 25 June 2007 it has been
proposed, during the meeting of the Committee on Rules of Procedure
and Immunities on 27 June, that procedural motions, except requests
for reference back to committee, should be in order only if notice
has been given in writing to the President before the end of the
previous sitting or, in the case of the first sitting of a part-session,
two hours before the start of the sitting. This should be included
in a new sentence to be added to Rule 37.1.
2.10 Questions concerning the
election/re-election of chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of Assembly
committees, including their term of office
2.10.1 Election of chairpersons
55. In connection with the report
by Mr Gross on improving the participation of members in Assembly
plenary sessions and committee meetings (
Doc. 11295) it has been suggested to change the current system
of appointing committee chairs and vice-chairs. However, no formal
proposal was then submitted to the Assembly. Under the new scheme
proposed in the draft resolution included in this report, the political
groups would in future only determine the committees which should
be chaired by their members but not decide which persons would be
chairs and vice-chairs. This would be left to the committees themselves,
who are in the best position to judge which of their members would
be a capable committee (vice-)chair. This new procedure would also
be more democratic and open. If, for instance it had been agreed
by the groups that committee A would be chaired by a member of the
Socialist Group, only committee members belonging to this group
could be valid candidates.
56. The rapporteur would also like to observe that under the existing
system the presence of committee vice-chairpersons in the meetings
of their committees is not always as it should be. Even at the Committee
on Rules of Procedure and Immunities, in the absence of all vice-chairpersons
it had happened that an ad hoc chairperson had to be designated
on the rare occasions when the chairperson was prevented from attending due
to simultaneous obligations. Furthermore, in the view of the rapporteur,
under the current system political groups do not always know if
the members they propose for committee chairships really have the
potential required. This consideration applies a fortiori to the
designation of committee vice-chairpersons. If the new proposals
were adopted, committees could simply not re-elect those chairpersons
or vice-chairpersons who do not attend enough meetings and who are
not sufficiently qualified.
2.10.2 Conditions for the eligibility
and re-eligibility of committee chairs and vice-chairs
57. One political group of the
Assembly has proposed that Rules 45.3 and 45.7 concerning eligibility
and re-eligibility for the posts of committee chair and vice-chair
should be made more flexible. This should allow for the election
of qualified chairs and vice-chairs, improve gender balance, facilitate
appointments by political groups and promote participation in committee
work. In particular, alternates should be able to be candidates for
posts of vice-chairs of committees. Furthermore, there should no
longer be a requirement for candidates to have been full members
or alternates of the committee concerned for at least one year.
The rapporteur points out that members who have not been a member
of a committee for at least one year can hardly be regarded as capable
of leading a committee and understanding its remit.
2.10.3 Exclusion of simultaneous
positions as chair or vice-chair of more than one committee
58. Rule 45.4 is clear: no chair
or vice-chair of a (general) committee may be chair or vice-chair
of another (general) committee. Rule 48.1 stipulates that: “Except
as otherwise provided in this rule, procedure in subcommittee shall
follow that in committee”. In the absence of any specific provision
in Rule 48 on simultaneous chairs of sub-committees, it results
from a combination of Rules 48.1 and 45.4 that no sub-committee
chair or vice-chair can be a chair or vice-chair of another sub-committee.
59. The question has been asked if the vice-chair of a subcommittee
of committee A can be elected vice-chairperson of committee B. In
2001 the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities considered
that Rule 45.4 applies also to Assembly sub-committees (AS/Pro (2001)
7). In the framework of the preparation of this report, the committee
again came out against the plurality of chairships. It proposes
that Rule 45.4 should be modified so as to exclude that a chair
or vice-chair of a committee or subcommittee may be chair or vice-chair
of another Assembly committee or sub-committee. This should not
apply to ad hoc committees and ad hoc sub-committees.
2.10.4 Term of office
60. At the meeting of the Committee
on Rules of Procedure and Immunities on 14 September 2007 the proposal
was made to reduce the term of office of committee chairpersons,
which is currently three years (Rule 45.7).
61. Until 1979 (
Resolution
684) there was no limitation of the term of office of committee
chairpersons. Since that time it has been reduced to four years
maximum for newly elected chairpersons. After further adaptations in
1985 (
Resolution 852) the rule currently in force (limitation of chairships
to three terms) was introduced in 1991 (
Resolution 958). This change was essentially motivated by:
- the wish to ensure an increased
rotation in committee chairships; and
- the need to take into account the expected Council of
Europe enlargement.
62. Fixing the duration of committee chairships 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 chairships. The Assembly currently
has 636 statutory members (Representatives and Substitutes). It
is generally admitted that distributing functions in the Assembly
such as chairships and rapporteurships to a larger number of members
(see report by Mr Gross on improving the participation of members
in Assembly plenary sessions and committee meetings (
Doc. 11295)) would be appropriate.
63. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities concluded
that a general reduction of the length of the term of office of
committee chairpersons to two years would be useful to ensure a
better involvement of competent and active members in the Assembly’s
work. This would require:
- changing
Rule 45.7 by replacing the possible re election for two further
terms by re-election for one further term;
- specifying that this reduction would not be applicable
to committee chairpersons elected before January 2008;
- maintaining the current provision according to which a
chairperson elected in the course of a session for an incomplete
term may be re-elected for an additional term.
64. Finally, it is proposed to extend the new provisions to committee
vice-chairpersons. It is hoped that this would promote more active
vice-chairships, as the absenteeism of vice-chairpersons at committee
meetings is worrying: it would seem that some members regard being
a vice-chairperson as an honour which does not imply special obligations.
Therefore, committees should be allowed to replace absentee vice-chairpersons.
65. A recent motion for a resolution tabled by Mr Wodarg and others
(
Doc. 11122), which has been referred to the Committee on Rules
of Procedure and Immunities with the instruction that it should
be dealt with in the framework of this report, proposes that Rule
45.7 should specify that a committee chairperson may be re-elected
for two further terms only subject to different arrangements among
political groups. The rapporteur considers that, particularly if
the new system of appointing committee chairs and vice-chairs outlined
above was adopted by the Assembly, the current wording of Rule 45.7
is sufficiently flexible to respond to this concern.
2.11 Streamlining of the procedure
for examining amendments
66. In connection with the report
on improving the participation of members in Assembly plenary sessions and
committee meetings the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
has examined several proposals with a view to streamlining the procedure
for the examination of amendments in committee and in plenary. However,
no conclusions were adopted. Further suggestions were examined during
the preparatory work for this report. Bearing in mind the position
taken by members of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
and discussions with other Assembly members, it is proposed that:
- before the first amendment is
called the Assembly should be able, on a (procedural) motion of
the President of the Assembly or any member, to decide that only
the rapporteur or the committee chairperson should speak on amendments;
on any such motion only the mover, one speaker against and the chairperson
of the committee concerned should be heard;
- following a proposal presented by the chairperson of the
committee seized for report, and if no member objects, amendments
which have been unanimously approved by the committee shall be declared
as adopted by the Assembly.
67. The rapporteur had also proposed that a short (maximum 30
words) written argument in favour of an amendment should be allowed
as this would make it unnecessary for the proposer to defend an
amendment in the plenary. However, the committee expressed itself
against this idea.
68. Finally, it is recalled that in the late 1950s and 1960s,
when many or very important amendments were tabled on a draft text
and the discussion of these was scheduled at the beginning of a
part-session, the committee concerned has occasionally withdrawn
the text and instead submitted a new draft embodying the sense of
the amendments for debate at the end of the part-session (see, for
example, Official Report,
1963, pp. 565-568).
2.12.1 General
69. On 26 June 2006 the Assembly
adopted
Resolution 1506 on the external relations of the Council of Europe.
It deals with possible changes to special guest status (Rule 59),
granting more rights to observers (Rule 60) and the possible creation
of a specific committee (or subcommittee) to follow international developments
and make proposals for coherent and effective external action. On
2 October 2006 the Bureau, on the basis of Document 11000, referred
these issues to the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
to be taken into account in this report.
2.12.2 Special guest status with
the Assembly
70. In its
Resolution 1506 (2006) the Assembly considered,
inter
alia, that the provisions relating to special guest status
(Rule 59) should be amended to extend eligibility for this status
to parliaments of non-European states engaged in democratic reforms.
71. When special guest status was created in 1989 (
Resolutions 917 and 920 (1989)), observer status with the Assembly (then
Rule 55) was limited to “official representatives of democratic
European non-member states, appointed with the approval of their
Parliament”. The main differences between special guest status and observer
status were:
- special guest
status was essentially devised for parliaments of central and eastern
European countries and it constituted the first step of the rapprochement
between eastern and western European countries;
- it stipulated a procedure for presentation and examination
of credentials;
- the conditions for granting this status were more precise
but less far-reaching than those for observer status;
- the number of seats of special guests was higher than
that of observers;
- states whose parliaments were candidates for special guest
status had clear prospects for becoming Council of Europe member
states, when able to fulfil the accession conditions.
However, there was no difference in the rights and prerogatives
of special guests and observers (see AS/Pro (42) 4, p. 2).
2.12.3 Usefulness of adapting special
guest status to new needs
72. In 2003 the Bureau of the Assembly
reviewed the guidelines governing the external relations of the Assembly
and defined,
inter alia, criteria
for co-operation with parliaments of non-European states (see
Doc. 9835, Appendix 3, reproduced in pp. 174 to 230 of the Assembly’s
Rules of Procedure, 2006 edition). Concerning the prospects for
special guest status (Rule 59) the Bureau then considered that it
could be kept in principle after the accession by Monaco and Belarus,
but not be used in practice. Depending on the future status of Kosovo,
Rule 59 may become relevant. Moreover, in the Assembly’s debate
on external relations on 26 June 2006, Mr Iwiński, member of the
Assembly, said that the parliament of Kazakhstan should also be eligible
for special guest status as 4% of that country’s territory lies
within Europe and as it has participated in a unique co-operation
with the Assembly since 2000.
73. The rapporteur considers that at least as long as there are
potential candidate parliaments for special guest status it would
not be appropriate to consider opening it up to parliaments of non-European
states. For eighteen years special guest status has very much been
associated with the first steps towards membership of the Council
of Europe and with central and eastern European countries, although
the Parliament of Monaco enjoyed the status for some months in 2004.
Any major change of Rule 59 at this stage could create confusion.
2.12.4 Observer status with the
Assembly
74. Furthermore,
Resolution 1506 (2006) proposes the review of Rule 60 of the Rules of Procedure
related to observer status, so as to enhance the role played by
observers and to allow their better involvement in activities of
the Assembly and its committees by,
inter
alia, granting to members of observer delegations the following
rights:
- to table and sign motions
for recommendations and resolutions;
- to be appointed as observer members of general and ad
hoc committees;
- to participate in election observation missions;
- to become members of political groups.
75. Following changes concerning observer status with the Assembly
in 1996-97 and in 1999 (adoption of new Rules of Procedure), Rule
60 is now worded as follows:
“The
Assembly may, on the proposal of the Bureau, grant observer status
to national parliaments of non-member states of the Council of Europe
which meet the conditions set out in paragraph 1 of statutory Resolution
(93) 26 of the Committee of Ministers on observer status”. This
paragraph stipulates that: “Any state willing to accept the principles
of democracy, the rule of law and the enjoyment by all persons within
its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and wishing
to co-operate with the Council of Europe …”.
76. In the 1990s, proposals were made to increase the rights of
special guests and also to ensure a better involvement of participants
from parliaments of non-member countries in Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) debates. Then, as now, it is
difficult to improve the situation of delegations of non-member
countries having a special status in Assembly debates,
Note mainly
because of time constraints. Furthermore, for institutional reasons
it appears not possible to allow observers to vote (on draft texts,
for example), to table amendments or to become a rapporteur. This
was also the Assembly’s position in the debate on external relations
on 26 June 2006. At committee level observers could be given more
possibilities to speak and (while not voting) be encouraged to express
their position on amendments or draft texts. During the Assembly’s
debate on external relations (26 June 2006) an observer from Canada,
Mrs Lalonde, said that: “when in the committees we need to have
our proposed amendments to be taken into account we request other delegations
to assume and uphold them”.
77. Furthermore, nothing prevents observer delegations, subject
to Rule 47.6, from being represented by the same member(s) at the
meetings of specific committees and ad hoc committees. It is recalled
that in past Assembly lists the membership of general committees
included a section with observers appointed to specific committees.
78. Members of observer delegations should be able to sign motions
for resolutions or recommendations and written declarations. However,
they should not be taken into account for the number of signatures
required. Furthermore, in special cases political groups may propose
to the Bureau the appointment of members of observer delegations
to assist ad hoc committees on the observation of elections. This
should be included at the next occasion in the guidelines on the
observation of elections (p. 232 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure,
2006 edition). Generally, members of observer delegations should
be able to participate in the work of political groups according
to the conditions established by them.
2.12.5 Possible creation of a new
status for non-member states
79. According to
Resolution 1506 it would be useful to consider the establishment of
a new status for non-member states (possibly to be called “partners
for democracy”) that wish to co-operate with the Council of Europe
in order to benefit from its experience in democracy building and
possibly from its legal instruments and machinery but which are
not yet in a position to guarantee full compliance with the Council
of Europe’s principles.
80. As this proposal is addressed in the first place to the Council
of Europe, the rapporteur does not consider it necessary to comment
on any procedural implications. He wishes to recall however, that
in addition to
Resolution
1506 (2006), the issue of a new status has already been discussed
in 2000 by the Committee of Ministers (Italian initiative for the
creation of a co-operation status, not followed-up) and by the Bureau
of the Assembly (establishment of an association status with the
Council of Europe, report by Mr Gross to the Bureau of the Assembly).
The Bureau then had favoured a pragmatic approach and agreed to
make full use of the existing possibilities to associate parliaments
of non-member states with its activities (see AS/Pro (2000)3 and paragraphs
50 and 51 of AS/Pro (2007) 11).
2.12.6 Possible creation of a specific
committee (or sub-committee)
81. In its
Resolution 1506 (2006) the Assembly believed that it needed a specific committee
(or sub-committee) that would, on the basis of clearly defined terms
of reference, closely follow international developments and make
proposals for coherent and effective external action.
82. Currently, the Assembly’s Political Affairs Committee has
appointed a Sub-Committee on External Relations which has met five
times in 2006 and, to date, four times in 2007. The sub-committee
has examined the following subjects: external relations of the Council
of Europe; relations with Morocco; relations with Kazakhstan; participation
in the General Assembly of the United Nations; participation in
conferences; joint meet- meetings with a committee of the Inter-Parliamentary
Assembly of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the
Political Committee of the Assembly of the Western European Union
(WEU).
83. In the present juncture of the Council of Europe which is
marked by zero growth in real terms and a focusing on the Council’s
core activities, the creation of a new Assembly committee, even
for important tasks, could be interpreted as a wrong signal. Furthermore,
with respect to the setting-up of a new sub-committee, the existing
structures should be fully exploited before the creation of a new
body.
2.12.7 Appointment of observer
delegations to the Assembly
84. The national parliaments concerned
are not obliged to submit credentials to the President of the Assembly
(Rule 60.2). The current practice simply requires that observer
delegations to the Assembly are appointed before each part-session
and that they reflect the various currents of opinion within their
parliaments. Therefore, the Assembly has no right to check the said
delegations. Moreover, the composition of these delegations may
vary from one part-session to another. The Assembly’s desire to
have more stability among the representation of the national parliaments
of the three countries concerned is fully understandable. Consequently,
Rule 60.2 should be amended in order to request from the parliaments
of the observer states that they submit a list of members for the
whole duration of the ordinary session, as do special guest countries. This
should possibly be done not less than one week before the opening
of the session, and the Assembly could take note of it at the opening
of the January part-session.
85. Furthermore, the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
found it appropriate to simplify the appointment by the parliaments
with observer status of stable delegations for the whole parliamentary
year and consequently to enlarge the representation of both the
Canadian Parliament and the Mexican Parliament, in allowing the
appointment of Substitutes to Representatives.
Note To
this end the draft resolution proposes to amend paragraphs 4.ii
of Assembly
Resolutions
1125 (1997) and 1203 (1999) so that the Canadian and Mexican observers
could appoint six Substitutes each.
2.13 Some aspects of the relations
between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers
86. On 2 and 6 October 2006 the
Bureau referred the following issues to the Committee on Rules of Procedure
and Immunities for consideration in this report: composition of
the Assembly’s delegation on the Joint Committee and spontaneous
questions to the Chair of the Committee of Ministers when addressing
the Assembly.
2.13.1 Nature and composition of
the Joint Committee
87. The Joint Committee, composed
of members of the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly, was set up
in 1950 after concurring decisions had been taken by the Committee
of Ministers (Resolution (51) 20) and the Assembly (26 August 1950).
This initiative aimed mainly to improve (by discussing outstanding
difficulties) and strengthen relations between these two statutory
organs in the interests of the Council of Europe. The Assembly had
originally regarded the Joint Committee as the embryo of a European
executive (see AS/Bur (1955) PV 12, item 6), but in the end had
to adopt a less ambitious point of view. Initially the Joint Committee, chaired
by the President of the Assembly and governed since 1951 by statutory
Resolution (51) 30 C, had a very limited composition, namely seven
representatives of the Committee of Ministers and seven representatives
nominated by the Standing Committee of the Assembly (see Committee
of Ministers Resolution (50) 6).
The evolution of the Joint Committee
88. Following proposals from the
Assembly, the Committee of Ministers agreed in 1957 and 1963 to
increase the number of representatives on the Joint Committee bringing
it to one for each member state with an equal number of Assembly
members. With the continuous enlargement of the Council of Europe
the size of the Joint Committee also increased considerably. Until
2002, one yearly meeting of the Joint Committee (called the “Colloquy”)
was held at ministerial level. According to the version of Rule
55 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure which was in force until
1995, the delegation of the Assembly on the Joint Committee was composed
of members appointed by the Standing Committee from among its members.
The Standing Committee also appointed alternates upon whom the President
could call to replace representatives unable to attend a meeting.
Since the 1980s, however, the Assembly’s delegation on the Joint
Committee was appointed more on an ad hoc basis; the President was
empowered to convene the chairs of national delegations (or their substitutes)
and, depending on the subjects chosen for the Joint Committee, the
rapporteur and members of the Assembly committee(s) concerned. Following
changes in 1995 and 1999-2000 (see
Resolution 1061 (1995),
Doc. 7262, and
Resolution
1202 (1999)), Rule 55.2 specifies that the Assembly’s representatives
on the Joint Committee are the members of the Bureau and one representative
of each parliamentary delegation not represented on the Bureau.
Furthermore, the President may, in the light of the Joint Committee’s
agenda, co-opt members, in particular rapporteurs. This change was
motivated by:
- the need to ensure
that all member states are represented in the Assembly delegation;
- the need to limit the number of members on the Joint Committee;
- the possibility for the President to co-opt members.
89. In 2004 the delegation of the Assembly to the Joint Committee
was automatically increased (currently 63 members) as the chairpersons
of Assembly committees became Bureau members.
90. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities did not
consider it necessary to submit proposals concerning the Assembly’s
delegation to the Joint Committee.
Observers, special guests and
the Joint Committee
91. Currently, observers and special
guests may not attend meetings of the Joint Committee (Rule 47.6). However,
the rapporteur notes that observers to the Council of Europe attend
ministerial sessions and, since 2006, meetings of the Ministers’
Deputies and that observers to the Assembly attend and speak in
plenary sessions of the Assembly. In order to keep the balance between
the delegations of the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly,
it could be envisaged to allow both types of observers (and special
guests) to be represented in meetings of the Joint Committee. This
would presuppose the agreement of both the Committee of Ministers
and the Bureau of the Assembly. The Committee on Rules of Procedure
and Immunities did not follow up this idea. This matter may be subject
to a further discussion in the framework of the Joint Committee.
2.13.2 Spontaneous questions to
the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers during Assembly part-sessions
92. Under Rule 58 paragraph 2 of
the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, Assembly members may, following the
presentation of the report of the Committee of Ministers on its
activities, ask questions for oral answer by the Chairperson-in-Office
of the Committee of Ministers. These questions must be tabled in
writing within a time limit. During the January and April part-sessions
2007 and the April part-session 2006 the deadline was between 21
and 25 hours before the statement of the minister, whereas it was
much longer in January and June 2006 (between 42 and 44 hours).
In the past the Assembly has tried on several occasions to make
the question and answer session with the Chairperson-in-Office more
lively and spontaneous.
93. After having been discussed in 1994 in the Committee on Rules
of Procedure and Immunities (AS/Pro (1994) 2 rev.) and in the Bureau,
this issue was raised again in connection with reform proposals
in 2006. When he addressed the Assembly in October 2006, the Chairman-in-Office
of the Committee of Ministers, the Russian Minister for Foreign
Affairs (Mr Lavrov), expressed himself in favour of spontaneous
questions. The Bureau of the Assembly also pronounced itself in
favour of such a reform, as it was important to make the appearance
of Chairpersons-in-Office before the Assembly livelier than was
the case so far. On 25 January 2007 the Joint Committee discussed
this issue and the following points were made:
- there is no opposition to this
possibility in principle, but it is also important for the Chairperson-in-Office of
the Committee of Ministers to give substantive and fully accurate
replies to complicated and detailed questions by members;
- it is not certain that chairpersons would be able to provide
such answers on the spot; furthermore, the chairperson speaks generally
on behalf of all member states, which makes replies even more difficult;
- members of the Assembly may be encouraged to ask general
and political questions to the chairpersons; more technical questions
could be asked separately rather than taking up precious Assembly
time;
- even the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Russia (Mr Lavrov)
was asked very detailed questions to which he did not have a ready
reply.
In concluding the discussion the President suggested that
this matter be returned to on a future occasion.
94. The aforementioned document
of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities (AS/Pro 1994) 2
rev.) included,
inter alia,
the following proposals:
- subject
to the consent of the respective Chair of the Committee of Ministers,
the final part (this would have to be defined) of a question and
answer session with him/her could be reserved for spontaneous questions
which are not technical;
- spontaneous supplementary questions to the Chair in his/her
capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs should only be authorised
in so far as his/her statement contains passages in which he/she
has spoken in that capacity.
95. The committee suggests adding at the end of Rule 58.2 the
following new sentence: “Subject to the consent of the Chairperson
of the Committee of Ministers, the last fifteen minutes of the questions
for oral answer may be reserved for spontaneous questions.”
3 Other procedural questions
3.1 Making the meetings of the
Standing Committee more attractive
96. Some aspects of the functioning
of the Standing Committee give rise to discontent, for example the limited
debates on reports and the rapid consideration of texts submitted
for adoption. Furthermore it has been proposed to allow one general
committee to meet in connection with the Standing Committee.
97. Recent experience has shown that current affairs debates in
the Standing Committee can make its meetings livelier. Currently
the holding of such debates in the Standing Committee is not explicitly
mentioned in the Rules of Procedure. The rapporteur proposes to
adapt Rule 52 accordingly.
3.2 Motions for recommendations
and resolutions – reference to committee
98. In 2005-06 the methods for
examining these motions and taking action on them at Bureau level
were changed. They are now broadly accepted. However, one problem
remains: the absence of an explicit provision in the rules stipulating
how members may challenge Bureau decisions relating to these motions
in the plenary (or in the Standing Committee). To this end the Committee
on Rules of Procedure and Immunities presents the following proposals:
- all decisions of the Bureau
concerning motions and the other documents mentioned in Rule 24.1
should become available to members through the progress report of
the Bureau and the Standing Committee or – for the sittings on the
last days of part-sessions and for meetings of the Standing Committee,
where these decisions are ratified – in a separate document;
- any member may move a motion to change such a Bureau decision
which should be adopted by simple majority; on any such motion only
the mover, one speaker against and the rapporteur of the Bureau should
be heard.
99. To facilitate action to be taken on important documents (for
example, proposals or communications from national parliaments)
which the President deems to be official documents, it is proposed
to include the relevant Rule 22.k also
in Rule 24.1, which deals with references to committees.
3.3 Distribution and adoption
of the minutes of proceedings
100. The application of this rule
raises two questions of minor importance. The wording of Rule 29.1
gives the impression that in general the minutes of proceedings
of a sitting shall be distributed before the opening of the following
sitting. However, this is not possible in the majority of cases,
mainly because of insufficient time. According to Rule 29.4 the
minutes of proceedings of the last sitting of a session shall be
submitted to the Standing Committee for approval. However, it happens
sometimes (for instance in 2006 and in 2004) that the Standing Committee
does not meet between all four part-sessions of a year. In those
cases adoption of the minutes by the plenary would be quicker.
101. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities considers
that the wording of both provisions is sufficiently flexible to
cope with the situation.
3.4 Reports of debates
102. The preparation and publication
of reports of debates is being revised. It is therefore proposed
to replace the two sentences of current Rule 30.1 with the following:
“An official report of the debates
of each part-session shall be issued. A provisional report of each
sitting shall be distributed as soon as possible”.
3.5 Deadline for distribution
of reports before debate during a part-session
103. This deadline (see Rule 33.2)
is two weeks before the opening of the part-session. A footnote
to this rule stipulates that if the Assembly is not in session the
date of distribution shall be that of the postmark.
104. All documents are put on the Internet and Extranet and are
e-mailed to members. Therefore, the first sentence of the footnote
should be modified to read as follows: “If the Assembly is not in
session, the date of distribution shall be the moment when documents
are being made available to members in their paper or electronic
versions.”
105. If for political or other reasons the rapid preparation of
a report for presentation to a part-session becomes necessary, and
if no urgent procedure has been requested, the Bureau may grant
exceptions from the deadline fixed in Rule 33.2. Although such justified
Bureau decisions have not been challenged in plenary in the past,
this would be admissible and postponement of the debate could not
be prevented even by a majority decision. Indeed, Rule 33.2, third
sentence stipulates: “If a report is not distributed within the
time limit laid down, and at least 10 Representatives or Substitutes
belonging to at least five national delegations so request when
the draft order of business is considered, the debate shall be postponed
until a later part-session unless urgent procedure has already been
requested with respect to that report.”
106. There could be major reasons to allow for the discussion of
a report even if the time limit has not been respected. That is
why the rapporteur proposes that, by a two-thirds majority decision,
the Assembly should be able to overrule any objections by ten or
more Representatives or Substitutes belonging to at least five delegations.
3.6 Deadline for making committee
documents available for members
107. According to Rule 46.5 of the
Rules of Procedure, except during part-sessions documents relating
to items on the agenda of a committee meeting shall be despatched
to members at least one week before the date of that meeting. If
they are not and if five or more members object, the item(s) concerned
shall be postponed to a later meeting. As there is no exception,
this clause may have major consequences in the case of important
reports on topical issues which for one reason or another could
not be distributed on time (see report on the situation in Kosovo
of the Political Affairs Committee in September 2006). The rapporteur proposes
that by a two-thirds majority decision a committee should be able
to overrule the objection made by five or more members.
3.7 Deadline for sub-amendments
108. Under Rule 34.5 sub-amendments
must be tabled two hours before the opening of the sitting at which the
debate is to begin. This has always been interpreted literally,
that is, for a debate starting at 10 a.m. the deadline is 8 a.m.
The last President of the Assembly, Peter Schieder, has suggested
that the deadline be aligned with the deadline for the list of speakers,
that is, one hour before the scheduled end of the sitting preceding
that in which the debate begins. The Committee on Rules of Procedure
and Immunities proposes that Rule 34.5 be modified accordingly.
3.8 Convocation of committee
meetings – need to respect deadlines
109. Following a recent meeting
of an Assembly committee, the question arose as to whether there
were any provisions (for example, Rule 46.5
mutatis
mutandis) concerning deadlines to be respected for convening meetings.
The rapporteur proposes to add the following sentence to Rule 47.1:
“Except during part-sessions, the
convocation to the meeting shall be sent to members at least seven days
before the meeting.”
3.9 Updating of committee reports
tabled
110. Due to limited debating time
or other reasons, committee reports are sometimes not debated until several
months after they have been approved, tabled with the Table Office
and published as an Assembly document. This has often had as a consequence
that the information contained in such reports is no longer up-to-date
when the debate takes place. On several occasions in the past the
committee concerned has prepared an addendum to the report. The
rapporteur proposes that this possibility be mentioned at the end
of Rule 49.5.
4 Complementary texts to the
rules of procedure
4.1 Speaking time of rapporteurs
and rapporteurs for opinion
111. Other than in the committees,
the plenary in fact does not allow a real debate. It is a succession
of, often repetitive, monologues from the floor, with the rapporteur
getting four minutes to answer the points made by the members. In
a normal parliamentary debate the rapporteur would get more time
to answer the points made from the floor. Even better, the members
would get a chance to respond to the rapporteur’s answers, giving the
rapporteur a chance to answer them anew.
112. Therefore, and to make debates more lively, the introductory
speech of rapporteurs should be reduced. Members already have at
their disposal the report and the summary it contains. The rapporteur
submitted different proposals to modify the current provisions.
The committee finally agreed that:
- rapporteurs shall have a global time of thirteen minutes
to present the report and to reply to the debate;
- rapporteurs may, after the first round of speakers on
behalf of political groups, request the floor for a speaking time
of up to four minutes to reply, which time should be deducted from
the time of reply at the end of the debate.
Rapporteurs for opinion should have three minutes to present
their opinions or to reply to the debate.
113. The Bureau is therefore invited
to consider amending accordingly the “additional provisions relating
to Assembly debates”, section iv (speaking time).
4.2 Guidelines for questions
to guest speakers
114. These guidelines (section vi
of the additional provisions relating to Assembly debates, see p.
102 of the Rules of Procedure, 2006 edition) should be adapted to
current practice and be completed as follows: replace paragraph
4 with the following text: “Spontaneous questions may be put to
guest speakers. Questions may be restricted to political groups’
spokespersons. After speeches of heads of state or government, if
time permits the political groups’ spokespersons may make short
statements.”
4.3 Committee meetings elsewhere
than in Strasbourg or Paris; conditions for awarding medals
115. The rapporteur proposes that
on an appropriate occasion the ruling on meetings of committees
and subcommittees of the Assembly elsewhere than in Strasbourg or
Paris should be brought up to date by the Bureau. Furthermore, the
ruling on the conditions for awarding medals or other honours to
former Assembly members (see
Doc. 3292 and additional Bureau decision of 1979) should be included
in the next edition of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.
5 Proposals from committee
members
116. At the meeting of the Committee
on Rules of Procedure and Immunities on 6 December 2006 a member raised
a question concerning the possibility for Assembly members who are
not registered with a political group to form a group of non-registered
members. It is recalled that Rule 31 of the European Parliament’s
Rules of Procedure deals with non-registered (non-attached) members.
They are provided with a secretariat and the Bureau of the European
Parliament has determined the status and parliamentary rights of
these members and laid down rules concerning administrative facilities
and the reimbursement of secretariat expenses. Also in the parliaments
of some member states nonregistered members have the right to group
themselves together. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
did not follow up this matter.
6 Final remarks
117. This report and the proposals
contained therein are the results of a thorough and careful consideration by
the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities which devoted
several meetings to their discussion. Members of the Assembly also
had the opportunity to participate in these meetings and to submit
their views. The rapporteur himself, who initiated some further
far-reaching proposals, took the views of chairpersons of national
delegations and of political groups into account. The committee
has unanimously approved the draft resolution included in this report
and agreed to present it to the Standing Committee in Bratislava
(23 November 2007).
118. Any rule changes should enter into force on the first day
of the January 2008 part-session (21 January 2008). However, the
proposed change of Rule 45.7 shall only apply to committee chairpersons
and vice-chair elected as from the January 2008 part-session.
***
Reporting committee: Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities.
Reference to committee: Doc. 10915 and Reference No. 3242 of 26 June 2006; Resolution 1506 and Reference No. 3254 of 30 June 2006; Doc. 11000 and Reference No. 3271 of 2 October 2006; Doc. 11122 and Reference No. 3309 of 16 March 2007.
Draft resolution unanimously adopted by the committee on 3
October 2007.
Members of the committee: Mr Andreas Gross (Chair),
Mr Andrea Manzella (1st Vice-Chair) (alternate: Mr Andrea Rigoni), Mrs Maria Postoico (2nd Vice-Chair), Mr Erol
Aslan Cebeci (3rd Vice-Chair),
Mr Miloljub Albijanić, Mr Lars Barfoed, Mr Ivan Brajović, Mrs Anne Brasseur, Mr Jonas Čekuolis, Mrs Helen
d’Amato, Mr Miljenko Dorić, Mr Vanghel Dule, Mr Herbert Frankenhauser,
Mr John Greenway, Mr Attila
Gruber, Mr Sefer Halilović, Mr Gerd Höfer,
Mr Serhiy Holovaty, Mr Ali Huseynov (alternate: Mr Samad Seyidov), Mr Luchezar Ivanov, Mr Morgan
Johansson, Mr Armand Jung (alternate: Mr Jean-Claude Mignon), Mr Erik Jurgens, Mrs Mojca Kucler-Dolinar,
Mrs Irine Kurdadzé, Mr Jan Filip Libicki, Mr Noël Mamère (alternate: Mr Michel Dreyfus-Schmidt), Mr Alan Meale, Mr Miloš Melčák, Mrs Ana Caterina Mendonça, Mr Peter Mitterer, Mr Nikolaos
Nikolopoulos, Mrs Kristiina Ojuland, Mr Alexey Ostrovsky (alternate:
Mr Valeriy Fedorov), Ms Eli
Sollied Øveraas, Mr Julio Padilla, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Armen
Rustamyan, Mr Ellert B. Schram, Mr Yuri Sharandin,
Mrs Tuulikki Ukkola, Mr Vasile Ungureanu, Mr Giuseppe Valentino
(alternate: Mrs Sabina Siniscalchi),
Mr Karim Van Overmeire, Mr G.
V. Wright, Mr Blagoj Zasov.
NB: The names of the members who took part in the meeting
are printed in bold.
See Standing Committee, 23 November 2007 (adoption of the
resolution, as amended); and Resolution
1584.
