B Explanatory
memorandum by MrSCHIEDER
1 Introduction
1. In December 1990, the Committee
on Rules of Procedure decided to consider several questions related to
the organisation of debates (presentation of more reports to the
Standing Committee, references to committees, presentation of amendments).
Following discussions in January and March 1991, in April 1991 it was
agreed to present a report.
2. The committee is aware of the fact that the present document
only covers part of the problems involved in the organisation of
debates and meetings of the Standing Committee. It believes, however,
that pending a substantial reform some measures should already be
taken at this stage.
2 Problems
3. It is generally agreed that
the time available during the Assembly's plenary debates for the
discussion of committee reports is insufficient and with the continuing
enlargement of the Council of Europe the situation is likely to
worsen.
4. Experience over the last few years shows that preparing and
presenting committee opinions is a constant source of difficulty.
For instance, due to insufficient co-ordination with the main committee, committees
to which a matter is referred for opinion sometimes present many
amendments, with the result that there are lengthy voting operations
in the Assembly.
3 Possible solutions
3.1 General considerations
5. Because of members' heavy workload
at national level it can hardly be expected that the overall number of
Assembly sitting days will be significantly increased.
6. So as to achieve a more appropriate organisation of debates
the following issues will be considered:
- limiting the number of questions placed on the Assembly's
register;
- reducing the number of committees to which a subject is
referred for an opinion;
- reviewing the conditions for presenting amendments;
- making more use of the Standing Committee's meetings to
discuss reports and adopt texts on the Assembly's behalf.
3.2 Number of questions placed
on the Assembly's register
7. In the past, several initiatives
have been taken
Noteto improve
the organisation of the Assembly's proceedings with a view to establishing
priorities in the choice of subjects, harmonising the committee's activities
and possibly dropping some of them. More recently the Assembly (
Order No. 447 (1989)) instructed the Bureau "to reassess committee activities
and the Assembly budget for 1990 to ensure proper adherence to the
agreed major emphasis for all Council of Europe activities…"
8. The Assembly's activities are determined by the "register
of questions submitted to the Assembly". Questions are placed on
this register by:
- the tabling
of documents of one of the three types mentioned in Rule 14, paragraph
1:
- communications from the Committee of Ministers (mainly
the statutory reports and requests for statutory opinions on draft
conventions, on requests for accession to the Council of Europe's
Statute, etc.) or the Secretary General;
- communications addressed to the Assembly by national,
supranational or international organisations;
- motions for recommendations and resolutions accepted for
inclusion in the register;
- a decision taken by the Assembly or the Standing Committee
to refer a question to a committee.
9. As can be seen from the statistics in Appendix I, questions
placed on the Assembly's register and referred to committees take
mainly the form of motions for resolutions and recommendations (65%),
of communications from international or supranational organisations
(15%) or of Committee of Ministers' communications (13%).
10. It should, however, also be considered, as is shown by Appendix
2, that from the activities under way in the thirteen general Assembly
committees and likely to result in a report, 58% are based on motions,
only 1% on progress reports from other international organisations
and about 41% on decisions taken by the Assembly or the Standing
Committee (instructions contained in recommendations, resolutions,
orders; these also include permanent instructions, which frequently
are identical with the statutory mandates of some committees such as
the examination of the budget, the regular consideration of the
Assembly's information policy, the reviews of the Rules of Procedure).
Between 1985 and April 1991, when the Bureau referred 161 motions
to committees, about 55 Assembly texts (orders, resolutions, recommendations)
instructed committees to prepare reports.
11. The current practice is to deal as follows with motions for
recommendations or resolutions:
Note
- the
President decides whether such motions are in order (Rule 27, paragraph
2);
- motions are put on the Bureau's agenda, considered by
it and:
- referred to the appropriate committee(s) for examination,
and simultaneously placed on the Assembly's register;Note
- or forwarded to one or more committees for information;
- or filed without any further action (Rule 15, paragraph
1).
Before making such a decision the Bureau may
consult one or more committees on action to be taken on a motion.
12. According to Rule 15, paragraph
2, "if a document is referred to a committee the Bureau shall submit such
reference to ratification either by the Assembly at its next sitting
or by the Standing Committee at its next meeting, as appropriate".
Under the same provision "a document shall usually be referred to
only one committee for report, though it may be referred to any
other committee for an opinion". "The Bureau may, however, refer
different parts of a document to different committees for report."
13. As is shown by Appendix 1 in a period in which the Bureau
referred 161 motions to committees for report, it also:
- forwarded 39 motions solely
for information;
- took no action on 13 motions;
- consulted committees on follow-up action on 15 motions
(increasing tendency in recent times).
14. In some instances the Bureau, when deciding to refer a motion
to a committee, presented comments such as:
- take into account the intergovernmental work on the same
subject;
- cover in the report a wider scope of questions than those
of the motion;
- include the motion in a debate on a larger subject;
- present the report to a specific part-session;
- present the report at the same time as that by another
committee on a related subject (for joint debate).
15. In November 1984, after having referred four motions to the
Committee on Agriculture, the Bureau decided to ask that committee
to make known its priorities and the time-table for its future work.
16. If a committee has not reported within four years after the
referral to it of a motion, the Assembly may remove a question from
its register (Rule 14, paragraph 3.b). Up
to now, no use has been made of this provision.
17. At its meeting on 7 March 1991, the proposal was made in the
Committee on Rules of Procedure that, in principle, reports elaborated
by committees, without the matter having been previously referred
to them by the Bureau, should be presented to the Standing Committee.
This would be the case for reports prepared following instructions
contained in Assembly recommendations and resolutions, as such instructions
bypass the Bureau of the Assembly and prevent it from making any
proposals regarding the preparation and presentation of the report
in question. If a committee felt that such a report should nevertheless
be debated in plenary, it would present a request to this end to
the Bureau.
18. When a motion is referred to committee for report this does
not necessarily imply the preparation of a report. Rule 14, paragraph
3.«, enables committees to request the Bureau of the Assembly to
remove a question referred to it from the Assembly's register. Between
1985 and 1991 two Assembly committees availed themselves of that
possibility in five instances of which one was unsuccessful (see
Appendix I). In other cases, committees just decide not to act upon
a motion without officially informing the Bureau.
19. On the basis of the considerations above, the following proposals
are made:
a. to invite the Bureau
to:
- consult committees more
often on action to be taken on a motion before deciding on a referral;
- make a greater use of the possibility of taking note of
motions, without further action;
- make a greater use of the possibility of giving, together
with a referral, some instructions to the committee concerned (see
the examples in paragraph 14 above);
- bear in mind the provisions of Rule 14, paragraph 3.b, concerning the removal of a
question from the Assembly's register, when a committee to which
it was referred has not reported within four years.
b. to invite committees
to:
- take account of the provision
of Rule 14, paragraph 3.a, according
to which the Assembly may remove a question from its register at
the request of the committee to which it was referred;
- limit their practice of inserting paragraphs in draft
recommendations or resolutions giving them terms of reference for
a new activity; and it should be understood that in general reports
prepared on the basis of instructions contained in Assembly texts
should be presented to the Standing Committee.
3.3 Reduction of the number
of committees to which a matter is referred for an opinion
20. For terminological reasons
it should first be pointed out that opinions, in the context of
the present memorandum, are documents prepared by a committee, to
which in addition to a committee seized for report a question also
has been referred to. Consequently "statutory" opinions of the Assembly
to the Committee of Ministers are not dealt with here.
21. Under Rule 15, paragraph 2, a document "shall usually be referred
to only one committee for report, though it may be referred to any
other committee for opinion". About 53% of the documents (all categories included)
referred by the Bureau between 1985 and April 1991 were also sent
for an opinion to one or more committees (see Appendix I). As can
be seen from Appendix II nearly a quarter of the overall committee activities
concern opinions. Between February 1984 and April 1991 the Assembly
Committees presented 359 reports with an operative part and 124
written opinions (see Appendix IV).
22. In the last years, difficult problems have arisen for so-called
interdisciplinary subjects (for example transport, drugs, the media,
genetic engineering) involving several Assembly committees. Due
to insufficient co-ordination, committees for opinion presented
many amendments and this involved lengthy voting operations in the
Assembly. The Bureau and the Standing Committee could be invited
to determine (after the necessary consultations) which committee
should be responsible for what interdisciplinary subject.
23. In other instances, committees for opinion rightly argued
that they could not go ahead with their work as long as the main
committee had not adopted its report. This resulted in the very
late preparation of opinions.
24. At the meeting of the Committee on Rules of Procedure on 7
March 1991 it was proposed that in general a matter should not be
referred for an opinion to more than two committees.
25. Recommendations to remedy the situation should therefore be
fivefold:
i Fewer documents/motions
should be referred to committees for opinion. They should instead
be sent for information; committees could then hold a free exchange
of views on the document/motion. The problem of interdisciplinary
subjects deserves special attention (paragraph 22 above).
ii In principle, a motion/document should not be referred
for an opinion to more than two committees.
iii The length of opinions should be reduced; or preferably,
in appropriate cases committees should present oral opinions or
appoint a spokesman.
Note
iv Before the adoption of a draft text at committee level,
more contacts should take place between the Rapporteurs of the main
committee and the committee(s) for opinion and between committee Secretaries;
in general, committees for opinion need not await the final report
of the main committee before starting their work; it would be useful
if reports could be sent in draft form from the main committee to
the committee(s) for opinion; however it is obvious that committees
for opinion have to await the draft text adopted by the main committee
in order to decide on their final presentation of any amendments; the
aim should be to incorporate in the text presented to the Assembly
for adoption by the main committee all those proposals from committees
for opinion on which an agreement can be reached.
v Rule 44, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Procedure empowers
committees for opinion as such to put forward amendments to the
report (draft text) tabled by the main committee, without however
indicating special deadlines to this end; it should be made clear
that only those amendments are in order which are tabled at the
latest twenty-four hours before the main committee's meeting at
which these amendments would be considered. However, this obligation
presupposes that the main committee presents its report within the
time-limits provided for in Rule 28, paragraph 2, that is at the
latest two weeks before the opening or resumption of the session.
It should be understood that if a committee to which a matter has
been referred for report was unable to take a stand (for example
because of the cancellation of the meeting, or for lack of time)
on an amendment tabled in time by a committee for opinion, that
amendment would nevertheless be in order.
3.4 Conditions for the tabling
of amendments
26. On 7 March 1991, the attention
of the Committee on Rules of Procedure was drawn to the fact that whereas
the signatures of ten or more representatives were required for
the tabling of motions for recommendations and resolutions, one
member could propose an amendment or sub-amendment (Rules 27, paragraph
1, and 30, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Procedure). In many national
parliaments there is no right for individual members to table amendments.
On 13 March 1991 the European Parliament modified its rules regarding
amendments; a committee, a political group or twenty-three members
at least are empowered to table amendments for examination in plenary
session. Individual members may only table amendments at committee
level. However, if such an amendment is supported by four or more
members during votes in committee it can be presented in plenary
session.
27. The Committee on Rules of Procedure examined this matter on
22 April 1991, when the proposal was made that henceforth the signatures
of two representatives or substitutes at least should be required
for tabling amendments or sub-amendments. As a result the first,
fourth and sixth paragraphs of Rule 30 would have to be modified.
The first sentence of the new wording proposed for Rule 30, paragraph
6, would specify that one of the authors of an amendment or sub-amendment
would move it when it is called. In doubt the first signatory of
the amendment would be called. At this occasion another problem
could be settled: the consequences of the withdrawal by its authors
of an amendment. Presently (for example see Official Report 1980,
page 980) another member may move an amendment which its author(s)
have just withdrawn. This might have undesirable effects and your
Rapporteur therefore suggests specifying in paragraph 6 of Rule
30 that an amendment withdrawn by its authors cannot be moved and
will therefore lapse.
3.5 Discussion of reports and
adoption of texts by the Standing Committee
28. In 1971, the Rules regarding
the Standing Committee were revised (
Resolution 484). Experience since then has shown that the Standing
Committee's meetings offer an excellent means of reducing the agendas
of Assembly sessions by examining committee reports. Between May
1971 and July 1991 the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the
Assembly, has thus adopted about 26% of the global number of texts adopted
(326 out of 1 256). Over the years 1984 to July 1991 the ratio is
even 32% (see Appendix IV). There are still opportunities for the
Standing Committee to examine an even greater number of committee
reports: as can be seen from Appendix III, only relatively few texts
Noteare
adopted at the spring and autumn meetings of the Standing Committee.
However, in this connection also the following drawbacks of the
Standing Committee should be borne in mind:
- about one quarter of the Assembly's Representatives are
members of the Standing Committee,Note
- there is often only a limited attendance of the general
public and media coverage is generally poor (except during the summer
meetings); but no real effort has been made in the past to publicise
the sittings.
Sometimes it is argued that the Standing
Committee should not substitute for the Assembly and that the discussion
of committee reports in the Standing Committee should rather be
the exception. However, the founding fathers of the Council of Europe
did not embrace this view.
29. The memorandum by Mr de Koster,
Note mentioned in footnote 1 to
paragraph 7, had recommended that the Bureau, when referring motions,
should provisionally suggest whether a report should be presented
in plenary sitting or in the Standing Committee. In the past the
Bureau occasionally specified that a report should be presented
to the Standing Committee (see, for example, Reference No. 1653
(1989)).
30. The Committee on Rules of Procedure agreed that a further
step forward should be taken and considered the following possibilities:
- preparing guidelines from the
Bureau/Standing Committee for the general committees on the presentation
of their reports to the Standing Committee and the Assembly (variant
A);
- enabling the Bureau to decide, subject to ratification
of the Assembly or the Standing Committee, that a report prepared,
following the reference of a document/motion, be submitted to the
Standing Committee or the Assembly (variant B).Note
31. In March and April 1991, the Committee on Rules of Procedure
evaluated in depth both variants and kept in mind the following
aspects:
- empowering the Bureau
to decide if a report has to be presented to the Assembly or the
Standing Committee would substantially change the present system;
/
- the challenge of such a Bureau decision in plenary session
could lead to incidents;
- each committee considers its activities and reports to
be important; a committee rarely opts spontaneously for presenting
a report to the Standing Committee;
- it might not always be easy for the Bureau to agree which
motions/matters are sufficiently technical to be debated in the
Standing Committee;
- the introduction of appropriate guidelines by the Bureau
would maintain the autonomy of committees, while also probably achieving
the result that at least a third of all reports are presented to
the Standing Committee;
- the Bureau itself might prefer to take a decision regarding
the presentation of reports and to keep under review the situation
instead of relying on the co-operation of committees.
32. The Committee on Rules of Procedure finally opted for variant
A. This has the following consequences. Under Rule 47, paragraph
6, committees have to decide, after approving a report, if it is
to be:
- submitted to the Assembly
for debate;
- or submitted to the Assembly for tacit adoption in pursuance
of Rule 29;
- or submitted to the Standing Committee.
33. The guidelines referred to in paragraph 30 above should propose
that when taking this decision, committees should bear in mind:
- any recommendations made by
the Assembly or the Standing Committee when referring a matter to
a committee (Rule 15, paragraph 2) regarding the presentation of
a report;
- the need to present at least a third of their reports
to the Standing Committee.
However, the latter
obligation would not affect Rule 16, paragraph 3, of the Rules of
Procedure according to which "each part-session shall normally include
a debate on general policy".
34. In case a committee does not present at least a third of its
reports to the Standing Committee it would lose any priority for
debates in plenary session.
Note
35. In parallel with the introduction of the guidelines some rule
changes would be required:
- recourse
to Rule 47, paragraph 8, and paragraph 9, should no longer be possible
for five but for ten members;Note
- these provisions would not apply where the Assembly decided
that a report shall be dealt with by the Standing Committee; such
an Assembly decision could only be altered by a unanimous vote of
the Standing Committee;
- the second sentence of Rule 47, paragraph 6, which requires
a majority of three quarters of the votes cast for committee decisions
relating to the presentation of their reports should be deleted.
36. These changes have a threefold objective:
- the Bureau's authority over
the preparation of the Assembly's agenda should be strengthened;
- the presentation of reports to the Standing Committee
should be facilitated;
- the ping-pong situations between the Bureau and Assembly
Committees on the presentation of a report to a plenary session
or a meeting of the Standing Committee should no longer arise in
future.
4 Final remarks
37. The Committee on Rules of Procedure
proposes that the new provisions should enter into force at the opening
of the 44th Ordinary Session (May 1992).
38. If the Assembly agrees with the proposed amendment of Rule
30, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Procedure (see paragraph 4.b of the draft resolution) the
Bureau should consequently modify paragraph 8 of the provisions
regarding the timetabling of debates. The new text of paragraph
8 could then read as follows: "when amendments are being considered,
unless the Assembly decides otherwise, the only members who may
speak shall be one of the authors of the amendment, or another member
speaking in its favour" (remainder unchanged).
39. At this occasion, the Bureau could adapt paragraph 6 of the
provisions relating to the timetabling of debates to the practice
already followed, by substituting "twenty-four hours before the
opening of the sitting" for "twenty-four hours before the opening
of the debate".
Reporting committee: Committee on Rules of Procedure.
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none. Reference to
committee: none (report on the committee's own initiative).
Draft resolution unanimously adopted by the committee on 26
June 1991.
Members of the committee: Sir Geoffrey
Finsberg (Chairman). MM. Stig
Gustafsson, Dimmer (Vice-chairmen), Mrs Albrink. MM. Aliónele, André (Alternale: Pistre), Andreis, Arnalds,
Capanna. Cassar, Colombo, De Decker, Demiralp, Faulds, Gundersen, Mrs Haller, MM. Junghanns, Karcsay, Laakso, Lemoine, van der Linden,
Lord, Lyssarides, Marten, José Marques, Meimarakis, Moya,
O'Brien, Schieder, Mrs Terborg.
N. B. The names of the members who took part in the vote are
printed in italics.
See Resolution
975 (Standing Committee, 25 November 1991).
