B Explanatory report,
by Ms Ingjerd Schie Schou, rapporteur
1 Origin and scope of the report
1. A number of questions relating
to modifications of the Parliamentary Assembly’s Rules of Procedure were
successively referred to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities
and Institutional Affairs (Rules Committee) by the Bureau of the
Assembly. These were:
- the procedure
and working methods used during hybrid or remote mode and their
feasibility and effectiveness of implementation for the sessions
and meetings held in physical presence of members: “lessons learnt
from functioning in hybrid manner” (Bureau decision of 30 May 2022);
- the procedure for clarifying applicable Assembly guidelines
relating to written questions to the Committee of Ministers (Bureau
decision of 24 June 2022);
- the duration of the terms of reference of periodic review
reports by the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments
by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) (Bureau
decision of 14 October 2022).
2. In order to respond to these requests, the committee instructed,
at its meeting on 10 October 2022, its chairperson to send a letter
to the Bureau of the Assembly asking that the committee be seized
with the preparation of a report allowing for a general revision
of the Assembly's Rules.
3. After the committee was seized by the Bureau (reference 4688
of 14 October 2022), it decided, at its meeting on 23 January 2023,
to join the three requests received within a single mandate on the
modification of various provisions of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.
On the same day, the committee appointed me Rapporteur on all of
these issues.
4. Later on, the Bureau referred further issues to our committee,
to be taken into account in the preparation of the present report:
- the follow-up of Resolution 2492 (2023) “Assessing the functioning of the partnership for democracy” (Bureau
decision of 28 April 2023);
- the motion for a resolution “Call for a change on rules
relating to gender quota” (Doc. 15749) (Bureau decision of 25 May 2023).
5. In accordance with well-established practice, the committee
is also ready to consider other proposals for amendments to the
Rules of Procedure in order to adapt them to parliamentary practice,
or to clarify them.
2 Proposed
amendments to the Rules of Procedure to reflect lessons learned
from the experience of working in a hybrid or remote format
6. In response to the Covid-19
pandemic exceptional situation, the Bureau of the Assembly introduced complementary
working methods for committees, on a temporary basis, which also
applied to the Bureau and the Standing Committee, in order to enable
them to hold remote meetings.
Note Furthermore,
the Rules of Procedure were amended to enable the Assembly to hold
hybrid or remote plenary sessions in exceptional circumstances (
Resolution 2349 (2020) “Modification of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure on
alternative arrangements for the organisation of Parliamentary Assembly
part-sessions”, Rapporteur: Mr Frank Schwabe, Germany, SOC).
7. As rapporteur, I would like to reiterate from the outset the
fundamental position set out in the report of Mr Schwabe, according
to which the Assembly should adhere to the principle that its activities
should be conducted in the usual manner as laid down in its Rules
of Procedure. Consideration of holding part-sessions or committee
meetings and votes in an alternative mode – hybrid or remote – should
under no circumstances become a regular mode of operation: it is
an exceptional mode of operation in exceptional situations. Only
the normal presential mode of operation and procedures are likely
to fully guarantee the deliberative nature of Assembly sessions.
8. However, the procedures and practices applied by the Assembly
during the pandemic have led to a modernisation of the Assembly's
functioning and, in many respects, to improvements, as stated in
a memorandum considered by the Bureau of the Assembly.
Note Therefore,
it appears to be desirable to introduce on a permanent basis those
mechanisms that add value to the Assembly's procedures.
9. On 6 July 2022, the Chairperson of the Rules Committee addressed
a letter to all Chairpersons of committees with regard to the functioning
of committees and the conduct of their meetings, inviting them “to review
the modalities for the examination of draft reports in the light
of the mode of functioning that the committees had between March
2020 and May 2022, in particular with regard to the presentation
and examination of proposals for amendments to a draft text, or
any other matter that may be deemed appropriate”. In October 2022,
the Chairperson received the replies from the committees with proposals,
which largely reflected the points mentioned in the memorandum discussed
by the Bureau. Taking into account the committees’ feedback, the
following changes to the Rules should be made.
2.1 Organisation
of part-sessions and the running of plenary sittings
2.1.1 Discussion
of amendments in plenary sitting
10. Rule 67.4.d foresees that,
during part-sessions and meetings of the Standing committee organised
in a hybrid or remote manner, “if a committee has not been able
to take a position on amendments to its report that have been tabled,
the floor shall be given to the rapporteur”. This provision should
be included in the Rules on a permanent basis. Furthermore, if an
amendment has been unanimously approved by the committee submitting
the report, I propose that it should no longer be discussed during
the plenary sitting, unless 10 or more members of the Assembly object.
The objection of a single member, as Rule 34.11 currently provides, should
not be sufficient.
2.1.2 Speaking
time allocated to rapporteurs during plenary sittings
11. Chapter iv on speaking time
of the Additional provisions relating to Assembly debates (in a
normal operation mode) provides that “Rapporteurs shall have a total
of thirteen minutes to present the report and to reply to the debate.
Rapporteurs may, after the first round of speakers on behalf of
the political groups, request the floor for a speaking time of up
to four minutes to reply, which time shall be deducted from the
time of reply at the end of the debate. Rapporteurs for opinion
and rapporteurs of the Bureau ad hoc committees shall have the same
speaking time to present their opinions as the speakers registered
for the debate concerned”.
12. Rule 67.4.j of the Rules of Procedure, introduced in November
2020, provides that, during hybrid or remote Assembly sessions,
the speaking time during the sittings is modified as follows: “rapporteurs
shall have ten minutes to present their report and three minutes
to reply; members shall have one minute for questions to guest speakers,
the presentation of an amendment or a procedural motion, or a point
of order (speaking time for speakers, rapporteurs for opinion and
committee chairpersons remains unchanged at three minutes).”
13. At its meeting on 24 November 2022, the Bureau of the Assembly
invited the Assembly rapporteurs to present their reports within
7 minutes and to keep their replies to 3 minutes. This practice
has been applied on a regular basis since then, both in plenary
and by the Standing Committee. This allows for a greater number of
speakers to intervene in the debates. Time is indeed precious as
speakers’ list are almost systematically cut, sometimes even drastically.
14. I propose that the speaking time allocated to rapporteurs
be revised on a permanent basis and limited to 10 minutes (ideally
7 minutes to present the report and 3 minutes to reply to speakers’
statements) (with one exception for the co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring
Committee), in line with recent practice, and extended to 5 minutes
for the presentation of reports on the observation of elections
in plenary. The relevant provisions, namely point iv.1 of the Additional
provisions relating to Assembly debates – Complementary texts, as
well as Rules 67.4.j should be amended accordingly.
2.1.3 Notification
of substitutes
15. In the light of the experience
of hybrid or remote sessions and discussions in committees, it is
proposed to close online registration 24 hours before the beginning
of each sitting, in order to allow notification of late changes
while ensuring that lists of speakers and voters can be properly
managed. For specific unforeseen circumstances, it should be left
open to the Bureau to decide on an exceptional basis to define another deadline.
16. It is worth noting in this context that, upon my proposal,
the Bureau decided at its meeting on 25 May 2023 to open the notification
of substitutions by debate. This was triggered by the fact that
the number of sittings was reduced (five instead of nine) for as
long as the Assembly met in the premises of the European Parliament,
which limited the participation of substitutes. I would like to
propose to make this new arrangement a permanent rule, and to amend
the complementary texts accordingly. Rule 40.1 should be amended accordingly.
2.1.4 Paperless
policy
17. The new online tool (Pace-Apps),
which has been used extensively over the past two years, has given Committee
members more operational flexibility. However, it should not exclude
the traditional paper-based method for tabling motions but should
rather be maintained to facilitate the tabling of motions.
2.2 Functioning
of committees and the running of committees’ meetings
2.2.1 Simplified
procedure for voting
18. The ordinary procedure is for
committees to vote on a draft text paragraph by paragraph and, at
the end, on the draft text as a whole. The simplified procedure
consists of voting on specific paragraphs only if there are amendments
and, at the end, on the draft text as a whole. Committees mainly
use the simplified procedure for voting on draft texts and this
practice should be generalised. Generalising the simplified procedure
does not require a modification of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure,
as the Rules do not set out the procedure for committees to vote
on draft texts.
19. Given the fact that this procedure does not require amendments
to the Rules, the Rules Committee recommends to leave its application
at the discretion of the committees.
2.2.2 Functioning
of committees and the running of their meetings
20. On the issue of the format
of committee meetings (hybrid, remote, full presential), and taking
into account the committees’ input, the Rules Committee agreed that
it is essential to continue to base the Assembly’s work on face-to-face
meetings of its members, so as to allow for rich exchanges that
are indispensable for the work of a multilateral organisation. Hence,
full presential meeting should remain the rule.
21. However, certain decisions can be taken by committees by written
consultation. This can mainly be done on procedural issues such
as authorisations for members to participate in events, call for
candidates for a report or possibly the consensual appointment of
rapporteurs when there is only one candidate after an open call
for candidates. This could also apply for example to authorise rapporteurs
to organise hearings or exchanges of views, or to be assisted by
an expert for the drafting of a report. Decisions adopted by written consultation
should, in principle, be consensual and, if objections are raised,
only in the case of real urgency, a majority decision could be adopted
by written consultation. This is already the practice and does not
require a change of the Rules.
2.2.3 Tabling
and consideration of amendments
22. The practice of sending proposed
amendments in written form to the committee secretariat 48 hours before
the meeting and then sending all the amendments to members 24 hours
before the meeting in both official languages greatly facilitates
the processing of amendments on the day of the meeting, although
this does not prevent members from proposing amendments on the day.
3 Possible
amendments to the Rules of Procedure concerning enhancing intra-institutional
interaction between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee
of Ministers
23. The practice of parliamentary
questions is inherent to a parliamentary system of governance, where
one of Parliament’s key functions is to exercise democratic oversight
over the executive. The right to put questions to the Committee
of Ministers is one of the fundamental rights of the members of
the Assembly, foreseen under the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure (Rule
61.1).
24. The issue of intra-institutional relations was discussed during
an informal joint meeting between the Presidential Committee of
the Assembly and the Bureau of the Ministers’ Deputies, held in
the margins of the Assembly 2022 January part-session. The Bureau
of the Assembly considered the matter and asked the Rules Committee
to consider the possibility of tabling written questions by several
members. In addition, the Bureau was invited to further enhance
the guidelines regarding written questions in order to clarify the
meaning of “general interest” of written questions.
25. On 24 June 2022, the Bureau considered a memorandum by the
Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly and agreed to amend
accordingly the Additional provisions relating to Assembly debates
thus enhancing the guidelines regarding written questions in order
to clarify the meaning of “general interest” of written questions.
More specifically, the memorandum presented by the Secretary General
of the Assembly to the Bureau suggested that, when assessing the
general interest of a written question, the President should be guided
by the following considerations:
- The
subject matter of the question should fall within the competence
of the Council of Europe and the sphere of responsibility of the
Committee of Ministers;
- The question should be of interest and importance for
several member States, highlighting for example:
- systemic issues relating to
the implementation of a key Council of Europe legal instrument (for example
the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5), the European
Social Charter (Nos. 35 and 163) etc.) or a judgement of the European
Court of Human Rights (Committee of Ministers competency);
- the development of emerging practices in a given field
(for example artificial intelligence);
- the added value of Council of Europe action regarding
the subject matter of the question.
- Written questions should,
as far as possible, avoid addressing bilateral issues; instead,
parliamentarians could be encouraged to table written declarations.
26. The possibility of tabling
questions by several members should be added to the Assembly Rules
of Procedure. This would help avoid a situation where the same or
related questions, are tabled separately by several members.
4 Duration
of the terms of reference of periodic review reports by the Monitoring
Committee
27. Rule 26.4. stipulates that
“A reference to committee shall lapse in two years or, at the request
of the committee concerned, by a decision of the Assembly.”
28. On 14 October 2022, the Bureau considered a letter from the
Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee and decided to refer the
general issue of the duration of the terms of reference of periodic
review reports to the Rules Committee.
29. On 26 January 2023, the Assembly adopted
Resolution 2483 (2023) “The progress of the Assembly's monitoring procedure
(January-December 2022)” in which it recalled the specific conditions
and procedural requirements linked to the preparation of these reports
which mean that a single two-year reference period, in accordance
with Rule 26 of the Rules of Procedure, was insufficient.
30. Experience has shown that specific procedures in the Monitoring
Committee make it almost impossible to comply with this deadline.
31. Some of the reasons that slow down the preparation of periodic
reports include the method of appointment of rapporteurs involving
political groups (two for each report); the multi-stage preparation
process including a visit and time for the authorities to comment
and, last but not least, the need for a stable political situation
in the country concerned fostering political dialogue. Discussions
in the Rules Committee clearly supported the proposal to increase
the time limit for the preparation of periodic review reports to
at least three years, with the possibility for a further extension.
32. The committee also discussed the possibility of extending
references to committees in general, but concluded that the current
deadline of two years should remain in order to ensure that topics
remain relevant.
5 Follow-up
of Resolution 2492 (2023) “Assessing the functioning of the partnership
for democracy”
33. On 25 April 2023, the Parliamentary
Assembly adopted
Resolution 2492 (2023) “Assessing the functioning of the partnership for democracy”
which states that:
“7. The Assembly resolves that the following
rights shall be granted to partner for democracy delegations in
addition to those foreseen by Rule 64:
7.1. the chairpersons of partner
for democracy delegations shall have the right to participate in
the meetings of the Standing Committee;
7.2. members of partner for
democracy delegations shall have the right to put spontaneous oral questions
to guest speakers in plenary sittings of the Assembly and in meetings
of the Standing Committee;
7.3. partner for democracy
delegations shall have the right to designate their members to work
in Assembly committees and sub-committees (including ad hoc sub-committees)
open to them. The names of such designated members should appear
on the lists of committees and sub-committees under the heading
“partners for democracy” and added to the number of committee members
designated by the delegations of member States in accordance with
Rule 44.1;
7.4. members of partner for
democracy delegations shall have the right to be appointed as full
members in various networks set up in the Assembly.
8. The Assembly further resolves
that some additional rights may be granted to partner for democracy delegations
which have shown outstanding results in achieving the goals of the
partnership and participate fully in the work of the Assembly and
its committees. Such additional rights for the delegations and their
members may include:
8.1. the right to table motions
for recommendation and resolution, subject to co-signature by a
member of the Assembly, with both names appearing as authors of
the motion;
8.2. the right to table amendments,
subject to co-signature by a member of the Assembly, with both names
appearing as authors of the amendment;
8.3. the right to request current
affairs debates and to be chosen to open such debates. If such a
request is made by an individual member of a partner for democracy
delegation, it should be subject to co-signature by a member of
the Assembly, with both names appearing as authors of the request
and having the support of 19 more members of the Assembly. If a
request is made by a partner for democracy delegation, it should
be supported by a political group, a national delegation or a committee,
as provided by Rule 53.2;
8.4. the right to table written
declarations, subject to co-signature by a member of the Assembly,
with both names appearing as authors of the written declaration;
8.5. the right to be appointed
as rapporteur for information reports which do not contain a draft
resolution and/or recommendation.”
9. The additional rights referred
to in paragraph 8 above may be granted by decision of the Bureau, ratified
by the Assembly, at the beginning of a new session (in January).
The decision shall be based on a proposal by the Committee on Political
Affairs and Democracy. Extended rights shall be granted for the
duration of the session (one year) with the possibility to extend
or not to extend them depending on the results.
34. As far as paragraph 7 of
Resolution 2492 (2023) is required, some of its provisions require an amendment
to the Assembly Rules, while others do not:
- the chairpersons of partner for democracy delegations
shall have the right to participate in the meetings of the Standing
Committee: Rule 17.3 could be amended so as to include that the
chairpersons of partner for democracy delegations are invited to
participate in the meetings of the Standing Committee, but without
the right to vote. They shall have the right to speak with the authorisation
of the President of the Assembly, in his capacity as Chairperson
of the Standing Committee.
- members of partner for democracy delegations shall have
the right to put spontaneous oral questions to guest speakers in
plenary sittings of the Assembly and in meetings of the Standing
Committee: according to Rule 64.5 members of delegations with partner
for democracy status shall have the right to speak in the Assembly
sittings with the authorisation of the President of the Assembly.
- partner for democracy delegations shall have the right
to designate their members to work in Assembly committees and sub-committees
(including ad hoc sub-committees) open to them. The names of such designated
members should appear on the lists of committees and sub-committees
under the heading “partners for democracy” and added to the number
of committee members designated by the delegations of member States
in accordance with Rule 44.1: according to Rule 64.6, members of delegations
with partner for democracy status may participate in committee meetings
as provided in Rule 48.5 (without a right to vote). Delegations
with partner for democracy status appoint members to committees,
to which meetings they may participate and speak. Their names could
be published on the website and in the Assembly list under a specific
category but shall not be added to the number of committee members.
Adding them to the number of committee members designated by the
delegations of member States in accordance with Rule 44.1 would,
for instance, change the quorum. This would not be correct, as they
are not full members and do not have the right to vote.
- members of partner for democracy delegations shall have
the right to be appointed as full members in various networks set
up in the Assembly: the composition of networks, alliances or other
committee bodies is defined at committee level, not in the Assembly
Rules. As a matter of fact, the terms of reference of the Parliamentary
Platform for the rights of LGBTI people in Europe already foresees
in its composition the appointment of members of partner for democracy
delegations. This does not require amendments to the Rules. Committees
could be invited to review the terms of reference of their networks,
alliances or other bodies to ensure that members of partner for
democracy delegations are included in their composition.
35. As far as paragraph 8 of
Resolution 2492 (2023) is concerned, it should be included
in extenso in the relevant Rule
(Rule 64). It should be noted that this new provision does not automatically
grant the enclosed rights to all partners for democracy but that,
as stipulated in the resolution, “The additional rights referred
to in paragraph 8 above may be granted by decision of the Bureau,
ratified by the Assembly, at the beginning of a new session (in
January). The decision shall be based on a proposal by the Committee
on Political Affairs and Democracy. Extended rights shall be granted
for the duration of the session (one year) with the possibility
to extend or not to extend them depending on the results”
.
6 Motion
for a resolution “Call for a change on rules relating to gender
quota” (Doc. 15749)
36. On 25 May 2023, the Bureau
referred to the Rules Committee a motion for a resolution “Call
for a change on rules relating to gender quota” (
Doc. 15749) to be taken into account in the preparation of the
present report.
37. The motion for resolution in question alleges that changes
introduced to the Rules of the Assembly by
Resolution 2394 (2021) “Gender representation in the Parliamentary Assembly”,
and which entered into force as of January 2023, are discriminatory
and calls for a revision of the rules on gender representation in
the Assembly. The motion for a resolution claims that “national
parliaments are obliged to appoint (and suspend) parliamentarians
based on their gender” and urges “the Assembly to stop discrimination
against women and men, to guarantee a right to be selected based
on professional achievements rather than biological features, and
to avoid suspending more qualified, more eager, or more available
delegates for having the ‘wrong’ gender.”
38. Let me recall that, as stated in
Resolution 2394 (2021), “The sharing of responsibilities in political and public
decision making between women and men is an inherent element of
any true and effective democracy, a matter of equity and justice,
and responds to the necessarily legitimate aspirations that have
been expressed in our societies for decades. Women's empowerment
and capacity building are essential to achieve women’s effective
and active participation in representative institutions and decision-making
bodies. Our societies are composed of an equal number of men and
women. Combining this reality with political representation and establishing
parliamentary parity are legitimate objectives; where there is political
will and where the impetus is given at the highest institutional
level, parity can become the norm.”
39. The motion for resolution claims that the right to be free
from discrimination should work both ways protecting both men and
women. New Rule 6.2.b states that “Each national delegation must
include both women and men among its representatives. As long as
women are under-represented in the Assembly, each national delegation
shall include a percentage of women as members that is at least
equal to the percentage in its parliament or, if this is more favourable
to the representation of women, ensure gender representation as follows
(…)”.
40. We should be proud of the fact that in January 2023 and January
2024 all national delegations met the requirements of the new rules
in terms of gender representation. The new rules have already borne
fruit and gender representation improved also in the composition
of the committees. There is no reason to go back on these measures.
7 Adjustments
to the terms of reference of certain committees
41. As a result of the Reykjavik
Summit, the Committee of Ministers has decided to modify the intergovernmental
structure. A new intergovernmental committee on democracy has been
set up (CDDEM).
42. The mandate of this new intergovernmental committee corresponds
to a substantial part of the mandate of the Assembly’s Committee
on Political Affairs and Democracy. Hence, it would be most appropriate
for that committee to send a representative to follow this work.
The following sentence should be added in the terms of reference
of committees where it is lacking: “The committee shall represent
the Assembly in, and follow the work of, the relevant expert committees
of the Council of Europe.” Furthermore, considering the mission
of the North-South Centre, it would seem appropriate for the Committee
on Political Affairs and Democracy to also send an Assembly representative
to follow its work.
8 Political
groups – threshold for the formation of a political group
43. Rule 19.2. states that “A political
group shall have no fewer than 28 members of at least eight national delegations.
No Assembly member may belong to more than one political group.”
44. Following the expulsion of the Russian Federation, the number
of members of the Assembly has decreased (currently 612). However,
the threshold to form a political group has remained unchanged at
28. 28 members currently represent 4.5% of the members of the Assembly,
while 28 members represented 4.3% of the 648 members of the Assembly
before the expulsion of the Russian Federation. A 26 members threshold would
represent 4.3% of the members of the Assembly.
45. It is interesting to note that in the European Parliament
(705 members) only 23 members (3.2%) are needed to form a political
group. As for the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (612 members), 20 delegates
(3.2%) can form a political group.
46. Considering these different thresholds and figures, and following
converging discussions with the representatives of the political
groups, I propose to keep the 4.3% threshold of the Assembly, which
would lower the number of members required to 26.
47. Given the very nature of our Assembly, and unlike national
parliaments, its composition regularly fluctuates with the holding
of parliamentary elections in the Council of Europe member States.
This should be taken into account and a political group should not
immediately disappear when dropping below the 26 members threshold.
Furthermore, when it comes to calculating the allocation per political
group, the calculations concerning the per
capita allowance per political group are based on the
number of members of the political groups on 30 June, according
to the system defined in Rule 19.7 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.
48. 30 June should also be set as the reference date to verify
that the conditions set out in Rule 19.2 for the existence of a
political group are met.
9 Various
changes necessitated by parliamentary practice
9.1 Rule 35.7
on questions of procedure
49. Rule 35.7 should be amended
as it leads to confusion with Rule 36 and the 30-second speaking
time limit on points of order. It should read as follows: “Comments on any question of procedure shall
be limited to 30 seconds”.
9.2 Rule 25.2
(motions for recommendations and resolutions) and Rule 56.2 (written declarations)
50. With regard to the content
of text proposals and written declarations submitted by members,
Rules 25.2 and 56.2 should be supplemented to include that the texts
or the declaration shall address “areas falling within the Council
of Europe’s sphere of competence”.
9.3 Prolongation
of the validity of references
51. To ensure coherence between
parliamentary practice and the Assembly’s regulatory framework, paragraph 9
of the Guidelines for consideration of motions for resolutions and
recommendations
Note should be amended by
deleting its second sentence as follows:
“9. References shall remain valid for the time foreseen
in the Rules of Procedure (Rule 26.4).
52. Indeed, practice shows that, for various legitimate reasons,
committees are sometimes compelled to ask the Bureau for a prolongation
of their mandates. A strict rule against such exceptions is not
adequate.
9.4 Additional
provisions relating to Assembly debates
53. The Additional provisions relating
to Assembly debates should be adapted to current practice: Paragraphs
2 and 3 of ii. List of speakers should be merged and amended as
follows:
“As soon as the draft
agenda of the part-session has been published, and up to the closing
date, names of members of the Assembly may be entered online via
the Pace‑apps platform, or in the event of malfunctioning of the
application sent by e‑mail ([email protected]), by secretaries
of national delegations or secretaries of political groups to the
Table Office of the Parliamentary Assembly. Names may not be entered
on the list of speakers for a debate under urgent procedure or a
current affairs debate until a specific request is placed on the
draft agenda”.
9.5 Bureaux
of committees
54. Rule 46.3 reads as follows:
“Committee members who have been members for at least one year may
be candidates for the office of chairperson or vice-chairperson
and must belong to the political group to which the Chair or a Vice-Chair
has been allocated on the basis of an agreement reached among the
political groups within the Presidential Committee. A single candidate
put forward for any office shall be declared elected without proceeding
to a vote.”
55. As foreseen in Rule 46.3, the political groups reach an agreement
on the repartition of the committee chairmanship, as well as on
the attribution of the position of first, second and third vice-chairmanships.
In a spirit of constructive dialogue between the political groups,
it would seem advisable that not only do the groups agree on the
repartition of the chairmanships and vice-chairmanships of committees,
but the overall proposals on the candidates put forward for these
positions should also be the subject of an agreement among the political
groups. If it proves impossible to reach an agreement by consensus,
the agreement should be obtained amongst the political groups at
a qualified majority of two thirds. Furthermore, a single candidate
put forward for any office shall be declared elected without proceeding
to a vote, only if the said candidature respects the agreement reached.
Rule 46.3 should be amended accordingly.
9.6 Procedure
in committees: quorum requirements
56. The Rules of procedure foresee
that certain decisions taken by committee are subject to quorum requirements.
57. Rule 47.3 reads as follows: “A committee may deliberate and
take decisions when one third of its members are present; however,
if so requested by one sixth of its members before voting begins
on a draft opinion, recommendation or resolution as a whole, or
on the election or dismissal of the chairperson or vice-chairpersons,
the vote may be taken only if a majority of committee members are
present.”
58. It is completed by Rule 47.4 foresees that “If no quorum exists
when a committee begins a meeting which is taking place at the date,
time and place which was notified to its members, the chairperson
shall have the power to close the meeting and forthwith open a subsequent
one during which the committee may deliberate and vote, irrespective
of the number of members present. During such a meeting, the agenda
sent out to committee members beforehand shall not be changed. The
provisions on roll call contained in paragraph 2 above shall not
be applicable during such a meeting.”
59. This means that, basically, a committee can take any decision
without a quorum, as long as it does not change its agenda.
60. The Rules specify a quorum requirement only for two types
of decisions at committee level, which are imperative and do not
fall under Rule 47.4. A motion for recommendation or resolution
shall be adopted by a committee with the requisite quorum as defined
in Rule 47.3 (Rule 25.2). The same applies to adoption of declarations
by committees (Article 2.4 of the Guidelines for the adoption of
declarations, approved by the Bureau on 5 March 2015). Hence, committee
chairpersons are expected to ascertain the quorum before the vote
starts (see Rules of Procedure on the quorum) of the adoption of
such texts by their committees. Furthermore, the Monitoring Committee
has defined a quorum requirement in its internal working methods concerning
the selection of countries to be subjected to a periodic review.
61. For the sake of clarity, the above-mentioned decisions subjected
to the requisite quorum should be listed in Rule 47. Rule 47 should
be amended accordingly and redrafted for a better understanding
of its provisions.
62. Taken into account the difficulties encountered by committees
in reaching the quorum requirements when points requiring quorum
are taken at a later stage on their agenda, the Rules Committee
came to the conclusion that:
- for
the committees with 81 or 85 seats, a motion for recommendation
or resolution shall be adopted by a committee with a specific requisite:
no less than 20 members voting in favour of the motion. This would be
in line with the regulatory requirements defined in Rule 25.2 (Tabling
of motions for recommendations and resolutions);
- for the committees with less seats (Committee on Rules
of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs and Committee
on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights),
and as 20 votes would be by far above the quorum defined in Rule 47.3
(= 1/3 of the committee members), a motion for recommendation or
resolution shall be adopted by the committee with the requisite
quorum as defined in Rule 47.3;
- as far as the adoption of declarations by committees is
concerned, a stricter quorum requirement should be maintained. Declarations
can be very sensitive and should be backed with the necessary political support.
The existing requirement states that declarations can be adopted
by a committee with the requisite quorum as defined in Rule 47.3
(Rule 25.2). The Rules Committee considers this to be reasonable.
63. Points on the agenda requiring a specific quorum should be
considered as priority matter by committees.
64. It is worth recalling that the quorum of one third is calculated
on the basis of the seats filled and without taking into account
the ex officio members. When
checking the quorum, only members and alternates who are entitled
to vote count (ex officio members
present in the room shall not be taken into account).
9.7 Access
to meetings of committees – Monitoring Committee
65. Taking into account discussions
in the committee and following a unanimous proposal by the leaders
of the political groups, it is proposed to amend Rule 48.8 to make
it possible for secretaries of political groups to attend the meetings
of the Monitoring Committee.
9.8 Appointment
of co-rapporteurs by the Monitoring Committee
66. We have been seized by a letter
from the chairperson of the Monitoring Committee to consider the question
of possible incompatibility of being at the same time monitoring
rapporteur and member or president of a parliamentary friendship
group with the country in question.
67. In this context, it is worth noting that the guidelines on
the observation of elections by the Assembly foresee that “the Chairperson
[of the ad hoc committee to observe the elections] shall be neither
a national of a neighbouring country nor a member of a friendship
group in his or her national parliament of the country where elections
are being observed.”
68. There is a parallel between the function of co-rapporteur
of the Monitoring committee on a given country, and chair of the ad hoc committee to observe the
elections in a given country.
69. In both cases, it is of utmost importance that the members
of the Assembly appointed to such functions do not have any conflict
of interests, nor any perceived conflict of interests.
70. Even though it is an asset to have a certain knowledge of
the country concerned, not only being the chairperson of a friendship
group, but also being a member of a friendship group may objectively
be perceived as a conflict of interest.
71. A member who would nevertheless like to become co-rapporteur
could certainly step back from the friendship group for the time
of his/her rapporteurship.
9.9 Debates
under the urgent procedure
73. Recent practice shows that
the Assembly is willing and able to adapt its practice and to stretch
its capacities to be politically relevant and reactive. Hence, the
number of reports debated under the urgent procedure has increased
significantly.
Note Such debates considerably contribute
to the political relevance and visibility of the Assembly. However,
one can question the necessity of producing lengthy reports under
this procedure. Its original aim is to enable the Assembly to swiftly
take a political position on an unfolding event, or on a given subject
that calls for an urgent reaction. The tendency shows nevertheless
that Assembly rapporteurs produce reports with a scope equal to
those of regular reports when working under the urgent procedure.
This is a shift of practice which should not become the rule. It
stretches the already limited capacities of the Assembly secretariat
to an extent beyond necessary. Ultimately, even the Assembly members are
not able to thoroughly read the reports prepared under the urgent
procedure as they must be dealt with in both committee and plenary
within a short timeframe. Obviously, the absence of an explanatory
report would give less opportunity to thoroughly describe the reasons
for the Assembly’s proposed position. Hence, the preamble to the
draft resolution/recommendation should be detailed enough to provide
sufficient explanation for the Assembly’s position.
74. An exception to the provisions of Rule 50 should be foreseen,
stating that reports debated under the urgent procedure shall normally
contain one or more draft texts (recommendations or opinions addressed
to the Committee of Ministers and/or resolutions) and that, unlike
reports presented under the regular procedure, they shall not contain
an explanatory memorandum. Furthermore, the length of draft resolutions
and draft recommendations should be respectively limited to 1 800 words
and to 1 050 words (representing no more than 2½ pages for a draft
resolution, and no more than 1½ page for a draft recommendation).
10 Improving
Assembly members’ participation
75. On a topic related to that
of quorum requirements, one of our constant goals should be to ensure
the best participation of Assembly members in Assembly debates and
decision-making process. We should regularly consider taking steps
to enable Assembly members to play a more active part in its work.
76. As rapporteur, I would like to underline the importance of
this issue and will strongly support the ongoing work of the Rules
Committee on this matter. In the framework of the preparation of
its report entitled “Increasing members’ active participation in
and contribution to the work of the Parliamentary Assembly and its committees”,
the Rules Committee should consider incentives to favour a higher
participation of Assembly members in its work.
77. Last but not least, significant editorial work should be undertaken
to make the Rules of Procedure more reader-friendly and ensure coherence.
