B Explanatory memorandum
by Ms Yevheniia Kravchuk, rapporteur
1 Introduction
1. By a decision of the Parliamentary
Assembly of 28 June 2024, a report on the modification of various provisions
of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure was referred to the Committee
on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs (“Rules
Committee”). This referral concerned, in particular, follow-up to
Resolution 2553 (2024) “Strengthening the youth perspective in the work of
the Parliamentary Assembly” (see chapter 2). I was appointed rapporteur
on 1 October 2024. The Assembly also referred, to be taken into account
in this report, follow-up to
Resolution
2579 (2024) “Civil society and the Parliamentary Assembly: towards
greater transparency and engagement” (see chapter 3). During the
meeting of the Rules Committee on 28 January 2025, the committee
took note of the request that, in the context of this report, it
examine issues relating to the criteria for appointment of Assembly
Vice-Presidents (chapter 4) and chairs and vice-chairs of committees
and sub-committees (chapter 5). Further pertinent matters have arisen
in the course of this work, including the application of the Rules
of Procedure to networks, alliances and platforms (chapter 6), the
use of the urgent procedure for statutory opinions (chapter 7) and
the representation of committees in the European Commission for
Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) (chapter 8).
2 Modifications to strengthen the youth
perspective in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly
2.1 Introduction
2. Resolution 2553 (2024) “Strengthening the youth perspective in the work of
the Parliamentary Assembly” recommends a number of measures aimed
at improving the good functioning of democracy through better involving
the perspective of young people, and, in part, seeks to implement
the conclusions of the 4th Summit of Heads of State and Government
of the Council of Europe by including a youth perspective in Council of
Europe deliberations. I was rapporteur for opinion, and I greatly
appreciated the work done by the rapporteur of the Committee on
Political Affairs and Democracy, Mr Anastasios Chatzivasileiou (Greece,
EPP/CD), in furthering this important issue.
Resolution 2553 (2024) and the associated report highlight that the Assembly derives
its legitimacy from the representative parliamentary nature of its
members, who are all democratically elected. Any modification to
the Rules of Procedure must not undermine the essential nature of
the Assembly, as the deliberative organ of the Council of Europe,
composed of members of national parliaments.
3. Paragraph 8 of
Resolution
2553 (2024) proposes specific changes to the functioning of the
Assembly which require an amendment to its Rules of Procedure –
in particular to establish a youth rapporteur for each of the Assembly’s
general committees and to grant that youth rapporteur enhanced speaking
rights during plenary debates. Other proposals within paragraph
8 of that resolution relating to the speakers list will require amendments
to Appendix I of the Rules of Procedure (additional provisions relating
to Assembly debates) which fall to be amended and adopted by the
Bureau. Further work will be required by the Secretariat and the Bureau
to make the necessary changes in relation to the speakers list that
are needed to accommodate the new role of youth rapporteurs.
4. Other proposals within paragraph 8 of
Resolution 2553 (2024) do not require an amendment to the Assembly’s Rules
of Procedure, but can be dealt with administratively, namely:
- Paragraph 8.1 encourages the
youth rapporteurs to engage and liaise with the youth sector and structures
of the Council of Europe, including members of the Advisory Committee
on Youth (CCJ, French acronym for Comité consultatif sur la jeunesse)
– a body composed of representatives of NGOs representing youth
interests and operating under terms of reference set out by the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
- Paragraph 8.4 provides that the youth rapporteurs should
hold an annual meeting with the CCJ to discuss the reports under
preparation in the Assembly, to identify new issues for debate and
to envisage joint initiatives and co-operation activities, as part
of the PACE-Youth Participation Mechanism (PACE: Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe). Suitable care will be needed to ensure
that the appropriate confidentiality of Assembly business is respected
– care will be needed in particular when dealing with sensitive
reports and procedures, such as reports of the Committee on the
Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the
Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) (Monitoring Committee).
I do not consider that any specific changes to the Rules of Procedure
are needed for the youth rapporteurs to meet with CCJ, nor should
any changes be required to the confidentiality rules, as those should
be respected in any such discussion.
- Paragraph 8.5 asks that the Bureau of the Assembly be
invited to hold a strategic exchange of views, annually, with the
joint bureaux of the CCJ and the European Steering Committee for
Youth (CDEJ), together with the youth rapporteurs. The CDEJ is composed
of representatives of public authorities responsible for youth issues
from the States parties to the European Cultural Convention (ETS
No. 18) (namely the member States of the Council of Europe, as well
as the Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Holy See).
- Paragraph 8.6 provides that the Assembly should hold a
debate on a specific theme agreed during that annual strategic exchange
of views and that this should involve “the participation of the
members of the CCJ”. Given the significant pressures on time for
debate, unless that debate relates to a report, I suggest that such
a debate could most usefully take place on the Friday of a part-session.
A designated member of the CCJ could then be invited as a guest
speaker to participate in the debate on behalf of the CCJ.
2.2 Amendments
needed to the Rules of Procedure
5. According to
Resolution 2553 (2024), each of the Assembly’s general committees (with the
exception of the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European
Court of Human Rights) would appoint one youth rapporteur from among
its members (full members or alternates). The youth rapporteur would
be responsible for (a) engaging and liaising with the youth sector
through the PACE-Youth Participation mechanism; (b) presenting a
youth perspective in debates on reports within the committee; and
(c) during plenary debates where the committee is seized for report,
for registering on the speakers list to present the youth perspective. Appointments
as a youth rapporteur should be made for a maximum period of two
years. Youth rapporteur appointments should be subject to the same
conditions for appointment as for other rapporteurs (namely when appointing
a youth rapporteur, the committee should have regard, as for all
rapporteur roles, to the criteria of competence and availability,
fair representation of political groups (based on the d’Hondt system),
gender-balanced representation, geographical and national balance
(see the third sentence of Rule 50.1 of the Rules of Procedure)).
In addition, committees should also seek to have regard to the age
of candidates to ensure that young members of the Assembly are given
appropriate visibility in its work. Youth rapporteurs should also
be subject to the code of conduct for rapporteurs and may be similarly
removed. Rule 50 should thus be amended to provide a paragraph after
50.7 to read as follows:
“All
general committees (other than the Committee on the election of
Judges to the European Court of Human Rights) may appoint one youth
rapporteur, whose role is to present a youth perspective, as relevant,
in discussions on reports for which that committee is seized for
report. A youth rapporteur for a given committee shall be appointed
for a mandate of two years, renewable a maximum of once in that committee.
The appointment of a youth rapporteur is subject to the same criteria
for appointment as set out in Rule 50.1, with the additional criteria
of seeking to encourage young members of the Assembly to take on
such roles.”.
6. In order to make the rules easier to understand and operate,
and in the spirit of the ongoing work to modernise and streamline
the Rules of Procedure, the provisions on the length of the mandate
for general rapporteurs should be aligned with those for youth rapporteurs
and thus I additionally propose in the resolution a similar amendment
to Rule 50.7.
7. Whilst
Resolution
2553 (2024) suggested that youth rapporteurs make a declaration
of interests upon appointment, such a declaration alone may risk
being inadequate – the youth rapporteurs will be seeking to intervene
as youth rapporteurs on individual reports – thus, their declarations
should be tailored to those reports under consideration by the committee
and updated as needed. Other relevant provisions of the code of
conduct for rapporteurs should also apply to youth rapporteurs –
specifically those relating to rules of conduct and penalties for
breaching the rules. Appendix III (code of conduct for rapporteurs
of the Parliamentary Assembly) should be amended to add the following
paragraph after paragraph 4:
“Application
of this code to youth rapporteurs: Paragraphs 1 and 4 of this code
shall apply mutatis mutandis to youth rapporteurs.”.
8. Specific consideration is necessary for youth rapporteurs
appointed in respect of a committee where there could be reports
presenting a higher risk of a potential conflict of interest such
as country-specific reports in the Committee on the honouring of
obligations and commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring
Committee). For example, a youth rapporteur should recuse themselves
from intervening as a youth rapporteur on any report into their
country of residence or nationality, or any State or issue in respect
of which they have a particular conflict of interest. At the end
of the proposed paragraph in Appendix III (code of conduct for rapporteurs
of the Parliamentary Assembly) add the following sentences:
“A youth
rapporteur shall recuse themselves from intervening as a youth rapporteur
in respect of any report in which they may have a perceived, potential
or actual conflict of interest that cannot be adequately addressed
through a declaration of interests or through taking specific measures.”
3 Modifications
to improve transparency and engagement with civil society
9. Resolution 2579 (2024) “Civil society and the Parliamentary Assembly: towards
greater transparency and engagement” (rapporteur: Ms Azadeh Rojhan,
Sweden, SOC) contains a number of proposals aimed at increasing
exchanges between the Assembly and interest representatives (lobbyists
and civil society) and improving the transparency of such exchanges.
It is noteworthy that engagement with civil society is also a priority
for the Council of Europe coming out of the 4th Summit of Heads
of State and Government, and that follow-up work is being undertaken
as part of the Secretary General’s Roadmap on the Civil Society engagement
with the Council of Europe 2024-2027. Many provisions of
Resolution 2579 (2024) do not require a specific response from the Rules Committee
(paragraphs 1-6, 12-13). I have considered the possible implications
of paragraphs 7-11 below and suggested how the Assembly might best
respond to these elements of the resolution.
3.1 An
Assembly code of conduct for interest representatives
10. Paragraph 7 of
Resolution 2579 (2024) provides that “
[n]oting the
need to increase the transparency of the work of interest representatives,
the Assembly resolves to ensure that their co-operation with the
Assembly is governed by a code of conduct, taking into account the
possible development of a framework code of conduct applicable to
the Organisation as a whole.” Paragraph 8 of
Resolution 2579 provides:
“The code
of conduct applicable to interest representatives who engage with
the Assembly should ensure the protection of freedom of expression
and of association, and comply with relevant international standards
(including Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)2 of the Committee of Ministers
to member States on the legal regulation of lobbying activities
in the context of public decision making)”. At a minimum, the future
code should:
8.1. require interest representatives to declare
their name and who they work for, the interests and objectives they
promote, and the legal or natural persons that they represent, when
interacting with parliamentarians, their staff or members of the
secretariats of the Assembly and its political groups;
8.2. require interest representatives
to act honestly and in good faith;
8.3. prohibit interest representatives
from having conflicts of interest;
8.4. prohibit interest representatives
from using undue pressure, offensive language or other improper behaviour;
8.5. prohibit interest representatives
from inducing parliamentarians, their staff or members of the secretariats
of the Assembly and its political groups from contravening the rules
and standards applicable to them.”
11. Some details of those ideas will need to be worked through,
for example as regards the following matters:
- in relation to paragraph 8.1, consideration should be
given as to how this declaratory requirement should work in practice;
- further thought will also be needed to understand what
“conflict of interest” means for the purposes of paragraph 8.3.
By definition, interest representatives have an interest and potentially
a conflict of interests as compared to someone who is not a lobbyist
for a particular interest, therefore some careful consideration
will be needed to clarify what conflicts of interest are envisaged
and whether transparency obligations or specific prohibitions might
be needed to address these concerns;
- definition may be needed for certain terms: “under pressure”,
“offensive language” or “improper behaviour” in paragraph 8.4 or
“inducing” in paragraph 8.5 – noting that some of these terms and language
come from the EU provisions relating to interest representatives,
which could form a useful starting point for developing an Assembly
position;
- it would also be necessary to consider the sanctions for
a failure to comply with the code, being mindful of well-aired concerns
about failures by certain visitors to respect the provisions on
access to certain areas of the Palais de l’Europe and concerns at
the risk of Assembly attendance being used to legitimise organisations
who might not otherwise be viewed as credible civil society actors;
- it will also be useful to consider the relationship between
the existing Assembly rules on gifts and conduct, and the provisions
of any new code of conduct for interest representatives (especially
the proposals on inducement in paragraph 8.5).
12. Work is still ongoing within the Council of Europe to develop
the framework ethical standards/code of conduct for interest representatives
applicable to the Organisation in light of the Secretary General’s
Roadmap and
Guidance
note on civil society participation in the intergovernmental work
of the Council of Europe of the Steering Committee on Democracy
(CDDEM). This work aims to introduce a framework of values and responsibilities
regarding the modalities of civil society participation in the work
of Council of Europe’s intergovernmental committees and subordinate
bodies, outlining the roles and responsibilities of the Organisation
and of civil society in terms of, for example, access to documents,
transparency, confidentiality, accountability and civil society’s
protection from harm. I welcome this work and encourage the Organisation
to endeavour to seek a harmonised set of standards for civil society
engagement if possible. I understand that the Secretariat will be
involved in following this work to develop a framework code of conduct
for interest representatives for the Council of Europe and in considering
its relevance and application to the Assembly. I propose that the
Rules Committee should remain seized of this issue, noting that
this may require a bespoke report to develop a code of conduct for
interest representatives for the Assembly or to supplement the framework
code adopted for the Organisation.
3.2 Conduct
of members of the Assembly when dealing with interest representatives
13. Paragraph 9 of
Resolution 2579 (2024) provides:
“The Assembly
further resolves to examine possible changes to the code of conduct
for members of the Assembly which would increase the transparency
of exchanges with interest representatives, also in compliance with
the principles of Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)2, for example, by
extending the prohibition on the seeking or taking of instructions
to a wider range of members fulfilling important functions, such
as chairpersons of committees and sub-committees, leaders of political
groups, members of the Bureau of the Assembly and the President
of the Assembly.”
14. At present, the code of conduct for members of the Parliamentary
Assembly (appendix II to the Rules of Procedure) requires members
to take decisions solely in the public interest without being bound
by any instructions that would jeopardise their ability to respect
the code (paragraph 5.2), not to use their public office for their,
or anyone else’s private gain (paragraph 5.5), to declare any relevant
interests relating to their public functions and take steps to resolve
any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest
(paragraph 5.6). Paragraphs 7 and 9 prohibit any action which would
cause damage to the reputation and integrity of the Assembly and
make provision on avoiding conflicts of interest. Paragraph 11 provides
that “[n]o member shall act as a paid
advocate in any work of the Assembly”. Paragraphs 12
and 13 contain further provision preventing members from using their
position in the Assembly to further any person or entity’s interests
in a manner incompatible with the code. The code of conduct therefore
currently contains a number of measures designed to prevent inappropriate
influence upon members of the Assembly.
15. The code of conduct for rapporteurs (appendix III) goes further
and includes an undertaking “
not to seek or
accept instructions from any government or governmental or non-governmental
organisation or pressure group or individual”. The draft
report “Respect for the rule of law and the fight against corruption
within the Council of Europe” (rapporteur: Mr Frank Schwabe, Germany,
SOC) also currently before the Rules Committee, envisages making
changes to apply all the provisions of paragraph 1 of appendix III
to the President and Vice-Presidents of the Assembly and to chairpersons
and vice-chairpersons of committees and sub-committees (
mutatis mutandis). This would therefore
address the concerns expressed in paragraph 9 of
Resolution 2579 (2024) and I support this proposed amendment in Mr Schwabe’s
draft report. However, the proposed amendments in Mr Schwabe’s report,
as discussed most recently in committee in January, do not extend
these provisions to chairpersons of political groups – I therefore
invite the committee to consider, in the context of Mr Schwabe’s
report, whether those provisions should additionally cover chairpersons
of political groups. It goes without saying that these additional
rules should only affect those individuals when acting in the capacity
of President, Vice-President, chairperson or vice-chairperson, as
the case may be.
16. In his draft report, Mr Schwabe further proposes that rapporteurs
publish a list of interest representatives that they have met during
the process of drafting a report (whilst acknowledging that there
may be good reasons for not doing so in appropriate cases). I support
the corresponding amendment in Mr Schwabe’s draft report which encourages
greater transparency, as envisaged by paragraph 9 of
Resolution 2579 (2024).
3.3 Improving
the accessibility of committee hearings and encouraging exchanges
with civil society
17. Paragraph 10 of
Resolution 2579 (2024) provides
“Noting the
need to review and further reinforce its outreach to, and meaningful
engagement with, civil society, the Assembly resolves to: (1) make
more committee meetings open to the public, by agreeing that all
committee hearings will be open to the public as a general rule
and considering including such a principle in the Rules of Procedure
of the Assembly; (2) examine the feasibility of regular exchanges between
civil society and Assembly members, for example with the Presidential
Committee or the Bureau of the Assembly.”
18. Rule 48.3 of the Rules of Procedure currently provides for
committee meetings to be held in private unless a committee decides
otherwise, and for certain meetings to be
in
camera – for example the meetings of the Monitoring Committee
and of the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court
of Human Rights, as well as code of conduct cases in the Rules Committee
(paragraph 23 of the code of conduct in Appendix II). There are
good reasons for these provisions and therefore it seems unwise
to seek to change them. Indeed immunities cases as well as code
of conduct cases are held
in camera as
they can concern personal matters relating to an individual. Therefore,
it could be appropriate to add to Rule 48.3 a clarification that
“The Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs considers individual cases in
camera.”
19. For other hearings, I agree that more could be done to encourage
hearings being open to the public, where appropriate. I recognise
that there could be capacity, security or other restrictions on
access to a meeting room in certain locations. I therefore consider
that it remains appropriate to leave this decision to the committee,
but I encourage committees to actively consider how to make hearings
accessible to the public. Given that our Organisation covers 46
member States and a vast geographic area, accessibility to the public is
arguably improved more by the online accessibility of committee
hearings (for example through placing the recording of a hearing
on YouTube), rather than through the physical attendance of a small
number of individuals who are able to be present at any given meeting
location.
20. In that context, I note that paragraph 11.4 of
Resolution 2579 (2024) provides:
“that the
Assembly resolves to examine further steps to increase the accessibility
of its work, including by … making the Assembly’s work more accessible
online, including through greater use of live-streaming of public
hearings, making introductory memoranda and other committee documents available
on the Assembly’s website at an earlier stage, creating a user-friendly
web page that describes reports currently under preparation and
how external actors can make an input to them, and making it possible
to subscribe to e-mail updates for the work of each committee.”
21. I agree that better online accessibility of committee hearings
could improve the accessibility and visibility of Assembly work
and whilst live-streaming can be very expensive, the placing of
a recording on YouTube is less costly and similarly effective. As
these considerations are central to the ongoing work of the Rules Committee
in the context of the report entitled “Increasing members’ active
participation in and contribution to the work of the Parliamentary
Assembly and its committees” (rapporteur: Ms. Petra Bayr (Austria,
SOC)), I invite the Rules Committee and the rapporteur to consider
this point further.
22. In relation to the holding of regular exchanges between committees
and civil society, I welcome this, whilst noting that the core civil
society interlocutors could vary between one committee’s subject
areas and another. Consequently, I consider that exchanges between
civil society and committees are best done at committee level, focussing
on themes relevant to that committee (rather than the Presidential
Committee or the Bureau that focus on more organisational aspects
of the Assembly’s work). I encourage all committees to engage with
civil society actors active in their thematic areas, including through
inviting civil society representatives to speak at relevant hearings
and exchanges of views, and through the engagement of individual
rapporteurs with civil society. Specifically, I encourage regular
exchanges of views with civil society (and preferably a diverse
and broad section of civil society actors) outside of the context
of a specific report so that committees are appropriately informed
about issues of concern to civil society to help inform the committee’s
overall work programme. This does not require a modification to
the Rules of Procedure as committees may already examine any matter
within their terms of reference (Rule 45.1 of the Rules of Procedure).
3.4 Making
it easier for civil society to participate in part-sessions of the
Assembly
23. Paragraph 11.1 and 11.2 of
Resolution 2579 (2024) provide that
“The
Assembly resolves to examine further steps to increase the accessibility
of its work, including by:
11.1. making it easier for
civil society to participate in part-sessions of the Assembly, for
example by providing civil society representatives with the opportunity
to register directly to have access to Council of Europe premises,
simplifying the process for civil society to participate and organise
side events (by decreasing the time that such requests need to be
made in advance and by making more rooms available), providing a
dedicated office space for civil society and allowing civil society
to reserve meeting rooms;
11.2. making more information
available to civil society members attending the Assembly’s sessions, such
as through information sessions for civil society at the beginning
of each Assembly session conducted by the Secretariat and by producing
a practical written guide on how to engage with the Assembly;”.
24. I note that the Assembly is a political organ of the Council
of Europe composed of democratically elected members of parliament.
Therefore, whilst it is important for it to engage with civil society,
this should not change the nature of its composition nor of its
debates. In this context it is also important to note the work of
the World
Forum
for Democracy (the Council of Europe platform for bringing together
political decision makers and activists) and the
Conference
of International Non-Governmental Organisation (INGOs) of the Council
of Europe. It is important that the Assembly engages with these
two bodies and does not seek to duplicate the valuable work being
done with civil society in these fora.
25. Members of the Conference of INGOs have badges to access the
Council of Europe premises and the Conference of INGOs has an office
in the Council of Europe. The Conference of INGOs has, in the past, organised
a briefing session for its members in the margins of part-sessions
of the Assembly and it is open to the Conference of INGOs to continue
this practice. I encourage greater reflection to explore how NGOs
can best engage with the work of the Assembly, for example, in organising
a briefing of NGOs (as envisaged in paragraph 11.2).
26. Whilst I support the idea of guides to explain the work of
the Assembly, I do not think that any guides should be limited to
civil society but should also be useful for the wider public. I
encourage further reflection on this in the context of the ongoing
work on the report “Increasing members’ active participation in
and contribution to the work of the Parliamentary Assembly and its
committees”.
3.5 Declassifying
introductory memoranda and minutes of public hearings
27. Paragraph 11.3 of
Resolution 2579 (2024) provides that the Assembly resolves to examine further
steps to increase the accessibility of its work, including by “
ensuring that introductory memoranda and minutes
of public hearings are declassified as a general rule”.
28. This suggestion furthers the cause of improved transparency
and public engagement in the work of the Assembly. However, at present,
committees can and do declassify documents, but it should remain
the decision of the committee as some documents, rightly, are not
intended for immediate declassification.
4 Criteria
for appointment of Assembly Vice-Presidents
29. At present there are two different
sets of criteria for gender thresholds applicable to national delegations:
- Rule 6.2.b requires national
delegations to be composed of a certain minimum number of members
from each gender (25 to 37.5% depending on the size of the national
delegation). Failing this, the credentials of the national delegation
are likely to be successfully challenged on procedural grounds.
- Rule 16.3 provides that a national delegation with fewer
than 40% women, cannot nominate a man as a Vice-President. In reality
it imposes a requirement of 40 to 50% women on national delegations, depending
on the size of the delegation, and in effect requires 50% women
for delegations with 8 members or fewer.
30. The impact of falling below the 40% in Rule 16.3 does not
deprive a national delegation of its right to nominate a Vice-President
– only of its ability to choose a man over a woman for the role
of Vice-President. However, this could be impactful where the female
member(s) of a given delegation are all from the opposition, which
can occur more easily in small delegations. As such, this can affect
the appropriateness of opposition members representing the national
delegation in the Bureau, and thus have an impact on political party/fair representation
considerations. In some cases, this is leading to Vice-President
positions remaining unfilled, which is in turn having a negative
impact on the operation of the Assembly during part-sessions due
to the increased strain this places on the President and the Vice-Presidents.
This issue was consequently raised in discussions in the Rules Committee.
31. Removing Rule 16.3 would be a backwards step for gender parity
within the Assembly and I would not support this. Moreover, disapplying
Rule 16.3 for some delegations could be seen as an unfair outcome.
It is arguably more important that the Assembly look to improve
gender balance through an internal mechanism supporting improved
gender balance in appointments to significant roles within the Assembly.
32. For example, the Assembly could require all delegations to
propose for Vice-President a person of the opposition gender of
their last Vice-President (option A) – this would ensure an equal
split of men and women vice-presidents of the Assembly, whilst ensuring
that national delegations had sufficient time to prepare as they would
be aware well in advance of their next vice-presidency and therefore
the need to ensure there was a suitable man or woman in the delegation
able to assume that role. However, I acknowledge that a strict yearly rotation
could be too forced or artificial and could lead to rather short
mandates, negatively affecting the value of experience in the role
of Vice-President. Instead, I propose requiring that for every three
Vice-Presidents that a national delegation puts forward, there must
be at least one of each gender (Option B). All delegations should
be well aware in due time of their impending Vice-President role
so that they can prepare and this therefore should not come as a
surprise, whilst it would allow a person to be Vice-President for
two successive vice-presidencies. Whilst the criterion would be
applied starting in January 2026, the gender of the relevant country’s
previous two Vice-Presidents would be relevant in determining the
choice of nominees for the Vice-President role as from January 2026.
On a practical note, the Table Office could send reminders to the
national delegation secretary so that they are aware of the requirements
a year ahead of a Vice-President role. Thus, the national delegation
could take steps to ensure they have an appropriate person of the
relevant gender to assume the role of Vice-President for that year.
I therefore propose amending the Rules of Procedure by replacing
the final sentence of Rule 16.3 with the following sentence:
“For
every three successive Vice-Presidents that a national delegation
proposes, at least one must be a woman and one must be a man.”
This
provision is to have effect from January 2026.
5 Criteria
for appointment of chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of committees
and sub-committees
33. The criteria for appointment
of chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of committees and sub-committees have,
over time, become rather intricate and complex. Whilst it is understandable
that the Rules of Procedure have evolved to encourage greater participation
from a more diverse number of members of the Assembly, the result
is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find members who
are eligible to be chairperson or vice-chairperson. For example,
in the Rules Committee, we currently have two vacant vice-chairpersons
due to a lack of any eligible candidates from the relevant political
group. Such situations have led to committees lacking any chairperson
or vice-chairperson to chair meetings of the committee and are thus
impeding the effective functioning of the Assembly. The rules on
eligibility should continue to encourage significant roles in the Assembly
to be shared and to encourage active participation from a substantial
number of our members. However, they should not prevent the good
functioning of the Assembly nor prevent the positive impact that engaged
members can bring.
34. Rule 46.7 currently provides:
“The chairperson and the vice-chairpersons
of a committee shall remain in office until the opening of the next
ordinary session of the Assembly. They may be re-elected for one
further term, consecutive or not. A committee chairperson or vice-chairperson
elected in the course of a session for an incomplete term may be
re-elected for two further terms. A former chairperson of a committee
may stand for the office of chairperson or vice-chairperson of the
same committee on expiry of a period of four years, or of another committee
on expiry of a period of two years, for two further terms, consecutive
or not. A former vice-chairperson of a committee may stand for the
office of vice-chairperson of the same committee on expiry of a
period of four years, or of another committee on expiry of a period
of two years, for two further terms, consecutive or not. A chairperson
or vice-chairperson of a committee who has been dismissed from office
pursuant to Rule 55 may not be a candidate for the office of chairperson
or vice-chairperson of a committee or a sub-committee.”
35. I propose splitting Rule 46.7 into separate provisions that
are easier to read and reducing the periods of time during which
a member is unable to take on a bureau role in a committee, as follows:
“- The
chairperson and the vice-chairpersons of a committee shall remain
in office until the opening of the next ordinary session of the
Assembly. They may be re-elected for one further term, consecutive
or not. A committee chairperson or vice-chairperson elected in the
course of a session for an incomplete term may be re-elected for
two further terms.
- A former chairperson of a
committee may stand for the office of chairperson or vice-chairperson
of any committee on expiry of a period of two years. A former vice-chairperson
of a committee may stand for the office of vice-chairperson of the
same committee on expiry of a period of two years.
- A chairperson or vice-chairperson
of a committee who has been dismissed from office pursuant to Rule 55
may not be a candidate for the office of chairperson or vice-chairperson
of a committee or a sub-committee.”
36. To ensure consistency in relation to sub-committees, I further
propose replacing the sixth sentence of Rule 49.7 with the following
sentence:
“A
former chairperson of a sub-committee may stand for the office of
chairperson or vice-chairperson of the same sub-committee on expiry
of a period of two years. A former vice-chairperson of a sub-committee
may stand for the office of vice-chairperson of the same sub-committee
on expiry of a period of two years.”
6 The
application of the rules on appointments to chairpersons of networks,
alliances and platforms
37. The Assembly has developed
the use of networks, platforms and alliances as a means of furthering particular
strands of its work.
Note In
practice, the functioning of these networks, platforms and alliances
is broadly the same as for running a sub-committee, subject to specific
provisions in their terms of reference. The networks, platforms
and alliances thus have no independent decision-making powers. However,
the Rules of Procedure are silent as to how the rules apply to these
networks, platforms and alliances. In particular, it seems obvious
that rules applicable to chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of sub-committees
should apply in the same way to chairpersons and vice-chairpersons
of networks, platforms and alliances. I propose adding a provision
at the end of Rule 49:
“- The provisions of the Rules of Procedure
applicable to sub-committees and the members of their bureaux shall
apply, mutatis mutandis, to networks, platforms and alliances established
by the Assembly, unless otherwise provided.”
7 The
use of the urgent procedure for statutory opinions
38. An important role of the Assembly
relates to statutory opinions, which can require careful consideration of
important legal texts. It is therefore not advisable to use the
urgent procedure for statutory opinions – which often relate to
texts that have been negotiated over the course of many years. I
acknowledge that there may be circumstances where for pressing reasons,
there is a political will for the Assembly to use the urgent procedure
even for statutory opinions. However, in such cases it is necessary
to interpret Rule 50.4 as nonetheless requiring an explanatory memorandum
for a report relating to a statutory opinion, even if the urgent
procedure is used. In light of the above, I propose the following
amendments:
- replace Rule 50.4
with the following text:
“The
report of a committee shall contain an explanatory memorandum by
the rapporteur. A report prepared under the urgent procedure should
contain an explanatory memorandum only if it relates to a statutory
opinion. The committee shall take note of the explanatory memorandum. Any
dissenting opinions expressed in the committee shall be included
therein at the request of their authors, preferably in the body
of the explanatory memorandum, but otherwise in an appendix.”
- at the end of Rule 51.1, add the following sentence:
“A motion to initiate a complementary
joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary
Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of
its statutory obligations cannot be the subject of a request for
urgent procedure. The urgent procedure should not be used for a
statutory opinion unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying
its use.”
8 Representation
in the Venice Commission
39. Representation of the Assembly
in the Venice Commission and its Council for Democratic Elections
is set out in the terms of reference of committees (
Resolution 1842 (2011) as modified by
Resolution
2002 (2014) and as set out in Appendix VIII to the Rules of Procedure).
The terms of reference currently provide for the Committee on Legal
Affairs and Human Rights to share in the representation of the Assembly
to the Venice Commission; and for the Committee on Political Affairs
and Democracy, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and
the Monitoring Committee to share in the representation of the Assembly
to the Council for Democratic Elections of the Venice Commission.
40. It is important that committees of the Assembly should be
represented in bodies of the Council of Europe relevant to the topics
falling within their terms of reference, whilst being conscious
of ensuring effective use of Council of Europe resources in funding
such travel and representation. The Monitoring Committee makes good use
of the opinions of the Venice Commission and therefore, in addition
to the Committee for Legal Affairs and Human Rights, should represent
the Assembly in the Venice Commission given the importance of the
latter’s work to both committees. The work of the Council for Democratic
Elections of the Venice Commission relates more to electoral matters.
Although this amendment will expand the representation of the Assembly
at the Venice Commission, it is nonetheless important to keep these
representational roles under review to ensure that the Assembly
is sending appropriate representations to contribute to the work
of the Venice Commission and its Council for Democratic Elections
and avoid unnecessary duplication.
41. I propose replacing, in part B of Appendix VIII to the Rules
of Procedure, “Specific Terms of Reference of Assembly Committees”
(
Resolution 1842 (2011) as modified by
Resolution
2022 (2014)), Chapter (IX) “Committee on the Honouring of Obligations
and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring
Committee)”, paragraph 8 with the following sentence:
“The committee shall share the
Assembly representation in the European Commission for Democracy through
Law (Venice Commission) and in its Council for Democratic Elections.”
