European Conference of Presidents of Parliaments May 30-31, 2006 Tallinn, Estonia

Strasbourg, 31 January 2006

DRAFT

WORKING GROUP ON THE REVISION OF THE ECPRD STATUTES

DRAFT MINUTES

of the meeting held in Oslo, Stortinget, on 13 January 2006

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

- Hans BRATTESTA (Norway), Secretary General of the Stortinget

- Oleg UTKIN (Russian Federation), ECPRD Correspondent, Deputy Secretary

General of the State Duma

- Egor SUKHAREV (Russian Federation), Counsellor of the State Duma

- Tatjana KRASOVEC (Slovenia), Head of the Research and Documentation Sector, Drzavni Zbor

- Wojciech SAWICKI, ECPRD CO-Director, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of

Europe

- Hanneke COPPOLECCHIA-SOMERS, ECPRD Co-Secretary European Parliament

- Mario HEINRICH, ECPRD Co-Secretary, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council

of Europe

OPENING OF THE MEETING

The meeting was opened at 9.45 by Mr Sawicki. He said that the Co-Director of the ECPRD Mr Bo Manderup Jensen was prevented from attending the meeting as EU Commission President Barroso had appointed him to his Private Office as principal adviser on parliamentary affairs with effect from 16 January.

The positions he would present during the present meeting had been agreed beforehand with Mr Jensen.

Mr Sawicki also presented the apologies of MM Palanza and Blatt who both were unable to attend the meeting.

He thanked Mr Brattesta for his invitation to the working group to meet in Oslo and the excellent programme which had been prepared.

1. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA

The draft agenda was adopted.

2. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD IN ROME ON 20 MAY 2005

Mr Sawicki said that the minutes of the last meeting held in Rome had already been approved individually by the participants.

3. ECPRD STATUTES

Mr Sawicki said that three different texts were before members. The first one was the current version of the Statutes of the ECPRD. The second one was the draft revised Statutes of the ECPRD as approved at the Rome meeting. The third text was the Rome draft combined with the amendments proposed by the correspondents at their meeting in Bucharest; the proposed changes were marked in bold.

He declared that he had also prepared a revised version of the explanatory comments to the draft Statutes, on the basis of the discussion and comments made in Bucharest.

Preamble to the Statutes

Mr Sawicki said that there had been a short discussion in Bucharest on the name of the Centre as in reality it made more than research and documentation. However, no appropriate alternative name had been found and no formal amendment had been made.

Article 1 of the Statutes

Mr Sawicki declared that several amendments had been proposed concerning this article.

Paragraph 1

It had been suggested (variant A) to add in this paragraph after “close cooperation”, the words “among parliamentary services”. This aimed at making it clear that the EPCRD dealt with parliamentary staff and not with members.

Variant B presented a slight difference by proposing that the words “to strengthen close cooperation in all fields of” be deleted and be replaced by inserting the words “such as”.

Mrs Krasovec, MM Brattesta and Utkin supported variant A.

Agreed.

Mr Sawicki said that the footnotes to paragraph 1 contained further proposals for changes. The first one had been made by the Georgian correspondent at the Bucharest meeting and consisted of deleting the word “good” before “practices, as for him it mattered also to warn against bad practice.

The Working Group did not accept this proposal.

Mr Sawicki said that the second proposal contained in footnote 2 was to replace the word legislation in paragraph 1 by “legislative services” as parliamentary staff should not discuss legislation but only promote legislative studies.

He pointed out that paragraph 1 already underlined that cooperation took place among parliamentary services.

Mr Brattesta and Mrs Krasovec expressed themselves against the proposal.

It was not agreed.

Paragraph 2

Mr Sawicki declared that it had been proposed to delete the words “methods and projects” in paragraph 2.

Mr Brattesta and Mrs Krasovec accepted the amendment.

Agreed.

Mr Sawicki said that it was also proposed to delete in paragraph 2 the word “the” before Information and Communication Technology.

Agreed.

Article 2

No new amendments had been proposed.

Article 3

No new amendments had been proposed.

Article 4

Mr Sawicki said that no amendment had been proposed in Bucharest. However, in the meantime he had received a letter from the correspondent of the Hungarian Parliament, Mrs Balazs, proposing to add after the words the “Secretaries General” the following footnote “or other high official appointed by the Speaker (Secretary General hereafter may also refer to another high official appointed by the Speaker)”. This literally corresponded to the Guidelines on inter-parliamentary cooperation in the EU approved by the Speakers of the EU national parliaments in July 2004. If the amendment was adopted this would in the view of the Hungarian correspondent better reflect the situation in their parliament. It was a special feature of the Hungarian Parliament that its Secretary General and Director General were equal in rank and appointed in the same way by the Speaker of the Parliament. The Secretary General covered the legislative sector, whereas the Director General was responsible for the administrative services including the ECPRD.

Mr Brattesta wondered if the Statutes had to take into account such special matters.

Mr Sawicki recalled that in some parliaments the heads of the Secretariat General had other titles than Secretary General.

Mr Utkin and Mrs Krasovec expressed doubts if such a mention was appropriate.

Mr Sawicki noted that the amendment was not supported and said that he would write a letter to the Hungarian Parliament saying why the Statutory Group was not in a position to accept the proposal.

Article 5

Mr Sawicki said that the correspondents in Bucharest had proposed to delete the words “and Deputy Correspondent”, as the current wording of Article 5, par.2 created the impression that a Deputy Correspondent had to be equal in rank with the correspondent whereas there was no such obligation.

Mr Brattesta said that he had nothing against the current text but that he could also accept the amendment. In smaller parliaments almost all staff members had access to the Secretary General.

Mr Sawicki admitted that the current text of paragraph 2 could give raise to problems in some parliaments.

The amendment was agreed.

Agreed.

Article 6

No new amendments had been proposed.

Article 7

Paragraphs 1 and 2 ; footnote 3 to paragraph 2

Mr Sawicki said that the question of number of members of the Executive Committee had been discussed at the Rome meeting which had come out in favour of 5 members. The Conference of Correspondents in Bucharest had proposed to review the question of the length of term of office of members of the Executive Committee. Three variants were proposed: three, four or five years. The majority of correspondents had opted for a term of office of three or four years (variant B of the draft Statutes).

One correspondent had proposed that in the case of a shorter term of office (three or four years) it should be possible to re-elect members of the Executive Committee. This proposal which had not been discussed by the Conference of Correspondents, was reproduced in footnote 3.

Mr Brattesta preferred a three years term of office for the members of the Executive Committee (paragraph 2, Variant B), with the possibility to be re-elected (footnote 3).

Mrs Krasovec and Mr Utkin also supported the proposed change of paragraph 1 and a three years term of office of members of the Executive Committee, combined with the possibility of re-election.

Agreed.

Proposed new paragraph 3

Mr Sawicki said that it had been proposed to add a new paragraph 3 to article 7 worded as follows “The Executive Committee may take decisions when a majority of its members is present. Decisions shall be taken by a majority of the votes cast “

This proposal was motivated by the consideration that if the Executive Committee was to be enlarged it should be said clearly what the quorum was and which majority was required for its decisions.

Mr Brattesta and Utkin supported the proposed new paragraph 3.

Agreed.

Article 8

No new amendments had been proposed.

Article 9

Mr Sawicki said that this was the most controversial provision of the draft Statutes. The many proposals made expressed the concern that decisions concerning the ECPRD should be shared between the Executive Committee and the Conference of Correspondents.

He then presented the various changes proposed to Article 9.

Paragraph 1

Mr Sawicki recalled that this paragraph governed the relations between the ECPRD and the member parliaments and referred to guidelines for studies and comparative requests. In Bucharest it had been proposed to add a final sentence to that paragraph worded as follows “These guidelines shall subsequently be approved by the Conference of Correspondents.” There had been a wide consensus in Bucharest that the Conference of Correspondents should be more powerful within the ECPRD. However one should be aware that such a new provision would delay the whole decision-making process in the Centre.

Furthermore, it was proposed to replace in paragraph 1 the words “as well as” by “and”.

Paragraph 3

Mr Sawicki referred to this paragraph and recalled that the Rome meeting had concluded that formal working groups no longer were necessary and that a more flexible form to organise its work was appropriate. In the past the ECPRD working groups had no fixed membership and were open for everybody. This feature would henceforth be better reflected by the appointment of Co-ordinators for areas requiring a continuity of activity. The draft text of the Statutes approved in Rome had left the decision to appoint coordinators to the Executive Committee. This had been contested at the Bucharest meeting which had proposed that the Conference of Correspondents should decide on the usefulness of appointing Co-ordinators.

Paragraph 4

Mr Sawicki said that the changes proposed in Bucharest to this paragraph would completely modify it. Whereas the initiative or the setting-up of ad hoc working groups would be left to the Executive Committee the decisions would be taken by the Conference of Correspondents. This would be more democratic but also have operational consequences in terms of flexibility and of the time needed for taking decisions in the ECPRD.

Mr Brattesta was hesitant to approve the proposed change concerning paragraph 1 as it would make the procedure heavier.

The existing text of paragraph 1 already obliged the Executive Committee to pay due consideration to recommendations from the Conference of Correspondents. He wondered if it was necessary to foresee in addition that the guidelines should be approved by the correspondents. If the amendment was agreed, the words “with due consideration being paid to recommendations of the Conference of Correspondents” should be deleted.

Mr Sawicki said that the authors of the amendment felt that it was important to have a full discussion on any guidelines by all member parliaments of the ECPRD and not exclusively by the Executive Committee.

He agreed that the words “due consideration being paid” already implied a strong obligation.

Mr Brattesta expressed his preference for the text of paragraph 1 as established at the Rome meeting.

Mr Sawicki said that the amendment to paragraph 1 was not needed as the correspondents always had the right to modify draft guidelines elaborated by the Executive Committee or to ask for a new draft.

The amendment proposed to paragraph 1 was not agreed. The replacement in paragraph 1 of the words “as well as“ by ”and” was approved.

Mrs Krasovec asked what would be the mission of the Executive Committee if the changes proposed to paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 9 were agreed.

Mr Sawicki replied that the Executive Committee would coordinate seminars, prepare meetings, run comparative studies, control how things develop in the ECPRD, establish guidelines, appoint Co-ordinators and take initiatives concerning co-ordinators and ad hoc Working Groups. The Executive Committee would also determine the composition and duration of ad hoc working groups once set up by the correspondents.

Mr Brattesta supported the amendments proposed to paragraphs 3 and 4.

Mr Sawicki said that at the Conference of Correspondents in Bucharest no-one had been in favour of the draft text of paragraphs 3 and 4 as established at the Rome meeting. The amendments proposed in Bucharest raised no problems for the functioning of the ECPRD and were fine.

Because of a problem in the past it would be preferable if the correspondents had the say concerning Co-ordinators. The same was true for ad hoc Working Groups, as it could not be predicted how they would operate.

The amendments proposed to paragraphs 3 and 4 were agreed.

Mr Sawicki said that footnotes 4 and 5 had still to be examined as well as a late amendment presented by Mr Palanza to paragraph 1.

Footnote 4 and proposal by Mr Palanza relating to paragraph 1

Mr Sawicki said that footnote 4 was intended to add in paragraph 4 after “studies” the words “creation and development of appropriate databases”. A long discussion had taken place on this proposal in Bucharest where it had not been approved. However, Mr Palanza had wished to raise it again as it was essential for him that the ECPRD oriented itself more towards ICT as one of its major tasks.

MM Brattesta and Utkin expressed doubts if this very specific addition was necessary.

Mrs Krasovec pointed out that data bases were in national language

The proposal contained in footnote 4 was not agreed.

Mr Sawicki said that Mr Palanza had come back to the matter in the attachment to his mail. He proposed to replace the first sentence of paragraph 1 by the following text:“ECPRD promotes co-operation between member chambers through the exchange of information, compilation of documentation and studies, promotion and sharing of appropriate ICT projects and tools and the organisation of seminars”. Also by means of this amendment Mr Palanza had intended to show that the ECPRD was modern and followed ICT developments elsewhere.

Mr Brattesta said that he was more at ease with the text of Article 9 paragraph 1 as it stood. He wondered what the proposal would add to the current activities of the ECPRD in practical terms.

Mr Sawicki said that Mr Palanza wanted to give the ECPRD a more active role in following developments in the ICT field. In his view this should have an effect on the Centre’s style of work.

Mr Brattesta said that as the ECPRD had not a large staff to promote action the proposal made should rather not be worded as a commitment.

Mr Utkin also considered that it was not the function of the ECPRD to promote ICT projects and tools but rather to organise an exchange of information thereon.

Mrs Coppolecchia felt that Mr Palanza’s proposal had also to be seen in relation to IPEX.

Mr Sawicki proposed to sub-amend the proposal made by Mr Palanza as follows, to add in paragraph 1 after “ organisation of seminars “ the words: “and by the sharing of knowledge of parliamentary ICT applications”.

Mr Brattesta supported this proposal which solved the problem.

Agreed.

Footnote 5 to paragraph 3

Mr Sawicki said that this footnote had been proposed by two correspondents after the Bucharest meeting. Its aim was to make the proposed new version of article 9, paragraph 3 consistent with other provisions of the Statutes which stipulated that major decisions taken had to be ratified by the correspondents.

Mr Brattesta said that it would be better to do without footnote 5. The amendments already agreed to were sufficient. In case of a problem the Conference of correspondents would not fail to raise it.

The proposal contained in footnote 5 was not agreed.

Article 10

No new amendments had been proposed.

Article 11

No new amendments had been proposed.

4. FOLLOW-UP ACTION

Mr Sawicki said that he would include the decisions taken at the present meeting in the draft new Statutes and send the updated version to members of the Working Group at the beginning of next week. He would appreciate it if members could let him know as soon as possible if they agreed with it. Afterwards, the consolidated draft would be translated into French, German, Italian and Russian.

He would also prepare an updated version of the explanatory memorandum which would comment the changes proposed to the initial text of the Statutes. Two versions of the draft new Statutes would be established. The first one would paint in bold all amendments made to the initial text and the second version would be without references to amendments. Furthermore, draft minutes of the present meeting would be prepared.

The Secretaries General would receive the consolidated draft Statutes and the minutes of the meeting at the beginning of February and be invited to give their reactions before the end of February.

If further amendments were presented, it was hoped that this would not require a further meeting of the Working Group. Otherwise a meeting could be held in Tallinn shortly before the opening of the European Conference of Presidents of Parliaments.

Mr Brattesta thanked and complemented Mr Sawicki for having achieved the elaboration of the draft revised Statutes of the ECPRD. Initially it had been considered that such a revision was not indispensable. Through the up-dating of its Statutes the ECPRD would look more modern.

5. OTHER BUSINESS

i. Russian Duma

Mr Utkin announced that in April 2006 the 100^th anniversary of the Russian State Duma would be celebrated. A solemn commemoration would take place in St. Petersburg on 27 April 2006.

In this connection he considered that the activity of the ECPRD helped ensuring a better knowledge and evaluation of parliamentary institutions.

ii. Co-Director of the ECPRD from the EP

Mr Sawicki said that because of the appointment of Mr Bo Jensen to the Private Office of Mr Barroso, President of the European Commission, the question of the ECPRD Co-director to be appointed on behalf of the European Parliament was raised. The appointment would have to be made by the Secretary General of the EP.

He recalled the importance of this matter as all management of the ECPRD took place on the side of the EP.

iii. Mention of he ECPRD during the European Conference of Presidents of Parliaments in Tallinn

Mr Brattesta suggested that it would be useful if one President said some words about the ECPRD. He/she could inform the colleagues that the Statutes of the ECPRD had just been revised and that the Centre was a rather simple Organisation which did not cost much and produced practical results.

Mr Sawicki supported this idea and considered that the President of the EP, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly or the President of the Estonian Parliament could be invited to do this.

Agreed.

Mr Sawicki thanked again Mr Brattesta for his invitation to the Working Group to meet in Oslo and for his hospitality. He also thanked all members of the Group for their precious collaboration and their contribution to the successful work of the Group.

The meeting rose at 12.40 pm.