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

MeetingRome ECPRDrevII

Strasbourg, 14 June 2005

DRAFT

WORKING GROUP ON THE REVISION OF THE ECPRD STATUTES

DRAFT MINUTES

of the meeting held in Rome on 20 May 2005 (10 a.m.)

Camera dei Deputati

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

- Alessandro PALANZA (Italy), ECPRD Correspondent, Deputy Secretary General of the

Camera dei Deputati

- Hans-Peter BLATT (Germany), ECPRD Correspondent, Head of Department WD 1

(Geschichte, Zeitgeschichte und Politik), Deutscher Bundestag

- Tatjana KRASOVEC (Slovenia), Head of the Research Sector, Drzavni Sbor

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

Europe

- Alain BARRAU, Head of Unit Bilateral Relations with national parliaments, European

Parliament, representing Mr Bo Jensen, ECPRD Co-director

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

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

Europe

1.       Welcome address by Mr Ugo Zampetti, Secretary General of the "Camera dei        Deputati"

Mr Zampetti opened the meeting at 10.10 a.m. and conveyed to the participants the greetings of the Chamber of Deputies and its President.

The Camera dei Deputati was so much committed to the ECPRD’s work that one of its Deputy Secretaries General, Sandro Palanza, was ECPRD correspondent and member of the ECPRD Executive Committee.

The administration of the Camera considered the ECPRD as an example of inter-parliamentary cooperation that had led to concrete and qualitatively measurable results. That is why the Camera was pleased to host this meeting which had the task of carrying on the preparation of the Centre’s new Statutes. A large part of the work had already been done, as Co-directors Sawicki and Jensen had prepared an excellent draft of the new Statutes.

Today’s meeting would consider this draft while remaining open to any proposals for improvements that may arise from the meeting. In this connection the proposals of the Camera would be presented by Mr Palanza.

Mr Zampetti recalled that autonomy and parity were the fundamental principles upon which parliamentary cooperation was founded.

There was every reason to be confident that today’s work would be fruitful and bring the ECPRD closer to the goal of producing a text to be submitted to the Secretaries General of the parliaments of Council of Europe member states.

Mr Zampetti apologised for being unable to personally take part in today’s meeting as the internal budget of the Camera was currently being prepared.

He wished participants success in their efforts.

Mr Sawicki thanked Mr Zampetti for his invitation to the Working Group to meet in Rome and for his kind words on the work done by the Executive Committee. He also hoped that the group would be able today to conclude its work on the revision of the ECPRD’s Statutes.

He paid tribute to Mr Palanza's active contribution to the work of the ECPRD Executive Committee.

2.        Minutes of the meeting held in Strasbourg on 26 October 2004

Mr Sawicki said that the minutes of the last meeting of the Working Group held in Strasbourg on 26 October 2004 had already been approved individually by participants.

3.       ECPRD Statutes – General exchange of views

Mr Sawicki said that the files contained the draft revised Statutes of 31 March 2005 prepared by the Co-directors. In addition, they included a document by Mr Palanza with proposals for changes to the Statutes dated 6 April 2005.

He suggested that the group first proceed to a preliminary exchange of views on the general issues that members wished to raise with respect to the ECPRD Statutes, followed by an extensive discussion on the proposals for modifications of the Statutes’ provisions.

Mr Brattesta apologised for not having been more helpful in respect of the revision of the ECPRD’s Statutes due to a heavy workload in the Storting. By submitting their draft for revised Statutes the Co-directors had greatly facilitated the task of the Working Group.

In general, he could accept the Co-directors’ proposals as they stood. However, he had some proposals for additions to the Statutes and would make several observations of a more detailed nature in the course of discussion.

While in his view the current Statutes had not been an obstacle for the ECPRD’s activities, the draft with the Co-directors’ proposals better reflected the Centre’s reality.

Mr Sawicki recalled that at the Working Group’s meeting on 26 October 2004 it had been agreed that there was no need for a general revision of the ECPRD’s Statutes but only for their adaptation.

Furthermore, that meeting had agreed that it would be improper for the ECPRD to admit regional parliaments as partners of the ECPRD at the same level as national parliaments.

Mr Barrau apologised for the absence of Bo Jensen, Co-director of the ECPRD, who was prevented from attending the present meeting. He thanked the Italian authorities for their invitation to meet in Rome and was confident that an agreement would be reached on the revision of the ECPRD’s Statutes.

In reply to a question by Mr Palanza, Mr Sawicki indicated further the procedure that was envisaged:

-       following the agreement by the Statutory Working Group, the modified draft Statutes would be circulated to the ECPRD correspondents for possible comments before the Correspondents' Conference in October 2005 in Bucharest;

-       the final draft – approved again by the Statutory Working Group, if need be - would be circulated to the Secretaries General of parliaments at the beginning of 2006; they would be invited to submit amendments well in advance of the Tallinn meeting to simplify discussions there;

-       the final adoption of the revised Statutes was foreseen for the next meeting of the Secretaries General of Parliament in Tallinn on 31 May 2006.

4.        ECPRD Statutes - consideration of the different provisions and proposals for       modification

The meeting then proceeded to an examination article by article of the Statutes and the proposals for changes.

Preamble of the Statutes

Mr Sawicki said that as from 2004 the Conference of Speakers of European Parliamentary Assemblies had become the European Conference of Presidents of Parliament, the text of the Preamble should be modified accordingly.

Furthermore, two new sentences had been added to the preamble to explain that the ECPRD operated under the authority of Secretaries General of Parliaments and to point out that they should approve the Centre’s activity report, its action programme and establish priorities for its functioning.

These changes were agreed.

Article 1

Mr Sawicki said that the Co-directors’ draft proposed several changes to this article which dealt with the ECPRD’s aims.

First, the Centre, in addition to promoting the exchange of information, ideas and experience, should also promote good practice among the administrations of parliaments in Europe.

Secondly, the Centre should promote cooperation in all fields of parliamentary administration. The explicit mention of the word "administration" was important as the ECPRD’s practice showed, that more and more often the Centre dealt with the functioning of parliamentary administration.

Thirdly the word “legislation” should be added as a separate item to the ECPRD’s tasks so as not to be hidden under the term “administration”.

Mr Brattesta said that it was appropriate to update the ECPRD’s tasks and that he was therefore in favour of the proposals made.

The proposed changes were agreed.

Mr Sawicki said that the Co-directors also proposed to add a second sentence to Art.1 worded as follows: “The ECPRD shall promote, wherever possible, the use of Information and Communication Technologies in the exchange of information.”

Mr Palanza referred to his draft of 6 April 2005. His amendment was simply aimed at making more explicit the duty of the ECPRD to promote the exchange of information on methods and projects to develop the use of information and communication technologies in parliaments.

It was true that the ECPRD’s ICT Working Group had regular exchanges on these matters. However, it would be preferable if the ECPRD was tasked explicitly by the Statutes to make proposals for new ICT methods and projects. This should be mentioned in Article 1 and could be developed in Article 8 of the Statutes.

Mr Brattesta had nothing against this proposal but recalled that the ECPRD did not have its own operational budget and administration. He saw no possibility that with its existing infrastructure the ECPRD would be in a position to develop new ICT methods and projects.

Mr Sawicki asked Mr Palanza if he meant simply the promotion of development or the development by the ECPRD of new ICT methods and projects, for which purpose the Centre would have no staff.

Mr Palanza said that the ECPRD should promote the better organisation of methods for exchanging existing information through IT. For example, the ECPRD could promote agreements to make accessible the information contained on the Web sites of national parliaments through short summaries in a vehicular language.

Mr Sawicki asked the participants if they could accept the following revised wording of the second sentence of Article 1: “In the exchange of information the ECPRD shall promote, wherever possible, the use and development of the Information and Communication Technology methods and projects”.

Agreed.

Mr Palanza presented his second amendment to Article 1, to add at the end of this provision the following new sentence: “The ECPRD coordinates with any other network dealing with exchange of information among its members or a number of them”.

This amendment was connected with both technology and the proliferation of different organisations and networks which dealt with information exchange. Some of these organisations were geographically limited, others had been set up for special purposes. The Conferences of Presidents of Parliaments and the meetings of Secretaries General of parliaments had always insisted on the need to avoid duplication and wasting energies.

Mr Palanza said that he saw the ECPRD as the wider framework in Europe. At a time when other organisations were growing, it was important to maintain the ECPRD’s function as a general framework for cooperation among administrations of parliaments in Europe.

Mr Utkin wondered whether this proposed coordination task cost money and if the ECPRD had the necessary resources for this. In this connection he presented the project to coordinate the legislation at both federal and regional level in Russia, including the case-law of the higher courts. (“Electronic Russia”).

Mr Sawicki asked what was meant by the term “coordinate “. Should the Centre act as a body to provide information on what was going on in similar forums? He considered that the term “cooperate” would be more appropriate than “coordinate”. It was obvious that the ECPRD had to cooperate with other networks. But to what extent could it coordinate this?

Mrs Krasovec said that while understanding Mr Palanza’s proposal, she was not very much in favour of a coordinating role for the ECPRD. On the other hand it was most important for the activities in national parliaments to reach different networks and it would be good if the ECPRD offered its help in this field.

Mr Barrau felt that it was unnecessary to include such an ECPRD task in the Statutes. However, if the participants considered that this should be done, he preferred the word “cooperate” instead of “coordinate”.

Mr Brattesta wondered what was behind the proposed coordinating role for the ECPRD. What would “coordinate” mean for the relationship between IPEX and the ECPRD? IPEX was a success and he did not understand why it was not part of the ECPRD.

For Mr Palanza it was important that the ECPRD should know what was going on elsewhere, for instance at the level of IPEX or with respect to other initiatives, such as the cooperation initiated by several national parliaments to exchange information on space matters.

This was the more relevant as the current situation was different from that in 1977 when the ECPRD was created. His concern was to avoid spending money in an ineffective way and not

to duplicate what was already done. In this connection he recalled that the recent Budapest Conference of Speakers and Presiding Officers of the EU parliaments and the EP had underlined the need for better knowledge on what was going on in international parliamentary institutions, which had proliferated.

Mr Sawicki said that it was important to avoid the impression that the ECPRD should become an umbrella organisation. There were the ECPRD and IPEX. Moreover, the administrations of national parliaments had appointed permanent observers to the EP. In his view the Conference of Speakers was more concerned about international parliamentary institutions than about their administrations. The Thierse report presented at the Conference of Speakers in Budapest did not deal with staff matters.

Mr Brattesta referred to the existing international parliamentary institutions in the northern region of Europe.

Mr Palanza said that most inter-parliamentary cooperation initiatives concerned members of parliament; however they tended to develop independent secretariats. This automatically created networks, for example for the cooperation for space matters. There was also an attempt to create an inter-parliamentary secretariat for the fight against corruption.

The ECPRD should not be a kind of umbrella organisation but be attentive to what was going on among its member states and the Centre’s correspondents should be aware of this.

Mr Sawicki proposed to the participants the following wording of a new paragraph 3 to Article 1: “The ECPRD shall co-operate with other networks dealing with the exchange of information among parliaments in Europe.”

Agreed.

Article 2

Mr Sawicki said that only formal changes were proposed, namely to use a correct name of the Assembly of WEU and to refer to “European Conference of Presidents of Parliaments” (new title) instead of “Conference of Speakers of European Parliamentary Assemblies”.

Article 3

No change.

Article 4

Mr Brattesta said that the Secretaries General of Parliaments were mentioned in several provisions of the Statutes, e.g. in the preamble, in Articles 4, 5 and 10. He wondered if, with a view to their important tasks, the meeting of the Secretaries General should not be mentioned in a specific provision, for example in a new Article 4, as one of the governing bodies of the ECPRD.

Mr Sawicki agreed. The meeting of the Secretaries General was the supreme body of the ECPRD and took the basic decisions. He said that the second and third sentences of the preamble described the essential functions of the meeting of Secretaries General. They could be transferred into a new Article 4 under the heading “the meeting of the Secretaries General”.

Mr Brattesta was in agreement as this would illustrate that the Secretaries General did not only appoint correspondents but had a significant responsibility for the matters of the ECPRD.

In reply to a question by Mr Palanza concerning the role of the European Conference of Presidents of Parliament, Mr Sawicki preferred leaving the ECPRD under the authority of the Secretaries General. He considered that the current references in the Statutes to the European Conference of Presidents of Parliaments were sufficient.

Mrs Krasovec agreed with the proposed new Article 4. In her view it would not be appropriate to include a further reference to the role of the European Conference of Presidents in the Preamble of the Statutes.

The proposed inclusion in the Statutes of a new Article 4 was agreed.

Mr Sawicki presented the proposal to add the following new sentence to paragraph 1 of (old) Article 4: “Secretaries General may also appoint Deputy Correspondents” and to adapt consequently its paragraph 2. This proposal was realistic and was useful in case the correspondent was prevented from being active for the Centre.

Agreed.

Article 5 (old)

Mr Sawicki proposed to replace in paragraph 1 for linguistic reasons, the word “contains” by “includes”.

Furthermore it was proposed to make paragraph 2 of Article 5 more precise and adapt it to current practice by wording it as follows: “The report, together with the action programme, is then submitted for approval to the Secretaries General and subsequently to the European Conference of Presidents of Parliaments”.

Mr Brattesta said that he would appreciate it if at the end of the proposed new wording of paragraph 2 the following sentence could be added: “which is invited to take note of it”.

The changes to Article 5 as proposed were agreed.

Article 6 (old)

Mr Sawicki said that three options were submitted with respect to the number of correspondents to be appointed to the Executive Committee.

Under the existing system with three correspondents as members, every year a new correspondent was elected to the Executive Committee. If that Committee was for instance enlarged to include five correspondents, they would remain members for five years instead of currently three years, but the annual renewal would be maintained. With six correspondents the renewal of two members of the Executive Committee would take place every year.

The reasons put forward for increasing the number of correspondents were more involvement of the national parliaments and a better geographical balance represented in the Executive.

Personally, he considered that the ECPRD could manage with three correspondents however at the meeting of the Executive Committee in London it had been proposed to enlarge its membership.

Mr Brattesta proposed to refer in paragraph 1 of Article 6 not only to “the Conference” but to “the Conference of Correspondents”.

Agreed.

Mr Brattesta said that while having no strong feelings about the need to enlarge the composition of the Executive Committee he observed that this would be a way of acknowledging the enlargement of the Council of Europe and the EU since the adoption of the Centre’s Statutes in 1996.

The future appointment of five correspondents to the Executive Committee would be a good compromise and reflect the new Europe in a better way.

Mr Palanza agreed with the appointment of five correspondents. In addition, this would be useful in case some correspondents who were members of the Executive Committee were prevented from attending a meeting of the Executive.

Mr Blatt also suggested appointing five correspondents.

Agreed.

Mr Sawicki observed that when the mandate of a correspondent in the Executive Committee ended, a re-election was not excluded by the Statutes but this had never occurred in the past. After the adoption of the revised Statutes correspondents appointed to the Executive Committee would therefore, in practice, serve a five-year term.

He proposed to modify the second sentence of Article 6 as follows: “The Committee will meet as often as necessary, at the request of at least two of its members or five correspondents.” He said that until now it had never happened that correspondents had requested a meeting of the Executive Committee.

Furthermore, the Co-directors proposed to mention explicitly in the second paragraph of Article 6 that, for the elections of correspondents to the Executive Committee, due consideration would be paid to the need to maintain geographical balance in the membership of the Executive Committee. This was current practice.

The proposed changes were agreed.

Article 7 (old)

Mr Sawicki said that in practice the two Secretaries of the ECPRD mentioned in Article 7 of the Statutes were already referred to as Co-Secretaries of the ECPRD. It was now proposed to adapt this provision accordingly.

The proposed modification of paragraph 3 of Article 7 to make Co-directors no longer ex officio correspondents for their assemblies, would provide for greater flexibility and allow for the appointment by Secretaries General of the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of other persons than the Co-directors as their correspondents.

The proposed changes were agreed.

Article 8 (old)

Mr Sawicki said that various proposals had been made to modify Article 8 which dealt with the key issue of the Centre’s working methods, including Working Groups.

Mr Palanza presented the proposals from the Camera dei Deputati relating to paragraph 1 of article 8 of the Statutes, i.e. to word it as follows: “Cooperation between the ECPRD and member chambers takes place by the exchange of information, compilation of documentation and studies and by the organisation of seminars or Working Groups. The Conference of Correspondents, on a proposal of the Executive Committee, shall establish detailed guidelines for studies and comparative requests as well as for the organisation of the ECPRD seminars and Working Groups on specific issues.”

He said that the proposals of the Camera to insert a new paragraph 4 in Article 8 also included the following new sentence relating to Working Groups: “Temporary Working Groups may be created, also on a proposal of interested Parliaments, by the Executive Committee or by the Conference of Correspondents, depending on their relevance and life span.”

Mr Sawicki said that under the current Statutes the Conference of Correspondents or the Executive Committee may create Working Groups, if necessary. Two Working Groups were operational: one on ICT and the other on Macroeconomic Research.

In the past, further Working Groups existed in the ECPRD such as on Libraries. The Centre’s Working Groups never had formal membership. It was the Secretary General of the respective national parliament who decided which officials attended events of the Working Groups.

Mr Sawicki said that after having discussed with Mr Jensen, Co-director of the ECPRD, the Centre’s working methods they had agreed to propose the abolition of permanent Working Groups but to provide in the Statutes that the Executive Committee had the possibility to appoint coordinators in areas requiring continuous activity. The coordinators would be responsible for preparing events (seminars) in the given field and would assure the continuity of work. The number of coordinators should not be pre-established, as it would depend on the needs and requests.

Mr Palanza said that it should be possible to create ad hoc Working Groups depending on the interests of national parliaments. They should be project-oriented and this requirement should be mentioned in the Statutes of the ECPRD. Working Groups could develop products of electronic documentation among parliaments, for instance an electronic dossier on budget procedures of national parliaments. He agreed that the existing permanent Working Groups, which had been the subject of criticism on several occasions, should be abandoned.

Mr Sawicki said that the setting up in the Centre of small ad hoc Working Groups would be an innovation.

Mr Brattesta supported the proposals in the ECPRD Co-directors’ draft concerning changes to Article 8 of the Statutes. He was sceptical about permanent ECPRD Working Groups, which should be abolished. While sharing Mr Palanza’s intentions, he was not sure if the setting up of ad hoc Working Groups should be mentioned explicitly in the Statutes. This would not prevent the Conference of Correspondents from creating one if this was necessary to carry out a specific project.

Mr Blatt was in favour of making the ECPRD more flexible by allowing the setting up of ad hoc Working Groups composed of representatives of parliaments interested in a given project or matter. However, he wondered if it was necessary to incorporate this into the Statutes. The ECPRD should not have the image of travelling around Europe.

Mr Sawicki said that if the possibility of setting up project-oriented ad hoc Working Groups within the ECPRD was agreed, this should be mentioned in the Statutes as it would be a new working method.

Such ad hoc Working Groups should be limited in time and in scope, have clear terms of reference and their composition should be fixed.

Who should be entitled to initiate ad hoc Working Groups? The Secretaries General of parliaments? How many of them, five or six? Did one need the ECPRD for such project-oriented cooperation among some parliaments?

Mr Utkin considered that if a problem appeared in one or more parliaments the usefulness of whether to have recourse to an ad hoc working party of the ECPRD would emerge by itself.

Mr Palanza said that when the administration of a parliament was faced with a complicated matter, it could describe the problem and invite other parliaments to give their reactions. For example, electronic election dossiers could be achieved on the basis of putting together the resources of some parliaments. If this was done through the ECPRD, it would be a public offer to other parliaments to combine their efforts.

In his view such action would be preferable to sending out a very long questionnaire, for example.

Mr Brattesta felt that this was an interesting proposal but was sceptical with respect to the expected results. Any overburdening of the ECPRD should be prevented. It was important for the ECPRD to limit itself and to achieve good results of its work.

Mr Sawicki pointed out the ECPRD’s limited staff resources, fewer staff now worked for the Centre in Brussels. Therefore, one had to be careful when creating new tasks.

Mr Palanza said that his intention was not to create more burdens for the ECPRD but to find a more flexible organisation for its activities.

Mr Sawicki said that it was necessary to put an end to the ECPRD’s two permanent Working Groups and to appoint instead coordinators to ensure continuity and organise seminars when necessary.

With respect to the setting-up of project-oriented ad hoc Working Groups it should be defined:

Mr Brattesta supported Mr Sawicki.

Mr Palanza said that he could accept this. However the proposals of the Co-directors concerning Article 8, and relating to the appointment of coordinators and to the functions to be entrusted to them were still not clear for him. He considered that the authority of proposals for ECPRD activities stemming from requests from national parliaments was greater than that of initiatives taken by a coordinator.

Mr Sawicki said that the idea to appoint coordinators reflected the ECPRD’s current situation. It dealt with issues which required some continuity, such as ICT, parliaments on the Net, library matters, communication policy. Furthermore, following a seminar held in Ljubljana on security issues concerning parliaments, it was considered necessary to continue this activity. The appointment of a coordinator was intended to give him/her responsibility for a given subject, to ensure the necessary continuity and create a link between the various seminars, prevent duplication, while avoiding the creation of a permanent structure.

While keeping the possibility of appointing coordinators and incorporating this into the Statutes, the creation of a limited number of ad hoc Working Groups to deal with specific subjects should also be possible.

Mr Palanza said that he still was not convinced with respect to the appointment of coordinators within the ECPRD and would like to leave this subject open for further discussion.

Mr Brattesta proposed to mention ad hoc Working Groups at the end of paragraph 3 of Art.8 (old) and not also in its first paragraph.

Mr Barrau said that it was important to find a compromise now and not to refer the matter to the meeting of Secretaries General of parliaments. If he understood well, one participant was concerned with the possibility that coordinators could get too much control over ECPRD activities. Another participant wished to avoid that by incorporating into the Statutes the possibility of creating ad hoc Working Groups. The Centre could get a reputation for laxity.

The objective of the present meeting should be to find a compromise and therefore the Statutes should mention explicitly both the appointment of coordinators and the possibility of creating ad hoc working parties and thus a general consensus could be reached on the Statutes.

Mr Sawicki proposed as a compromise to add a new paragraph 4 to Article 8 of the Statutes which would refer to the possibility for the Executive Committee to appoint ad hoc Working Groups composed of staff of member chambers. It would also establish that the Executive Committee would define the composition, terms of reference and duration of such ad hoc Working Groups.

This was agreed and Mr Sawicki was invited to draft the text accordingly.

Mr Sawicki returned to the changes to the three paragraphs of Article 8 proposed in the Co-directors’ draft.

It was first proposed to transfer the first sentence of the present paragraph 2 to paragraph 1, to add it to the first sentence and to reword it as follows: “and the organisation of seminars”.

Furthermore it was proposed to insert a new second sentence in paragraph 1 of Article 8 worded as follows: “The Executive Committee shall establish detailed guidelines for studies and comparative requests as well as for the organisation of ECPRD seminars.”

Mr Sawicki said that it was proposed to leave this task to the Executive Committee as this would provide for greater flexibility and as the Conference of Correspondents met only once a year.

Mr Palanza said that the correspondents should discuss this.

Mr Sawicki said that this would not raise a problem as in the past the Correspondents had discussed both guidelines before they were adopted by the Executive Committee on the basis of the orientations given by the Conference of Correspondents.

Mr Sawicki said that it was proposed to include in paragraph 2 the new words “or initiate”.

Paragraph 3 should be modified as follows: “The Executive Committee may appoint Coordinators responsible for promoting close cooperation between member chambers in areas that require continuous activity. Coordinators shall be selected from among the competent staff of member chambers.”

Mr Palanza considered that the Conference of Correspondents should have the last word with respect to the appointment of coordinators.

Mr Sawicki said that if the nomination of coordinators had to be approved by the correspondents this would complicate things in case an appointment went wrong and a coordinator would have to leave his function as was proposed in the case of the present ICT coordinator. It was a generally accepted principle that conditions for appointment and dismissal had to be the same. This would mean that if correspondents had to approve the appointment they would also have to give their consent to the dismissal. It would be very difficult to have a discussion on a dismissal in a large body such as the Conference of Correspondents which moreover met only once a year.

Mr Palanza accepted this argument.

The proposed changes to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 8 were agreed.

Following a discussion in which MM Palanza, Blatt and Sawicki participated, members noted that the new wording proposed for Article 1 of the Statutes covered the proposal of the Italian "Camera dei Deputati" dated 6 April 2005 to add a new paragraph to Article 8 of the Statutes worded as follows: “The ECPRD promotes interconnections among its Website and member Parliament Websites”.

Article 9 (old)

Mr Sawicki said that the draft of the Co-directors proposed to make the wording of paragraph 1 more precise, which was related to the cost to be met by member chambers for their participation in the ECPRD.

Agreed.

Art.10 (old)

Mr Brattesta said that as other provisions of the Statutes always referred to “member chambers”, the words “member assemblies” in Article 10 should be replaced accordingly. Furthermore, he suggested replacing the words “the Secretaries General” by “the meeting of Secretaries General”.

Agreed. The Working Group invited Mr Sawicki to redraft Article 10 along these lines.

Mr Palanza proposed that the draft revised Statutes should be accompanied by a brief report or text explaining the intentions behind its major provisions or giving guidelines for their application.

Mr Blatt supported the idea of short comments on the provisions of the Statutes.

Mr Sawicki agreed to prepare comments and to send them to members for their approval. Afterwards they would be made available for the correspondents and the Secretaries General of parliaments.

Mr Sawicki closed the meeting at 1.15 p.m. and presented his thanks to Mr Palanza for the excellent organisation and the hospitality extended to participants.