Print
See related documents
A. Draft
resolution
(open)
Report | Doc. 13246 | 25 June 2013
Challenge on procedural grounds of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Iceland
Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs
Summary
On 24 June 2013, the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Iceland were challenged on procedural grounds, in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly, on the ground that they comprised no female representative in violation of Rule 6.2.a.
In accordance with the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, these credentials were referred to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. The committee proposes that the Assembly ratify the credentials of the Icelandic parliamentary delegation but suspend the voting rights of its members in the Assembly and its bodies in accordance with Rule 7.3.c, with effect from the beginning of the Assembly’s October 2013 part-session, if the composition of the delegation has not been brought into conformity with the Rules of Procedure by then, and until conformity is achieved
A. Draft
resolution 
(open)1. On 24 June 2013, the still unratified credentials
of the parliamentary delegation of Iceland were challenged on procedural
grounds, in accordance with Rule 7.1 of the Assembly’s Rules of
Procedure, on the ground that the delegation comprised no female
representative, in violation of Rule 6.2.a of
the Rules of Procedure.
2. The Parliamentary Assembly reiterates its commitment to promoting
the balanced representation of women and men in political and public
decision-making and to applying the principle of gender equality
in its internal structures, in particular by encouraging a balanced
representation of women and men in national delegations.
3. The Assembly notes that the composition of the Icelandic delegation
does not fulfil the conditions laid down in Rule 6.2.a of the Rules of Procedure and
that its credentials have been legitimately challenged. It notes that
the delegation has stated that it had been impossible for it to
satisfy the condition laid down by the Rules of Procedure in the
time available and that it undertakes to ensure full compliance
at the earliest opportunity.
4. Accordingly, the Assembly decides to ratify the credentials
of the parliamentary delegation of Iceland, but to suspend the voting
rights of its members in the Assembly and its bodies in accordance
with Rule 7.3.c of the Rules
of Procedure, with effect from the beginning of the Assembly’s October
2013 part-session, until the composition of this delegation is brought
into conformity with Rule 6.2.a insofar
as it relates to the appointment in the delegation of, at a very
minimum, one member of the under-represented sex as a representative.
B. Explanatory memorandum by Ms Vučković, rapporteur
(open)1. Introduction and applicable regulatory provisions
1. At the Assembly sitting on 24 June 2013, Mr José
Mendes Bota, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Equal Opportunities
for Women and Men, and several members of the Assembly challenged
on procedural grounds the still unratified credentials of the national
delegation of Iceland to the Parliamentary Assembly, in accordance
with Rule 7.1.b of the Rules
of Procedure, on the ground that the delegation in question comprised no
female representative, in violation of Rule 6.2.a.
2. Resolution 1781
(2010) “A minimum of 30% of representatives of the under-represented
sex in Assembly national delegations” amended Rules 6.2.a and 7.1.b of
the Rules of Procedure and laid down new conditions regarding gender
representation, by strengthening the existing provisions to ensure
a more balanced participation of women and men.
3. The second sentence of Rule 6.2.a provides
that:
“National delegations shall include the under-represented sex at least in the same percentage as is present in their parliaments and, at a very minimum, one member of the under-represented sex appointed as a representative.”
4. The failure to include at least one member of the under-represented
sex as a representative in a national delegation is explicitly acknowledged
in Rule 7.1.b. of the Rules
of Procedure as a ground for challenging the credentials of the
delegation in question:
“Credentials may be challenged by at least ten members of the Assembly present in the Chamber, belonging to at least five national delegations, on stated procedural grounds based upon: … the principles in Rule 6.2, that national parliamentary delegations should be composed so as to ensure a fair representation of the political parties or groups in their parliaments and should include in any case one member of the under-represented sex, appointed as a representative.”
5. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs must therefore examine whether the composition of the Icelandic
delegation violates the principles set out in Rule 6.2.a of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.
6. Furthermore, under the terms of Rule 7.2, “[i]f the Committee
concludes that the credentials should be ratified, it may submit
an opinion to the President of the Assembly, who shall read it out
in the plenary sitting of the Assembly or the Standing Committee,
without debate. If the Committee concludes that the credentials should
not be ratified or that they should be ratified but that some rights
of participation or representation should be denied or suspended,
the Committee’s report shall be placed on the agenda for debate
within the prescribed deadlines”.
2. Conformity of the composition of the parliamentary delegation of Iceland with Rule 6.2 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure
7. Following parliamentary elections, the parliament
of Iceland (Alþingi) presented the credentials of its new delegation
at the opening of the June 2013 Assembly part-session. The report
of the President of the Assembly on the examination of credentials
of representatives and substitutes for the third part of the 2013
Ordinary Session of the Assembly (Doc. 13235) shows that the Icelandic national delegation does not
include any women as representatives.
2.1. The credentials of the members of the Icelandic delegation sent on 19 June 2013
8. In accordance with articles 25 and 26 of the Statute
of the Council of Europe (ETS No. 1), the Icelandic parliamentary
delegation is entitled to three representatives and three substitutes.
According to the report of the President of the Assembly on the
examination of credentials of representatives and substitutes for
the third part of the 2013 Ordinary Session of the Assembly, the
Icelandic parliamentary delegation is composed as follows:
Representatives:
Mr Karl GARÐARSON (Progressive Party)
Mr Ögmundur JÓNASSON (Left-Green Movement)
Mr Brynjar NÍELSSON (Independence Party)
Substitutes:
Mr Guðbjartur HANNESSON (Social Democratic Alliance)
Ms Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR (Independence Party)
Ms Jóhanna María SIGMUNDSDÓTTIR (Progressive Party)
9. Following receipt of the Icelandic delegation's credentials,
the Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly contacted it. No letter
was formally sent to the President of the Assembly to provide an
explanation. However, the Secretariat of the Assembly was informed
by e-mail that the delegation had been elected (in plenary sitting) on
6 June 2013 on the basis of nominations from the various political
parties without their having consulted each other beforehand, and
that the non-compliance with the conditions laid down by the Rules
of Procedure of the Assembly had only been discovered afterwards;
the internal procedures in force in the Alþingi did not allow a
change to the delegation to be made in sufficient time before the
part-session, in particular because consultation among the political
groups could not be organised at short notice. An assurance was
given that the political parties concerned could re-discuss the
composition of the delegation before the next Assembly part-session,
in October 2013.
10. It may also be recalled that reference to these regulatory
provisions is expressly made in the letter sent each year by the
Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly to presidents and
speakers of the member States’ parliaments at the beginning of the
month before the opening of the new session, to be borne in mind by
them in appointing their delegations.
11. At its meeting on 24 June 2013, the Committee on Rules of
Procedure had an exchange of views with Mr Garđarson, chairperson
of the Icelandic delegation, who confirmed the above-mentioned information
and indicated that the delegation will be modified in due time for
the Assembly October 2013 part-session.
2.2. Assessment
12. The challenge to the credentials submitted by the
Icelandic delegation is based on the failure to comply with the
provision requiring delegations to appoint, as a representative,
at least one member of the under-represented sex (Rule 6.2.a of the Rules of Procedure). In
view of the composition of the delegation as shown above, and the
table submitted by the delegation showing the representation of
men and women in the parliament and
the parliamentary delegation, it is clear that women come into the
category of under-represented sex.
and
the parliamentary delegation, it is clear that women come into the
category of under-represented sex.13. Article 25 of the Council of Europe Statute states that members
(representatives or substitutes) of the Assembly from Council of
Europe member States shall be “elected by [their] parliament from
among the members thereof, or appointed from among the members of
that parliament, in such manner as it shall decide”. The Rules of
Procedure lay down certain conditions that have to be met regarding
the composition of delegations, with reference in particular to
the balanced representation of political parties or groups and the appointment
of members of the under-represented sex.
14. The delegation whose credentials have been challenged clearly
fails to meet the condition established in Rule 6.2.a that national delegations should
include at least one member of the under-represented sex appointed
as a representative.
15. Reference should be made to the Assembly’s position in principle,
restated in its Resolution
1585 (2007) on gender equality principles in the Parliamentary Assembly,
according to which national parliaments should ensure that their
national delegations to the Assembly comprise a percentage of women
in at least the same proportions as they are present in the national
parliament “with the aim of achieving, as a minimum, a 30% representation
of women, bearing in mind that the threshold should be 40%”.
16. This is not the first time that the Assembly has had to deal
with a challenge of credentials related to gender representation.
In 2004, the credentials of the delegations of Ireland and Malta
were challenged on the ground that they did not comprise at least
one female member, which was an obligation under the Rules of Procedure
at that time. The Assembly had then decided to ratify the credentials of the
Irish and Maltese delegations but with the suspension of the voting
rights of the members of the delegations concerned in the Assembly
and its bodies until the composition of those delegations were brought
into conformity with Rule 6.2.a of
the Rules of Procedure.
to ratify the credentials of the
Irish and Maltese delegations but with the suspension of the voting
rights of the members of the delegations concerned in the Assembly
and its bodies until the composition of those delegations were brought
into conformity with Rule 6.2.a of
the Rules of Procedure.17. In the explanatory memorandum in that report, the Committee
on Rules of Procedure considered that “it would go too far to declare
in such a case the whole national delegation as being not in conformity
with the Rules and to refuse ratification of the credentials of
all members” and that “the Assembly cannot itself select which of
the seats allocated to a national parliamentary delegation is not
correctly filled and cannot arbitrarily declare the credentials
of a certain delegation member as not ratified”.
18. A second precedent was set in January 2011 when, at the opening
of the Assembly’s 2011 Ordinary Session, the Assembly examined a
challenge on formal grounds of the not yet ratified credentials
of the parliamentary delegations of Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia,
with the same root cause, namely that they did not include any woman
in the capacity of a representative. At the time, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1789 (2011) on the basis of a report by the Committee on Rules of
Procedure, in which it decided to ratify the credentials of the
parliamentary delegations concerned but to suspend their members’
right to vote in the Assembly and in its bodies as from the beginning
of the next part-session and until such time as the composition
of these delegations conformed to the Rules of Procedure.
19. The Committee on Rules of Procedure then noted in its report that
“for small parliaments, it may be difficult to ensure that the composition
of parliamentary delegations complies with all the criteria laid
down by the Rules of Procedure – fair representation of parties
or political groups and gender representation. … The Committee also
accepts that procedures in certain parliaments do not enable them
to easily amend the composition of their parliamentary delegations
insofar as those procedures provide for the appointment of delegations
for the whole duration of the legislature, the consultation of or
decision by the political groups, or the need for the composition
to be ratified in plenary session”.
that
“for small parliaments, it may be difficult to ensure that the composition
of parliamentary delegations complies with all the criteria laid
down by the Rules of Procedure – fair representation of parties
or political groups and gender representation. … The Committee also
accepts that procedures in certain parliaments do not enable them
to easily amend the composition of their parliamentary delegations
insofar as those procedures provide for the appointment of delegations
for the whole duration of the legislature, the consultation of or
decision by the political groups, or the need for the composition
to be ratified in plenary session”. 3. Conclusions
20. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and
Institutional Affairs considers that the credentials of the Icelandic
parliamentary delegation have been legitimately challenged on the
ground that the delegation did not comprise at least one female
representative, in violation of Rule 6.2.a of
the Rules of Procedure.
21. In accordance with Rule 7.3 of the Rules of Procedure, the
committee may propose in its report:
- non-ratification of the credentials of the delegation;
- ratification of the credentials of the delegation;
- ratification of the credentials together with depriving or suspending the exercise of some of the rights of participation or representation of members concerned in the activities of the Assembly and its bodies.
22. The Committee on Rules of Procedure took the view that in
this case, it shall adopt the same position in respect of this delegation
as was adopted in 2011, having regard to Resolution 1789 (2011).
23. Consequently, bearing in mind the assurances provided by the
Icelandic Parliament, the committee proposes that the Assembly ratify
the credentials of the Icelandic parliamentary delegation, but provide
for the automatic suspension of the voting rights of its members
in the Assembly and its bodies in accordance with Rule 7.3.c of the Rules of Procedure, with
effect from the beginning of the Assembly’s October 2013 part-session,
if the composition of the delegation has not been brought into conformity
with Rule 6.2.a of the Rules of
Procedure by then and new credentials presented, insofar as it relates
to the appointment of at least one member of the under-represented
sex as a representative, and until conformity is achieved.
Additional remarks
24. The wording of Rules 6.2, 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules of Procedure,
in referring to the concept of the “under-represented sex”, would
be liable to cause some confusion over the exact construction which
the Committee on Rules of Procedure might place on it if credentials
were contested in certain theoretical cases. If the under-represented
sex is determined on the basis of statistics concerning the composition
of the national parliament and of the delegation, then it would
be evident that a delegation which comprised only male representatives and
all of whose women members were substitutes, but stemming from a
parliament with a 70% female composition, for example, would in
no circumstances incur the sanction prescribed in Rule 7, since
in this instance men would be the under-represented sex. The committee
should therefore re-examine the letter of these rules in the context
of the report in preparation on the reform of the Parliamentary
Assembly.
25. Furthermore, a delegation may be in a situation of non-fulfilment
of the obligation to include at least one member of the under-represented
sex appointed as a representative, without incurring a challenge
of its credentials: indeed a delegation may – at least temporarily
– free itself from that obligation simply by not appointing the
whole of its membership and filling only partly the representatives’
seats – which would then be filled by men only. The committee might
also consider this situation in the context of the above-mentioned report.