Assembly motions for orders and draft orders

Parliamentary Assembly
Assembl�e parlementaire

Assembly motions for orders and draft orders

Doc. 10073
12 February 2004

Report
Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
Rapporteur: Mr G�ran Magnusson, Sweden, Socialist Group

For debate in the Standing Committee — see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure

Summary

After having analysed the characteristics and difficulties of Assembly motions for orders and draft orders, the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities considers that it should no longer be possible to submit them. This requires several changes to the Rules of Procedure which are proposed for adoption by the Assembly in the draft resolution.

The report underlines that Assembly documents or texts which may be used to replace motions for orders or draft orders should not interfere with the competences of the Bureau of the Assembly (e.g. with respect to external relations). Furthermore, such documents or texts should not give permanent instructions to a committee to prepare reports on a given subject as this comes under the province of the Bureau.

I.        Draft resolution [Link to the adopted text]

1.         The Parliamentary Assembly notes that between its inception and April 2003 it adopted just under 600 orders which deal with questions of form, transmission, execution or procedure but are not supposed to go into the substance of issues.

2.         It likewise notes that members have tabled a number of motions for orders.

3.         The Assembly has regard to the fact that in the recent past, orders have raised various problems. In addition, many of the considerations which led to the introduction of orders no longer apply. Since May 2003 there has been some use of motions for resolutions and draft resolutions to replace, where appropriate, motions for orders and draft orders.

4.         The Assembly draws attention to the case for simplifying the categories of document which the Assembly adopts and the types of motions (Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure) which members table.

5.         It accordingly decides to eliminate the possibility of motions for orders and draft orders and to amend the Rules of Procedure as follows:

i.          delete the words “and Orders” in Rule 22.2.i.;

ii.          amend the title of Rule 23 to read: “Tabling of motions for recommendations and resolutions”;

iii.         insert at the end of paragraph 1.b. of Rule 23. a new sentence reading: “In addition a resolution may deal with a question of form, transmission, execution or procedure”[1];

iv.         delete paragraph 1.c. of Rule 23;

v.          delete the words “or Order” in Rule 23.2, “or a draft Order” in Rule 40.c. and “or Orders” in Rule 49.2.

6.         It decides that these amendments will enter into force upon their adoption.

II.         Explanatory memorandum by the rapporteur

A.         INTRODUCTION

1.         At its meeting on 4 April 2003 the Assembly Bureau referred to the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities the question of orders adopted by the Assembly (conformity of draft orders to the Rules of Procedure, etc.).

2.         The present report describes the characteristics of Assembly orders and suggests the elimination of this type of Assembly document.

B.         MAIN FEATURES OF ASSEMBLY ORDERS

    a.    Definition of orders and motions for orders

3.       Under Rule 23.1.c., taken with Rule 49.2., of the Rules of Procedure, orders are one of four types of document (recommendations, opinions to the Committee of Ministers, resolutions and orders) which the Assembly adopts. They are concerned with questions of form, transmission, execution or procedure and cannot deal with matters of substance. Under Rule 49.2. of the Rules of Procedure, a report by a general Assembly committee normally includes one or more draft texts: a recommendation or opinion to the Committee of Ministers, a resolution or an order. Orders are official Assembly documents (Rule 22.2.i. of the Rules of Procedure).

4.       Like motions for recommendations and motions for resolutions, motions for orders must be signed by ten or more representatives or substitutes belonging to at least five national delegations (Rule 23.2 of the Rules of Procedure). Motions deemed admissible go to the Bureau for a decision, whether to refer them to one or more committees, forward them for information or take no action on them. Motions for orders are official Assembly documents (Rule 22.2.e. of the Rules of Procedure).

5.       Some Assembly orders, it should be said, have become quite celebrated, such as Order No. 488 (the so-called Halonen Order, after its author, the present well known President of Finland, Ms Tarja Halonen), which in 1993 introduced monitoring of new Council of Europe member states’ honouring of obligations and commitments.

6.       Between 1949/51 and 2003 the Assembly adopted 587 Orders based either on motions for orders or on drafts contained in the operational parts of reports of Assembly committees. Between 1955/59 the Assembly adopted 20 orders per year on average. From 1990 onwards the annual average dropped to 11, from 2000 on to 8. Since April 2003 the Assembly has not adopted any order.

    b.       How orders came into use

7.       A more complete description of "the history" of orders is contained in document AS/Pro (2004) 4.

8.         Orders were introduced into the Assembly Rules of Procedure in December 1951, in Rule 30.

The purpose of this new rule was to reduce the number of recommendations and resolutions adopted by the Assembly and make them shorter, the Assembly having been criticised as early as 1949 for the number, and sometimes length, of the documents it adopted. Orders were previously called resolutions, but are for internal use and are only, or should only, be concerned with questions of form, execution, organisation and, thus, procedure. In particular they constitute internal instructions concerning committees, the Bureau of the Assembly or the secretariat, or the procedure for carrying out references to committee. Unlike resolutions, orders are not supposed to go into the merits or substance of issues and should not be used to bring new topics before the Assembly. They should be distinguished from procedural motions under Rule 37 and from referrals. They are comparable with the British concept of Orders of the House.

    c.    Changes in orders

9.         As a solution to the increasing numbers of orders since their introduction, it was first decided to specify in the Rules of Procedure that orders must refer to questions already on the Assembly’s register. After further amendments Rule 31 of the Rules of Procedure was worded as follows between 1985 and January 2000:

“1.          Any Representative or Substitute may table Motions for Orders. An Order is concerned with any question of form, transmission, execution or procedure; it must relate to a question already placed on the Assembly’s Register and may not deal with the substance of that question.

2.           The President shall decide whether such motions are admissible, after discussion with the Bureau if he deems this necessary.

3.           Motions for Orders shall be taken in conjunction with the debate on the questions to which they refer. They may be put to the vote without first being referred to Committee. They shall be signed by their author and shall be tabled so as to leave sufficient time for them to be printed and distributed before they are discussed.”

10.        Despite these changes the tabling of motions for orders and adoption of preliminary draft orders by committees continued to raise problems, both because of the difficulty of defining them precisely and succinctly and because of their great flexibility.

11.        Largely to deal with these problems, the 1999-2000 revision of the Rules of Procedure radically changed the rules on Assembly orders. Since January 2000 the tabling requirements have been the same for motions for recommendations, motions for resolutions and motions for orders, all of which have to be signed by ten or more representatives or substitutes belonging to at least five national delegations (Rule 23.2 of the Rules of Procedure). In addition, motions for orders can no longer be put to the vote without first being referred to committee. However, there was no change for preliminary draft orders presented in committee reports.

C.        AIMS OF SUBMITTING DRAFT ORDERS TO THE ASSEMBLY OR STANDING COMMITTEE

12.        The appendix to document AS/Pro (2004) 4 includes an analysis of 280 of the just under 600 orders the Assembly has adopted since 1949, and in particular since 1989. This analysis produces the following findings:

there is a lengthy tradition of using orders to develop the Assembly’s or Assembly committees’ external relations, for instance to confirm this or that committee’s function of liaison with particular international organisations or international parliamentary institutions or to intensify those relations;

orders are a way for a particular committee to claim responsibility for exploring new avenues in external relations (for example, setting up dialogue with new institutional partners);

orders are a way of giving a committee a virtually once-and-for-all remit to report on matters of a recurrent nature;

there have been many examples of orders which, contrary to the Rules of Procedure, dealt with the merits/substance of a matter;

orders have contained important measures, proposals or ideas about Assembly working methods or procedures.

13.        Orders allow the Assembly a degree of operational flexibility, as well as enabling committees to promote particular projects or activities they consider important without first having to:

have members draw up a motion for a resolution or for a recommendation, then wait for the Bureau to take a decision on the motion and for the Assembly or Standing Committee to ratify the reference to the committee concerned;

submit a proposal, for example, to the Bureau on a matter of external relations.

14.        While suiting the methods and interests of individual committees, orders may frustrate or impede co-ordination efforts for the Assembly as a whole as regards:

the budget;

priority activities;

committee terms of reference;

external-relations policy.

15.        It should be pointed out in this connection that because they are often regarded as of a technical nature or of lesser importance, the Assembly sometimes gives draft orders less scrutiny than draft recommendations or resolutions.

D.         CASE FOR ELIMINATING MOTIONS FOR ORDERS AND DRAFT ORDERS

16.        Several of the considerations which led to the introduction of motions for orders and draft orders no longer apply. Neither the number of Assembly recommendations and resolutions nor their length currently come in for criticism.

17.        Another point in favour of orders - namely that instructions, decisions and proposals contained in specific orders are easier to keep track of than when buried within a resolution dealing in detail with the substance of a question - also no longer applies since the computerisation of the Assembly’s work.

18.        Since May 2002 there has been some replacement of motions for orders and draft orders by motions for resolutions and draft resolutions. Scrutiny of orders adopted in the period from January 2002 to April 2003 in fact confirms that resolutions are an acceptable substitute.

19.        Of the nine orders adopted in 2002 and 2003 (Nos. 579 to 587), seven merely instruct Assembly committees to continue their examination of specific questions and prepare reports on them (Orders Nos. 579, 580, 582, 584, 585, 586 and 587). The other two orders (Nos. 581 and 583) suggest, respectively, holding a conference and monitoring the execution of a European Court of Human Rights judgment. These instructions could have been incorporated into resolutions without any problem. The situation is much the same regarding motions for orders.

20.        Lastly, efforts to rationalise and simplify the different categories of document which the Assembly adopts and the different types of motion (Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure) which Assembly members table justify eliminating draft orders and motions for orders.

21.        For new Assembly members and the general public it might to be easier if henceforth there were only three types of document (recommendations and resolutions, plus opinions to the Committee of Ministers) and two types of motion (for recommendations and for resolutions).

E.       RULES OF PROCEDURE IMPLICATIONS OF ELIMINATING MOTIONS FOR ORDERS AND DRAFT ORDERS

22.     Eliminating motions for orders and draft orders involves the following textual deletions from the Rules of Procedure:

the words “and Orders” in Rule 22.2.i. and the words “and Orders” in the title of Rule 23;

the whole of paragraph 1.c of Rule 23.;

the words “or Order” in Rule 23.2, “or a draft Order” in Rule 40.c. and “or Orders” in Rule 49.2.

23.     Secondly Rule 23.1.b. would require to state that resolutions may likewise deal with questions of form, transmission, execution or procedure. That would show explicitly that, for appropriate purposes, resolutions would take the place of orders. It is to be understood, however, that resolutions or other Assembly documents used in replacement of orders, should not contain clauses or paragraphs that interfere with the competences of the Bureau (e.g. with respect to external relations). Furthermore, they should not give permanent instructions to a committee to prepare reports on a given subject unless this has been previously approved by the Bureau.

24.     Thirdly given the existence of nearly 600 orders, some of which are referred to in Rules of Procedure footnotes and in documents having the force of rules, a reference to Rule 23 could point out that up to 2003 the Parliamentary Assembly adopted this type of document.

F.         CONCLUSION

25.     The committee unanimously adopted the preliminary draft resolution and agreed that the report be presented to the Standing Committee on 2 March 2004.

Committee responsible for the report: Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities

Reference to committee: Bureau decision of 4 April 2003, Rule 65.2. of the Rules of Procedure

Draft resolution adopted by the committee on 28 January 2004

Members of the committee : Mr Holovaty, (Chairperson), MM.Magnusson, Manzella, Pourgourides, (Vice-Chairpersons), MM. Ak�am, Alibeyli, Bernik, Bottomley, Budisin, Calmes, Collavini, Mrs Doktorowicz, MM. Dule, Frankenhauser, Mrs Garsdal, MM. Gedei, Gligoric, Gonzi, Mrs Grosskost, MM. Himmer, H�fer, Mrs J��teenm�ki, MM. Jung Armand, Jurgens, Kroupa, Maissen, Mrs Mintas-Hodak, MM. Mišš�k (alternate: Mrs Bauer), Monsen, Morales Monteiro, Olteanu, Pentchev, Pereira Coelho, Mrs P�tursd�ttir, MM. Rustamyan, S�laridze, Sharandin, Sileikis (alternate: Mr Cekuolis), Stepaniuc, Taliadouros, Vanhecke, Vis, Wright, Zernovski.

N.B. The names of members who took part in the vote are printed in italics.

Secretary of the committee: Mr Heinrich.

[1] The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities considered (Doc. 10073) that motions for resolutions or draft resolutions or any other type of Assembly document which may be used to replace motions for orders and draft orders should not interfere with the competences of the Bureau (e.g. with respect to external relations). Furthermore, such documents or texts should not give permanent instructions to a committee to prepare reports on a given subject as this comes under the province of the Bureau.