For debate in the Standing Committee - see Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure

Pour débat à la Commission permanente – Voir article 47 du Règlement

Doc. 8399

3 May 1999

Possible modifications to and updating of the Charter of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE)

Report

Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities

Rapporteur: Mr Guillermo Martínez Casañ, Spain, Group of the European People's Party

Summary

Six years after being set up, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) is required to re-examine two transitory provisions in its Charter. Having decided to seize the opportunity to take stock of other questions concerning its structures and operation, the CLRAE will discuss a report at its forthcoming plenary session and adopt proposals for submission to the Committee of Ministers.

Always attentive to the presence of local and regional authorities in the Council of Europe, in this report the Assembly reviews the main issues raised by the CLRAE report, comments on them and puts forward proposals on the CLRAE’s working methods and structures.

I.       Draft resolution

The Assembly recalls that:

1.       Since its inception, the Council of Europe has always been committed to promoting local democracy, acknowledging that it has a major role to play in bringing politics closer to citizens and in the process of European integration;

2.       It is largely as a result of the far-sightedness of the Parliamentary Assembly that since the 1950s, through the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe and within the framework of the Council of Europe, local authorities have been able to play their part in international co-operation on a multilateral level;

3.       Fully aware of the increasing role of local and regional authorities, the Assembly on several occasions expressed the wish to see this development reflected in the structures of the Standing Conference and supported the principle of the regions having a stronger presence;

4.       Accordingly, the Assembly made an active contribution to the discussions on reform of the Conference which led to Statutory Resolution (94) 3 of the Committee of Ministers on the setting up of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE);

5.       It was at the time a cause of particular satisfaction for the Assembly to see several of the proposals it itself had made take practical shape, in particular the setting up, within the same body, of two separate Chambers - one for local authorities and the other for regions – and to see in this way acknowledgement of the distinct nature and role of the two tiers of territorial authorities;

6.       Since then, the Assembly, primarily through its Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities, has maintained productive relations with the new body in fields such as transfrontier co-operation, co-operation in the Mediterranean and Black Sea basins and regional planning;

7.       Moreover, it has welcomed and supported certain Congress initiatives, such as the draft European Charter of Regional Self-Government, the draft European Landscape Convention and the draft European Convention of Mountain Regions;

8.       With regard more specifically to the European Charter of Local Self-Government, a result of the work of the Conference, which has to date been signed by 36 member states and ratified by 30, the Assembly welcomes the fact that it has often been the reference text in the field of local democracy for the new democracies emerging from the geopolitical transformations of 1989;

9.       It has expressed its appreciation of the work carried out by the Congress in this field, such as the reports on the situation of local democracy in member states and candidates for accession, which the Assembly takes into account in the context of its monitoring of the commitments entered into by a member state and its examination procedure for the accession of a new state;

10.       Notwithstanding this, the Assembly acknowledges the need to undertake certain reforms with regard to both the structures and the functioning of the Congress;

11.       It has often referred to the importance it attaches to the verification of credentials of members of the Congress, stressing that the latter should hold an electoral mandate in a local or regional authority;

12.       Nevertheless, understanding the difficulties a strict application of this provision might represent as regards the setting up of the Chamber of Regions, it had been in favour of the introduction of a transitory provision laying down more flexible criteria;

13.       Accordingly, it welcomes the fact that the Congress has taken the opportunity provided by the expiry of the transitional period of certain provisions of the Charter to put forward proposals aimed at improving the functioning and structure of the Congress;

14.       While the Assembly wishes to see certain reforms made to Congress structures and operating methods in order to ensure that local and regional authorities have their rightful place in an organisation such as the Council of Europe, it feels it is important to bear in mind that the Organisation’s institutional framework for the development of co-operation between member states is constituted by the statutory organs of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly.

15.       Bearing in mind the above, as regards the possible modifications to and updating of the Charter of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE), the Assembly makes the following observations:

a.       with regard to relations with the Parliamentary Assembly:

i.       The Assembly considers that the procedure whereby the Assembly consults the CLRAE, in accordance with the current Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Statutory Resolution, is entirely satisfactory. Because of its nature as a statutory organ, the Parliamentary Assembly should not be placed under any obligation of this type;

ii.       The Joint Committee – in view of paragraph 14 above – should remain the Council of Europe’s co-ordination body responsible for examining problems common to the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, enabling both Council of Europe statutory organs to discuss all questions of interest to the Council of Europe;

iii.       With regard to the monitoring of commitments, the Assembly recalls that these procedures should remain the competence of the two statutory organs which may, as is often already the case, call on contributions from various bodies in the Organisation. For its own procedure, the Parliamentary Assembly is happy to take into account the activities of and the contribution from the Congress;

b.       with regard to the composition of the Chamber of Regions:

i.       As to the electoral mandate required of members of the Chamber of Regions, the Assembly considers that the six years which have elapsed for the transitory provision should be regarded as sufficient and that it is superfluous to provide for a supplementary period;

ii.       The Assembly states its preference for a Chamber of Regions where regions with legislative attributions were full members, regions without legislative attributions were members in an advisory capacity and countries which did not have regions were observers;

c.       with regard to the functioning of the Congress:

i.       With regard to the organisation of the work of the Congress, the Assembly welcomes the fact that the Congress wishes to revert, at least in part, to the committee system which could result in improved organisation and continuity of work;

ii.       The Assembly recalls the importance it attaches to the fact that it should be the Congress members who participate in meetings, possibly accompanied by experts or assistants, but that under no circumstances should the latter replace an absent member and make statements in the same way as other members of the committee and/or working party;

iii.       As regards the second plenary session, the Assembly has proposed this on several occasions and therefore shares the Congress’s desire for its work to be spread out more effectively over the year. Given the cost that this proposal represents and the difficulties of implementation, it would like the Congress to consider other ways of rationalising the organisation of its work.

II.       Draft recommendation

1.       The Assembly recalls the terms of its Resolution ... (1999) on possible modifications to and updating of the Charter of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe.

2.       It welcomes the fact that the Congress, based on an assessment of its first five years of activity and taking the opportunity of the Committee of Ministers’ examination of the report of the Committee of Wise Persons and the expiry of the transitional period of certain of the provisions of its Charter, has put forward proposals to improve its structures and functioning.

3.       While welcoming the process behind this reflection, the Assembly wishes nevertheless to stress the importance of bearing in mind that the institutional framework of the Council of Europe is constituted by the two statutory organs of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly.

4.       Accordingly, in response to the Congress’s wish for the Assembly’s position on the proposals put forward in the report produced by Mr Van Cauwenberghe and Mr Skard before this is discussed at the Congress’s 5^th session, the Assembly has made a number of observations contained in Resolution ... (1999).

5.       Taking into account the above and with a view to the Committee of Ministers’ consideration of the Congress proposals, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

i.       bear in mind, when considering the CLRAE proposals, the observations made by the Assembly in Resolution ... (1999) on possible modifications to and updating of the Charter of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe;

ii.       transmit to the Assembly for opinion, the draft Charter and/or draft Statutory

Resolution.

III.       Explanatory memorandum by the Rapporteur

1.       INTRODUCTION

      Through its Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities, the Parliamentary Assembly followed with close interest the setting up of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe in 1994.

      It was at that time a cause for satisfaction that, as it had so often wished, the Committee of Ministers had decided to place greater emphasis on local and regional authorities within the Council of Europe and to institute, pursuant to the decision taken at the first Summit of Heads of State and Government, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, defined as an organ “representing both local and regional authorities in Europe” within the Council of Europe.

      Since, and even before, thanks to its impetus and encouragement, the Standing Conference of Local Authorities was set up in the late 1950s, the Assembly has always kept a close eye on the development of the role of local and regional authorities.

      Aware, for example, of the developing role and the importance of regions, particularly in certain member states, the Assembly supported from 1985 onwards, the principle of their having a stronger presence within the Council of Europe. Accordingly, the Conference of Local and Regional Authorities sought to ensure a better balance between the representatives of local and regional authorities.

      In response and right from the first discussions on reform of the Conference, the Assembly put forward proposals aimed at enabling the latter to develop its activities within what has proven to be a vitally important field of competence – local and regional authorities.

      Moreover, the Assembly has always stressed the importance of this role in view of the enlargement which the Council has undergone since 1989.

      The institution of the Congress in 1994 marked a change in relations between the latter and the Parliamentary Assembly. Prior to this date, all texts adopted by the Conference had to be submitted to the Parliamentary Assembly for opinion before being forwarded to the Committee of Ministers.

      The mandatory nature of the practice and the often very tight deadlines involved sometimes turned this into a rather tedious exercise which could appear to be driven more by routine and obligation than the intrinsic merits of any debate it might provoke.

      Since the reform and the establishment of the Congress, the Assembly has continued to follow the Congress’s activities via its representative in the Assembly, the Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities, but primarily it takes note of the texts adopted by the Congress at its plenary sessions or Standing Committee meetings. With the occasional exception, it is left to the said Committee to decide whether to present a report to the Assembly on a particular question relating to local and/or regional authorities and whether to take a position on texts adopted by the CLRAE.

      For example, since 1994, the Committee has presented a report on the place of the regions in the Council of Europe (Doc. 7220, Rapporteur : Mr PINTO, Portugal, LIB), on the activities and proceedings of the 2nd session of the Congress (Doc. 7417, Rapporteur : Mr GRAU, Spain, EPP/DC) and on the recent activities and proposals for reform, etc. (Doc. 8028, Rapporteur : Mr RISARI, Italy, EEP/CD).

      The Charter of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe adopted by the Committee of Ministers in 1994 contains a number of transitory provisions which need to be reviewed between now and the year 2000 and which the Assembly has already commented upon (see Doc. 8028, Rapporteur, Mr RISARI).

      In the meantime, the Committee of Wise Persons set up by the Committee of Ministers following the Second Summit of Heads of State and Government, has submitted its report on its proposals for structural reform aimed at adapting the Council to its new tasks and enlarged membership. At the invitation of the Committee of Ministers, the CLRAE prepared an opinion on the matters which fall within its competence which it adopted at the meeting of its Standing Committee held in Strasbourg on 4 March 1999.

Availing itself of the opportunity provided by the expiry of the transitional period of certain provisions of the Charter, the Congress decided to discuss at its next session (June 1999), the revision of its Charter and certain other matters already raised in its opinion on the report by the Committee of Wise Persons with a view to upgrading the Congress’s status. Since they were part of the same debate, both the opinion on the Wise Persons’ report and the future report were entrusted to Mr Van Cauwenberghe, President of the Chamber of Regions, and Mr Skard, a member of the Chamber of Local Authorities.

      In response to the request by the President of the Congress, Alain Chénard, that the Assembly prepare an opinion on the report by MM Van Cauwenberghe and Skard, the Committee has produced the following comments on the proposals made by the Congress.

2.       THE DRAFT REPORT ON THE REVISION OF THE CHARTER OF THE CONGRESS
Rapporteurs: MM Van Cauwenberghe and Skard

Many of the questions raised in this report have already been discussed between the CLRAE and the Assembly or the Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities. As I had occasion to do at the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Congress on 4 March 1999, I will describe any positions already adopted by the Assembly and any factors which might justify a change in these positions.

      In order to make the document easier to read, the various points are dealt with in the order in which they appear in the preliminary draft report (CG/CP(5)27).

2.1. Statutory recognition

2.1.1. Consultation by the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly

The Congress would like paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Statutory Resolution to read:

      “… requiring the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly to consult the Congress on issues falling within the remit of local and regional authorities.” (Report of Mr Van Cauwenberghe and Mr Skard, CG/CP (5) 27, page 4).Th

      The current wording of Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Statutory Resolution already provides for the Congress to be consulted by the two statutory organs of the Council of Europe, and - in the rapporteur’s opinion – the current wording has proven satisfactory and should not be changed.

      On the other hand, the rapporteur feels that the Assembly could agree to the change which the CLRAE wishes to be made, the aim of which is to stipulate more clearly the possibility for the Congress to be consulted on questions falling exclusively within the competence of local authorities or exclusively within the competence of regional authorities.

      In contrast, he considers that it is unnecessary to specify, as the Congress suggests, that “the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly shall determine the procedure for such consultation”.

      With regard to the Parliamentary Assembly, given its nature, work and the kind of texts that it is called upon to adopt, addressing the particular problems of local and regional authorities whenever the circumstances so warrant is all part of the exhaustive approach which it ought to adopt to any problem and which is ultimately reflected in the quality of the outcome of its actions. However, dealing with such problems is not really something that can be defined by a particular procedure.

      While it is certainly desirable and even necessary that the Assembly should take account - as indeed it has been doing for over 40 years - of local and regional authorities whenever the circumstances so warrant, it seems excessive, and probably unnecessary, to stipulate in the Statutory Resolution itself that the Assembly is required to consult the Congress on all texts directly or indirectly relating to local or regional authorities.

2.1.2. Joint Committee

As the Congress rapporteurs themselves point out, the powers and responsibilities of the two Council organs, the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, in comparison to those of the Congress are very different, since the latter’s are in effect strictly confined to matters relating to local and/or regional authorities, as the case may be. In contrast, those of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly are those of the Organisation itself. As a consequence, while recognising the Congress’s legitimate interest in certain issues under discussion between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers, the rapporteur considers that the Joint Committee should remain the preserve of the Council organs which represent the Member states, as defined by the Statute of the Council of Europe.

2.1.3. Monitoring

      Like the Committee of Wise Persons, the Assembly has always recognised, and even encouraged, the role that the Congress plays, within its sphere of competence, in the development of local and regional democracy and indeed in the process of European integration. Furthermore, the Assembly has welcomed the Congress’s decision to draft reports on the state of local and regional democracy in the member states and states in the process of accession.

For its part, moreover, the Committee of Ministers has quite rightly urged the Congress to “step up its efforts to ensure that the principles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government are observed effectively by all the member states” and to continue preparing reports on the situation of local and regional democracy in all the member states.”

      In so doing, in fact, the Congress can not only identify activities worth developing as part of its field of competence and its work agenda, but also provide useful information to complement the commitment monitoring work carried out by the Parliamentary Assembly and the Secretary General.

      In 1995, the first Chairman of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe proposed that within its field of competence, the Congress be part of the accession procedures and the work of monitoring the commitments entered into by the member States.

      The President of the Assembly raised this question to the Bureau, which welcomed the work undertaken by the CLRAE and considered it useful for the Assembly rapporteurs to have access to Congress reports and be able to take them into account when preparing their reports.

      The Bureau also pointed out that the Assembly rapporteurs were at liberty to organise any meetings or exchanges of views with the Congress rapporteurs which they considered would be useful.

      However, the Bureau had felt it best not to add any supplementary formal stages which might ultimately disrupt the smooth functioning of the monitoring activity.

      In view of the above, and taking into account the nature of the Assembly’s responsibilities in the monitoring sphere, it would appear important to maintain the political coherence of this exercise and consequently not to amend Article 2 of the Statutory Resolution in order to give formal recognition to this aspect of the Congress’s activities.

2.2. Membership and powers of the Bureau and the Standing Committee

      The Assembly does not consider that it is its role to analyse in detail the proposals relating primarily to the internal organisation of the Congress. However, it has the following observations to make.

      The CLRAE puts forward the proposal that the Bureau and the Standing Committee of the Congress should have the same number of members as those of the Assembly. Aware of the attention with which the Congress follows the activities and functioning of the Assembly, the latter notes this mark of appreciation with satisfaction. Furthermore, it fully shares the Congress’s desire to achieve better representativeness of member states within its bodies.

      However, it is essential to bear in mind that this proposal will entail significant additional expense which, while the system of financing the participation of CLRAE members in its activities remains unchanged, will put a strain on the budget of the Council of Europe. Under such circumstances and bearing in mind that all these proposals are being made within a context of zero budgetary growth, the Assembly considers that the Congress must decide on priorities for such proposals.

      With regard to the powers of these bodies, the Assembly believes that the President of the Congress, in the same way as the President of the Assembly, has a duty to consult the chairs of the political groups when he is called upon to speak on behalf of the Congress in statements or press releases on major political questions.

      Furthermore, I would like to stress the need to ensure that the Bureau, for reasons of convenience, is not called upon to act on behalf of the Congress. This could only contribute to the weakening of the Congress’s political role, and Congress members would not feel they were sufficiently involved in the action it was undertaking. It is essential that the body in the Council of Europe responsible for promoting local democracy does not allow itself – for practical reasons – to adopt practices associated with democratic centralism.

2.3. Secretariat of the Congress

      In its last report (Doc.8028, rapporteur: Mr Risari), the Assembly expressed clear support for a reform of the Secretariat in order to take fuller account of the "sui generis" nature of the Congress, and therefore called for the Secretariat of the CLRAE to be separated from the Directorate of Environment and Local Authorities, of which it was then part.

      Since 1 September 1998 the Congress has been a service under the direct authority of the Secretary General, and the Assembly welcomes this development.

      As regards the Head of its Secretariat, the Congress would like him/her to be elected for a five-year, renewable term of office and to have the title "Executive Director". Given that these are internal matters, it is not the Assembly’s role to comment on these choices which fall within the competence of the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General.

      Nevertheless, I am perplexed with regard to proposals for filling posts which are part of the normal appointment procedure for administrative staff but which would be nevertheless subject to procedures that are different from those for posts of the same level in other parts of the Organisation.

      The Assembly is firmly convinced of the need to avoid, as much as possible, the introduction of particular conditions for appointment, promotion and selection of candidates in certain administrative sectors whether this concerns the Congress itself or other departments. Such a practice would otherwise hinder good management of human resources within the Organisation.

      As regards the shortlisting of candidates for the post of Executive Director, I consider that, since the post would carry the rank of Director, this should be the responsibility of the Secretary General, who, as in the case of applications for the post of Deputy Clerk of the Assembly, would be required to consult the Bureau of the Congress.

2.4. Budget of the Congress

      With regard to the Congress budget, it is a matter of some satisfaction that, since the 1999 budget, Vote V has included all the appropriations allocated to the Congress, thus forming a budget package which makes for some degree of flexibility in the management of funds.

      Furthermore, the Assembly fully understands the Congress’s wish to see allowances paid to Congress members calculated in such a way as to take account of differences in geographical situations.

2.5. National delegations

      With regard to procedures for appointing national delegations, it is proposed that it should be made clear that they should provide for prior consultation of the relevant associations and/or institutional bodies. The Assembly stresses the need to ensure as a matter of priority that equivalent procedures are chosen in the different countries

      Concerning the electoral mandate of members of the Congress and their substitutes, the Assembly welcomes the improvement in the situation and believes that it is not expedient to have a transitory provision for a further 6 years in order to enable "persons responsible to an elected body to remain within the Congress, provided that these representatives can be dismissed individually by a directly elected body …".

2.6. Membership of the Chamber of Regions

      The Assembly has often expressed its views on this subject. When the Congress was established, it was among those who, having for a long time been in favour of providing the regions with a forum for dialogue within the Council of Europe, had been calling

a)       for the new Congress to have a bi-cameral structure, with one of the Chambers reserved for the regions, and

b)       for this Chamber to be reserved exclusively for elected representatives at an intermediate level between local and central government level.

      In order to take account of the institutional changes in progress in some member states and not restrict access to the Chamber of Regions to certain others, it was decided to adopt a transitory provision under which states not having intermediate-level authorities were authorised to appoint to the Chamber of Regions elected representatives of local authorities or regional associations of local authorities.

      The Assembly has often called for the non-renewal of this transitory provision, which, as it feared, has the disadvantage of weakening the role which the representatives of countries with strong regional structures expected the Chamber of Regions to play.

      The Assembly raised this issue in its Recommendation 1363 (1998), in which it asked the Committee of Ministers to consider "stricter rules governing membership of the Chamber of Regions, so as to make sure that only countries with true intermediate tiers of government may appoint full members, and that countries which plan on setting up regions may send observers from the Chamber of Local Authorities".

      This obviously means that only full representatives would have the right to vote. However, it is important to stress that, since the texts adopted by the Chambers have to be ratified subsequently by the Congress, no member would be excluded from consideration of a text produced by the Chamber of Regions.

      I am very pleased to see that the Congress at last shares this view and is submitting a proposal along these lines.

2.7. Committees, working groups and 2^nd annual session

      With regard to committees, the Assembly fully supports the Congress in its desire to return, partly at least, to the committee system and set up, alongside the Standing Committee, the following four committees: Institutional Committee, Committee on Culture and Education, Committee on Sustainable Development, and Committee on Social Cohesion.

      Having been chosen to guarantee flexibility and greater efficiency, the current system of working groups, adopted when the Congress was set up, can certainly be seen - after four years' experience with it - to have more drawbacks than advantages.

      Regarding the holding of an additional session and the general organisation of proceedings, the Assembly has often regretted that the lack of financial resources made it necessary for the Congress to organise its proceedings over too short a time and with excessively long intervals between sessions.

      For this reason, the holding of a second session has always been considered desirable, as indeed has a reorganisation of proceedings during the session. It seems difficult to manage plenary sittings, Chamber meetings, committee meetings and the meeting of the Standing Committee, all within a period of three days. In the light of the budgetary constraints mentioned by the Committee of Wise Persons, it seems inevitable that the Congress will have to choose among the various financially viable options. In my view, it will be important, for example, to give priority initially to the proper functioning of the committees.

*

* *

Reporting committee: Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities.

Budgetary implications for the Assembly: None.

Origin: Standing mandate

Draft resolution and draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 30 April 1999.

Members of the committee : Mrs Aytaman (Chairperson), MM. Besostri, Hoeffel, Haraldsson (Vice-Chairmen), Akçali, Andreoli, Assis Miranda, Berlusconi (Alternate: Mr Risari), Bockel (Alternate : Mr Lengagne), Briane, Browne, Sir Sydney Chapman, MM. Ciobanu, Ciupaila, Cox, Diana, Mrs Dromberg, MM. Duivesteijn, Frunda, Mrs Granlund, Mrs Hornikova, MM Kieres, Kittis, Korakas, Kurucsai, Kurykin, Lachat, Mrs Langthaler, MM. Linzer, Luczak, Martinez Casan, Melo, Mezeckis, Mrs Mikaelsson, MM Minkov, Molnar, Mota Amaral, Mozetic, Muller, Mrs Oleinik, MM Prokes, Prosser, Rados, Rakhansky, Recoder, Rise, Ruffy, Schutz, Mrs Sehnalova, Mrs Severinsen, MM. Skoularikis, Sobyanin (Altrnate:: M. Fyodorov), Staes, Steolea, Tahiri, Mrs Terpstra (Alternate: Mr Cherribi), MM Theis, Toshev, Truu, Valkeniers, Vella, Vishnyakov, Zierer.

N.B.       The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretaries to the commitee: Ms Cagnolati, Mr Chevtchenko, Ms Karanjac.