|
|
For debate in the Standing Committee see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure
Pour débat à la Commission permanente – Voir article 15 du Règlement
Doc. 9369
7 February 2002
Tabling and adoption of amendments and sub-amendments
Report
Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
Rapporteur : Mr Rudolf Vis, United Kingdom, Socialist Group
Summary
The Assembly considers that several provisions relating to the tabling of oral amendments and sub-amendments and to the adoption of non-controversial amendments should be adapted. Moreover, the tabling of compromise and updating amendments by the committees seized for report should be facilitated. The provisions concerning amendments to draft texts on contested credentials and the immunity of members should be updated. Finally, the Assembly invites its members to keep their amendments as short as possible.
I. Draft resolution
1. The Assembly notes a significant increase in the tabling of amendments and sub-amendments and that their examination takes precious debating time.
2. The Assembly also considers, taking into account recent experience, that certain adaptations of the procedures for tabling and voting amendments and sub-amendments are appropriate.
3. Moreover, for the sake of clarification, the provisions concerning draft texts on contested credentials and amendments thereto should be updated.
4. Consequently, the Assembly decides:
a. to add the following sentence at the end of Rule 34.6.(a)
“Before an oral amendment or sub-amendment is presented, the author shall inform the Chair in writing of its wording in one of the official languages of the Council of Europe.”
b. to modify as follows Rule 7.3.
“Reports submitted to the Assembly or the Standing Committee under paragraph 2 shall contain a draft resolution proposing in its operative part:
a. ratification of the credentials,
b. non-ratification of the credentials,
c. 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.”
The provisions on amendments (Rule 34) shall apply1”.
c. to modify as follows Rule 8.5.
“Reports to the Assembly or the Standing Committee under paragraphs 3 and 4 shall contain a draft resolution proposing in its operative part:
a. ratification of the credentials
b. non-ratification of the credentials
c. ratification of the credentials together with depriving or suspending the exercise of some of the rights of participation and or representation of members of the delegation concerned in the activities of the Assembly and its bodies.
The provisions on amendments (Rule 34) shall apply1”.
d. to modify as follows Rule 9.4.
“Reports submitted to the Assembly or Standing Committee under paragraphs 2 and 3 shall contain a draft resolution proposing in its operative part:
a. confirmation of the ratification of the credentials,
b. annulment of the ratification of the credentials,
c. confirmation of the ratification of the credentials together with depriving or suspending the exercise of some of the rights of participation or representation of members of the delegation concerned in the activities of the Assembly and its bodies.
The provisions on amendments (Rule 34) shall apply”.
e. to add the following sentence at the end of Rule 34.5.
“Compromise or updating amendments from the committee seized for report must be tabled at least three hours before the opening of the sitting at which the debate is to begin”.
f. to add the following sentence at the end of Rule 64.2.
“No amendment to this conclusion shall be admitted.”
g. to insert the following second sentence in paragraph 9 of the provisions on the
“ Organisation of debates”
“ If no one wishes to speak against an amendment and the committee seized for report is not opposed to it, the amendment is declared to be agreed without a formal vote.”
5. The Assembly invites its members to keep their amendments as short as possible.
6. The Assembly decides that these modifications shall enter into force at the opening of the part-session following the adoption of this resolution.
II. Explanatory memorandum by the rapporteur
A. INTRODUCTION
1. At its meeting on 26 January 2001 the Bureau of the Assembly instructed the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities to examine:
- the proliferation of amendments to reports,
- the problem of amendments to draft resolutions concerning the credentials of national delegations.
2. Having regard to practical problems which have arisen in the Assembly, the committee agreed to examine also:
- the simplification of the procedure for adopting amendments,
- the procedure for oral amendments and sub-amendments.
3. This report analyses these matters and, where necessary, submits proposals for the change of the Rules or related provisions.
4. At the outset, your Rapporteur wishes to underline that in several Council of Europe member States the right to table amendments is acknowledged by the Constitution or other basic legal texts. This right is generally exercised very liberally, despite certain restrictions of the practical modalities for its implementation.
B. PROLIFERATION OF AMENDMENTS
a. Facts and statistics
5. The total number of amendments tabled during the last years increased significantly, from 367 in 1998 to 571 in 2001. This increase has given rise to concern as the examination and adoption of amendments takes precious debating time. For instance the presentation and adoption of amendments during the debate on democracies facing terrorism during the September 2001 part-session, lasted over one hour and a half. Moreover, a certain number of amendments are only of a linguistic nature. The situation did not improve during the January 2002 part-session.
6. There is not only a proliferation of amendments, but also the fact of amendments becoming longer and containing more explanatory statements. This may prolong the time needed for translating amendments and to printing them in the two official languages. However, explanatory statements are mainly designed to save debating time, as the members moving the respective amendments may simply refer to them.
b. Closer cooperation between committees and rapporteurs
7. What can be done to overcome this situation? First, a closer cooperation of committees to which a matter has been referred for report and committees for opinion and their rapporteurs could be encouraged. It is obvious, that if the conclusions/proposals and, possibly, amendments contained in the documents of committees seized for opinion were presented in good time to the committees seized for report (although this will not always be possible) this would reduce the need to table amendments in the plenary session. However, in practice, committees for report seldom adopt their reports earlier than 2-3 weeks before the session, after the committee seized for opinion has already met. The latter will therefore approve its opinion and any amendments only at a later meeting, that is mainly during the session.2
c. Possible introduction of “compromise or updating amendments”
8. To facilitate matters, the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities felt that the Assembly should take inspiration from the practice of other international parliamentary institutions regarding amendments.
9. The Rules of the European Parliament, which during its part-sessions debates a great number of reports provide for the possibility of compromise amendments (Rule 130.4). They may be tabled even after the close of the debate on a report by the chairmen, rapporteurs or draftsmen of the committees concerned, authors of other amendments or by political groups. The advantage of compromise amendments is that they entail the withdrawal of other amendments to the same passage of the draft text and thus shorten the voting operations. In the European Parliament, the President proposes to put to the vote compromise amendments subject to the agreement of the Parliament. For practical reasons it should be possible to table compromise and updating amendments under the same favourable conditions.
10. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities considered that the principles underlying these possibilities could, after adaptation to its needs, be applied to the Parliamentary Assembly3.
The European Parliament works differently from the Assembly. The end of a debate on a report is often not followed immediately by the vote on the draft texts it contains. This leaves some time for preparing and/or agreeing on compromise amendments. In the European Parliament the President normally sets the deadlines for the tabling of amendments, whereas in the Parliamentary Assembly the general rule is that amendments must be tabled twenty four hours before the opening of the sitting at which the debate is to begin (Rule 34.5. of the Assembly’s Rules4). Perhaps it could be envisaged to allow, after a Rule change, for compromise or updating amendments which are tabled by the committee seized for report, the same shortened deadline as for amendments presented during the first sitting (on Monday) of Assembly sessions, namely three hours before the opening of the sitting at which the debate is to begin. If such a compromise or updating amendment was adopted, other amendments to the same passage(s) of the draft recommendation, opinion, resolution or order to be voted, would fall. In case the deadline of three hours could not be respected, there would remain the possibility to present an oral amendment to lead to conciliation (see Rule 34.6.a.).
d. Other means to cope with a growing number of amendments
11. In the European Parliament a committee may in the light of the amendments tabled instead of proceeding to a vote, request the rapporteur to submit a new draft taking account of as many of the amendments as possible (Rule 165.5 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure). The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities considered that this possibility should be kept in reserve, in so far as the Parliamentary Assembly is concerned.
12. Given the different composition, tradition and practice of the Assembly as compared with other national or international parliamentary institutions, your rapporteur does not propose, for the time being, that the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities examine the usefulness of introducing in the Assembly other possibilities existing in various parliaments.
e. Length of amendments and explanatory statements
13. With respect to the length of amendments and the inclusion of explanatory statements, the Table Office and national delegation secretaries could be invited to continue their efforts to inform Assembly members of the need to keep their amendments as short as possible. Moreover, it would be desirable that members had recourse to explanatory statements mainly in cases when this is needed for the understanding of an amendment. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities could follow the situation.
C. PROCEDURE FOR PRESENTING ORAL AMENDMENTS AND SUB-AMENDMENTS
14. Because of the deadlines to be respected and the fact that five signatures are necessary for tabling an amendment, more and more oral amendments are made in Assembly debates. There is a risk that for linguistic and other reasons the wording of an oral amendment is not completely understood by members present and, particularly, by the Assembly Chair.
15. Your rapporteur considers that in future oral amendments and sub-amendments presented spontaneously by members in the plenary and of which the Chair had no prior notice, should not be allowed. This means that Rule 34.6.b. should be so completed to include the obligation of the author of an oral amendment to inform the Chair in writing of its wording (in one of the official languages) before he /she is moving it in plenary.
16. In case the number of oral amendments should not decrease, it could be considered to impose also for oral amendments and sub-amendments the conditions that they need to be supported by at least five Assembly members. However, it resulted from preliminary contacts with some Assembly committees that such a proposal would meet with major reservations, mainly for practical reasons (lack of spontaneity, possibility of disturbance of the Assembly’s work if during the debate support for oral amendments was asked for).
D. VOTING PROCEDURE ON AMENDMENTS
17. In the Assembly this procedure is very formalistic in case no one in the Chamber speaks against an amendment and if the committee responsible supports it. Nevertheless, in this case, a formal vote on the amendment is necessary.
18. Your rapporteur proposes that in future such an amendment should be declared to be adopted without a vote. For reasons of clarification the provisions relating to the “organisation of debates” (Rules of Procedure, 2000 edition, pp 86-90), could be completed by inserting the following second sentence in paragraph 9:
“If no one wishes to speak against an amendment and the committee seized for report is not opposed to it, the amendment is declared to be agreed without a formal vote.”
E. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SPECIAL ASSEMBLY PROCEDURES
a. Amendments to draft texts concerning credentials of national delegations
or their members
i. Provisions applicable
19. Under Rules 7.3. and 8.5. of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure reports concerning challenged unratified credentials shall recommend one of the following three types of action:
- ratification of credentials,
- non-ratification of the credentials,
- depriving or suspending the exercise of some of the rights of participation or representation of members concerned or of the delegation concerned in the activities of the Assembly and its bodies.
20. According to Rule 9.4. on the reconsideration of previously ratified credentials reports submitted to the Assembly or the Standing Committee on this matter shall recommend either:
- confirmation of the ratification of the credentials,
- annulment of the ratification of the credentials,
- depriving or suspending the exercise of some of the rights of participation or representation of members of the delegation concerned in the activities of the Assembly and its bodies.
ii. Problems related to amendments concerning draft decisions on credentials during the April 2000 part-session
21. During the Assembly’s debate on 6 April 2000 on the conclusions of the Political Affairs Committee concerning the ratification of the credentials of the new Russian delegation (Doc. 8698), doubts were expressed if several of the five amendments tabled were in order. The Political Affairs Committee had proposed that the Assembly should ratify these credentials.
22. The President of the Parliamentary Assembly who decides if an amendment is in order (Rule 34.5.), ruled that:
- an amendment ( No.3) seeking to replace the conclusions of the Political Affairs Committee with the expression : “the Assembly declines to ratify the credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation” was out of order; by voting against the conclusions the desired result was obtained and no amendment was required;
- an amendment (No.5) including a time scale was in order (“therefore the Assembly should not ratify the credentials of the new Russian delegation until the outcome of an independent impartial international investigation of war crimes is known”); there was no exclusion of a time element in Rule 8.5. and the word “suspending” in that provision meant in some circumstances suspending for a time.
23. Your rapporteur would like to recall that already under the old rules, applied before January 2000 concerning challenged credentials (which were based on similar principles as the present ones), time elements were used concerning proposals relating to the credentials of the Turkish delegation in the 70s and 80s and of the UK delegation (see AS (44) CR 5 and PV 5 of 6 May 1992).
24. In the debate on 6 April 2000 the Assembly finally adopted amendment No.1 worded as follows: “The Assembly decides to ratify the credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation, but to deprive the members of the delegation of their voting rights in the Assembly and its bodies in accordance with Rule 8.5.(c) of the Rules of Procedure”. One notes that this formula combines elements from the text of Rules 8.5. (a) and (c).
25. In its Doc. 8953 (2001) the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities explicitly supported the afore-mentioned rulings of the President.
iii. Amendments during the debate on the contested credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation in January 2001
(a) The facts
26. On 25 January 2001 the Assembly debated a report by the Political Affairs Committee on the credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation. This was the first report in the Assembly on challenged credentials which not only contained draft conclusions/decisions but also a draft resolution. Paragraph 2 of that draft (Doc. 8949) is worded as follows: “The Assembly, having examined the issue, decides to ratify the credentials of the new Russian delegation”. An amendment (No.1) was tabled aiming at inserting the following new paragraph in the draft resolution: “Despite some progress made, the Assembly remains gravely concerned about the human rights situation in the Chechen Republic. It nevertheless believes that the Russian parliamentary delegation deserves to be given another chance to prove that it is willing - and able - to influence the situation in the Chechen Republic for the better”. A member of the Assembly asked the President to check whether the amendment was admissible, because the Rules (Rule 7.3.) said that there were three choices – to be in favour, to be against or to connect the credentials with certain conditions. They could not however, be connected with an opinion on a situation in the country concerned, as was the case with amendment No.1. The credentials could be connected with some special measures but that was all. The member concerned did not think that the text proposed by the Political Affairs Committee could be amended in the normal way. The Rules restricted members to a certain sort of amendment; they did not allow just any amendment. Amendments had to be connected with the use of credentials and other amendments could not be made.
27. The President of the Assembly ruled that amendment No.1 was in order because it was connected with the ratification or non-ratification of the credentials. The Assembly adopted it (AS (2001) CR 7).
(b) Evaluation
28. It is true that Article 8.5. of the Rules only provides for three types of recommendations by the “appropriate” committee, i.e. the Political Affairs Committee, or the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. This is due to the fact that till January 2001 the reports on contested credentials only contained draft conclusions for consideration and decision by the Assembly, without any “considérants”. The solution to present henceforth, for the sake of greater transparency and authority5, a draft resolution instead of draft conclusions or decisions has neither been foreseen nor been explicitly excluded by the Rules. Therefore, a new situation had arisen which had to be interpreted in the light of procedure and practice. Your Rapporteur considers that amendment No.1 can be assimilated to a “considérant”. Since the early days of the Assembly such “considérants” precede the operative parts of Assembly resolutions. If it is accepted that Assembly decisions relating to credentials take the form of resolutions this should also apply to the possibility of “considérants” which are connected with the ratification or non-ratification of the credentials. This is the case with amendment No.1, which was therefore rightly considered to be in order.
iv. Proposals for an updating of the Rules
29. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities considered that, for the sake of clarification, the rules should be updated along the following lines:
“8.5. Reports to the Assembly or the Standing Committee under paragraphs 3 and 4 shall contain a draft resolution proposing in its operative part:
a) ratification of the credentials,
b) non-ratification of the credentials,
c) ratification of the credentials together with depriving or suspending the exercise of some of the rights of participation or representation of members of the delegation concerned in the activities of the Assembly and its bodies.
The provisions on amendments (Rule 34) shall apply”.
30. The reference to the “operative part” illustrates that the resolution may also contain other parts (“considérants”). The words “either …or” contained in the current version of Rule 8.5. were deleted, as the experience has shown that in April 2000 the Assembly’s decision relating to the Russian credentials was constituted by a mix of the possibilities mentioned under sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of Rule 8.5. (see paragraph 24 above). The wording of sub-paragraph 8.5.(c) was adapted accordingly. Moreover, as was shown by the Assembly’s decisions in 1992 (Doc.6605, AS (44) PV 5) concerning the credentials of the United Kingdom delegation, there may be occasions where the Assembly may wish to include in the resolution conditions or desiderata addressed to the national delegation or parliament concerned, on the condition that they are connected with the ratification or non-ratification of the credentials. Such a possibility should be left open.
31. The committee also considered that Rules 7.3. and 9.4. of the Rules of Procedure, which are also related to credentials, should be modified accordingly.
b. Amendments to draft resolutions on retaining or waiving the immunity of Assembly members
32. According to Rule 64.2., third sentence, the report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities on a request to waive the immunity of an Assembly member “shall conclude with a draft resolution for the retention or the waiver of the immunities”. Where the Assembly rejects the committee’s proposal, the contrary decision is deemed to be adopted. Consequently, and this also is the practice of other international parliamentary institutions, (see e.g. Rule 6.6. of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure), no amendment should be permitted to the conclusion of the draft resolution on the immunity of an Assembly member. This does not rule out amendments to other paragraphs (the “considérants”) of the draft resolution.
33. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities proposes therefore that the following sentence be added at the end of Rule 64.2. :
“No amendment to this conclusion shall be admitted”.F.
F. CONCLUSIONS
34. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities unanimously adopted the draft resolution contained in this report and agreed to present it to the meeting of the Standing Committee on 26 March 2002.
35. The modifications proposed to the Rules of Procedure and related texts should enter into force at the opening of the (part-)session following their adoption by the Standing Committee.
Reporting committee : Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
Reference to committee: Bureau decision of 26.1.2001 (Rule 65.2. of the Rules of Procedure)
Draft resolution adopted by the committee on 23 January 2002.
Members of the committee : Mr Holovaty, (Chairperson), MM. Vis, Pokol, Olteanu (Vice-Chairpersons), Mrs Akgönenç, MM. Aliyev, Arzilli, Mrs Auken, MM. Bartsch, Bernik, Bulavinov, Calmes, Ceder, Collavini (Alternate: M. Mulas), Debono-Grech, Dias, Mrs Doktorowicz, MM. Goulet, Gremetz, Jung, Kiely, Laakso, Leers, Magnusson, Maissen, Mrs Markovic-Dimova, MM. Melo, Mezihorak, Michels, Mrs Mintas-Hodak, MM. Monsen, Occhetto, Mrs Ojuland, MM. Olekas, Penchev, Mrs Pericleous-Papadopoulos, Mrs Posada (Alternate : Mr Padilla), Mrs Ragnarsdottir, MM. Rustamyan, Salaridze, Sharandin, Stepaniuc, Svec, Taliadouros.
N.B. The names of members who took part in the vote are printed in italics.
Secretary of the committee: Mr Heinrich
1 Amendments relating to texts on contested credentials aiming at a result which can be achieved by voting against that text are out of order (see ruling of the President of the Assembly of 6 April 2000 (AS (2000) CR 15).
2 Several Assembly members consider that amendments coming from committees seized for opinion should be given more weight than other amendments when the committee for report examines them.
3 It is to be noted that the Rules of the Parliamentary Assembly already mention “oral amendments... to lead to conciliation...” (Rule 34.6. (a)).
4 However, for debates on Monday, amendments have to be tabled on that day by 12 noon; for debates on Tuesday the deadline is Monday at 4 p.m.
5 Before January 2001 Assembly decisions relating to contested credentials were only published in the Assembly’s “Orders of the Day” (PV) series and not in the more widely distributed publication “Texts adopted”. Such Assembly “decisions” generally are lower-ranking than Assembly resolutions.