UNION INTERPARLEMENTAIRE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION

Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments

MINUTES OF THE SPRING SESSION

KAMPALA

1-5 APRIL 2012

ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES GENERAL OF PARLIAMENTS

Minutes of the Spring Session 2012

KAMPALA, UGANDA1 Apri l – 5 April 2012

LIST OF ATTENDANCE

MEMBERS PRESENT

NAME COUNTRYMr. Shah Sul tan AKIFI AfghanistanMr. Mohammad Kazim MALWAN AfghanistanMr. Khudai Nazar NASRAT AfghanistanMr. Alex is WINTONIAK Austr iaMr. Md. Mahfuzur RAHMAN BangladeshMr. Idès DE PELSEMAEKER BelgiumMr. Hugo HONDEQUIN BelgiumMr. Alphonse K. NOMBRÉ Burkina

FasoMr. OUM Sari th CambodiaMr. Marc BOSC CanadaMr. Mahamat Hassan BRÉMÉ ChadMr. David BYAZA-SANDA LUTALA Democrat ic

Republ ic of Congo

Mr. Socrates SOCRATOUS CyprusMr. Petr KYNŠTETR Czech

Republ icMr. J i ř i UKLEIN Czech

Republ icMr. Claus DETHLEFSEN DenmarkMr. Heiki SIBUL EstoniaMr. Negus LEMMA GEBRE EthiopiaMr. Habtamu NINI ABINO EthiopiaMs. Cor inne LUQUIENS FranceMs. Danièle RIVAILLE FranceDr. Ute RETTLER GermanyDr. Ulr ich SCHÖLER GermanyMr. Harro SEMMLER GermanyMr. Emmanuel ANYIMADU GhanaDr. Vivek AGNIHOTRI IndiaMr. T. K. VISWANATHAN IndiaMr. Achmad DJUNED IndonesiaMr. Hossein SHEIKHOLISLAM IranMr. Salah Al-Deen Ahmad ABDUL-AZIZ ZANGANA IraqMrs. Yardena MELLER-HOROWITZ IsraelMr. Mohammad RDAINI JordanMr. YOON Won Joong Republ ic of

Korea

Mr. Al lam Al i Jaafer AL-KANDARI KuwaitMr. Henry H. NJOLOMOLE MalawiMr. Mohamed Val l Ould LEKOUEIRY Maur i taniaMr. Tserenkhuu SHARAVDORJ Mongol iaMr. Naj ib EL KHADI MoroccoMr. Abdelouahed KHOUJA MoroccoMr. Johannes JACOBS NamibiaMrs. Jacquel ine BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN Nether land

sMr. Geert HAMILTON Nether land

sMr. Sal isu Abubakar MAIKASUWA Niger iaMr. Hans BRATTESTÅ NorwayMr. Sheikh Al i b in Nasir b in Hamed AL-MAHROOQI OmanMr. I f t ikhar Ul lah BABAR Pakis tanMrs. Mar i lyn B. BARUA-YAP Phi l ippinesMr. Edwin BELLEN Phi l ippinesMr. Lech CZAPLA PolandMrs. Ewa POLKOWSKA PolandMr. Vladim ir SVINAREV Russian

Federat ionMs. Azarel ERNESTA Seychel lesMr. Zingi le A. DINGANI South

Afr icaMr. Mohamed Kamal MANSURA South

Afr icaMr. Modibedi Eric PHINDELA South

Afr icaMr. Manuel CAVERO GOMEZ SpainMr. Ibrahim MOHAMED IBRAHIM SudanMr. Hassan MUSA SHAIKH EL SAFI SudanMr. Claes MÅRTENSSON SwedenMr. Phi l ippe SCHWAB SwitzerlandMr. James WARBURG TanzaniaMr. Somsak MANUNPICHU Thai landMr. Pi toon PUMHIRAN Thai landMr. Sompol VANIGBANDHU Thai landMr. João Rui AMARAL Timor LesteMs. Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE UgandaMr. Paul GAMUSI WABWIRE UgandaMr. David BEAMISH United

KingdomMrs. Dor is Katai Katebe MWINGA ZambiaMr. Aust in ZVOMA Zimbabwe

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

NAMEMr. Mohamed DIAKITE ECOWAS

Par l iament

Mr. Said MOKADEM Maghreb Consul tat ive Counci l

Mr. Boubacar IDI GADO Inter-par l iamentary Committee of the West Afr ican Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU)

OBSERVER

NAMEMr. Gherardo CASINI Global

Centre for ICT in Par l iament

SUBSTITUTES

NAME COUNTRYMs. Claressa SURTEES ( for Mr. Be rnard Wright) Austral iaMr. Ken SHIMIZU ( for Mr. Masafumi Hashimoto) JapanMr. Lawal DUDUYEMI (for Mr. Ben Efetur i ) Niger iaMr. John JOEL (for Dr. Thomas Kashi l i lah) TanzaniaMr. Kurshad Mel i r SARIARSLAN ( for Mr. Ramil Hasanov)

TURKPA (Par l iamentary Assembly of the Turkic Countr ies)

Mrs. Phi l ippa HELME ( for Mr. Robert Rogers) United Kingdom

ALSO PRESENT

NAME COUNTRYMr. Nja i Isatar COMBEH (non-member) ECOWAS

Par l iament

Mr. Bienvenido EKUA ESONO ABE (non-member) Equator ia l Guinea

Dr. Moïse MODANDI (non-member) GabonMr. Or lando SILVA (non-member) Guinea

BissauMr. Rakesh ANAND (non-member) IndiaMs. Endang Dwi ASTUTÍ (non-member) IndonesiaMr. Novianto Murt í HANTORO (non-member) IndonesiaMs. Mar ia Pade ROHANA (non-member) IndonesiaMr. Tatang SUTHARSA (non-member) IndonesiaMs. Luisa ACCARRINO (non-member/) I ta lyMr. Ahmed ODHOWA (non-member/ ) KenyaMr. Edgar KACHERE (non-member) MalawiMr. Mounir EL JAFFALI (non-member) MoroccoMr. Bapt ista HAUSAISCO (non-member) Mozambiqu

eMr. César BONIFÁCIO (non-member) Mozambiqu

eMs. Jul iet MUPURUA (non-member) NamibiaMr. Riaz BUKHARI (non-member) Pakis tanMs. Agata KARWOWSKA-SOKOLOWSKA (non-member)

Poland

Dr. E. CHIVIYA (non-member) SADC-PFMr. KHOUBLALL (non-member) SADCMs. Nomonde KESWA (non-member) South

Afr icaMr. Nei l IDDAWALA (non-member) Sr i LankaMr. Monton NOPPAWONG (non-member) Thai landMr. Pakorn NUANMANEE (non-member) Thai landMs. La-or PUTORNJAI (non-member) Thai landMs. Neeranan SUNGTO (non-member) Thai landMs. Weeranuch TIANCHAIKUL (non-member) Thai landMr. El ias MAPENDERE (non-member) ZimbabweMr. Ndamuka MARIMO (non-member) Zimbabwe

APOLOGIES

NAME COUNTRYDr. Hafnaoui AMRANI Alger iaMr. Klaus WELLE European

Par l iamentMr. Alain DELCAMP FranceDr. Athanassios PAPAIOANNOU GreeceMr. Sher lock ISAACS GuyanaMrs. Nin ing Indra SHALEH IndonesiaMr. Helg i BERNÓDUSSON IcelandMr. Petr ZVEREV Inter-

Par l iamentary Assembly of the Eurasian Economic Community ( IPA

EurAsEC)

Mr.Masafumi HASHIMOTO JapanMr. Takeshi NAKAMURA JapanMr. Makoto ONITSUKA JapanMr. Munehiro SEINO JapanMr. Damir DAVIDOVIĆ MontenegroMs. Nataša KOMNENIĆ MontenegroMr. Ben EFETURI Niger iaMr. Sergio PIAZZI Par l iamentary

Assembly of the Medi terranean (PAM)

Mrs. Adel ine SÁ CARVALHO PortugalMr. Gheorghe BARBU RomaniaDr. Thomas KASHILILAH TanzaniaMrs. Norarut PIMSEN Thai landDr. İ r fan NEZİROĞLU TurkeyMr. Rami l HASANOV TURKPA

(Par l iamentary Assembly of the Turkic Countr ies)

Mr. Robert ROGERS United Kingdom

Dr. José Pedro MONTERO UruguayMs. Helen DINGANI Zimbabwe

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIRST SITTING.................................................................................................................................11Sunday 1 April 2012 (Morning) .................................................................................................11

1. Opening of the Session ..............................................................................................112. Elect ions to the Execut ive Committee ..................................................................113. Orders of the Day........................................................................................................ 114. New members................................................................................................................155. Welcome and presentat ion on the par l iamentary system of Uganda by Ms Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE, Clerk of the Parl iament of Uganda .................................17

SECOND SITTING........................................................................................................................... 27Sunday 1 April 2012 (Afternoon) .............................................................................................27

1. Communicat ion by Dr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI, Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha of India: “ Impeachment of a Judge in the Indian Par l iame nt”.........272. Communicat ion by Mr Phi l ippe SCHWAB, Secretary General of the Counci l of States and Deputy Secretary General of the Federal Assembly of Switzerland: “Strategic plan of the par l iamentary service of the Swiss Par l iament for 2012–16” .......................................................................................................353. Communicat ion by Mrs Jacquel ine BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN, Secretary General of the House of Representat ives of the States General of Nether lands: “How to opt imal ly support a Par l iament in t imes of cutbacks” .................................474. Concluding remarks .................................................................................................... 53

THIRD SITTING................................................................................................................................ 54Monday 2 Apri l 2012 (Morning) ................................................................................................54

1. Introductory remarks ...................................................................................................542. New member..................................................................................................................543. General debate: Things that can’ t be said: l imi ts on freedom of expression in par l iamentary proceedings ..............................................................................................544. Communicat ion by Mrs Yardena MELER-HOROWITZ, Secretary General of the Israel i Knesset : “The Knesset Vis i tors Centre -- Transparency and Accessib i l i ty” ............................................................................................................................ 65

FOURTH SITTING............................................................................................................................70Monday 2 Apri l 2012 (Afternoon) ............................................................................................70

1. Opening Remarks........................................................................................................ 702. General debate: Is i t necessary to constra in debate in p lenary s i t t ing? ...703. Elect ion of a Vice-President of the ASGP ...........................................................924. Presentat ion by Mr Greg POWER, lead author of the Global Par l iamentary Report 2012 and by Mr Mart in CHUNGONG on recent developments in the Inter-Par l iamentary Union. ............................................................................................................. 925. Communicat ion by Dr Ulr ich SCHÖLER, Vice-President of the ASGP, Deputy Secretary General of the German Bundestag: "Who decides which Members get to speak in the plenary - the President of the Bundestag or the pol i t ica l groups?" .................................................................................................................... 94

FIFTH SITTING.............................................................................................................................. 101Wednesday 4 Apri l 2012 (Morning) ......................................................................................101

1. Opening Remarks......................................................................................................1012. Communicat ion by Mr Ibrahim Mohamed IBRAHIM, Secretary General of the Nat ional Assembly of Sudan: “Par l iamentary modali t ies for managing a post-war s i tuat ion – The case of Sudan” ................................................................................1013. Presentat ion by Mr Gherardo CASINI on recent act iv i t ies of the Global Centre for ICT in Parl iament .............................................................................................1094. General debate: Raising mat ters of urgency or emergency in the Chamber

109SIXTH SITTING.............................................................................................................................. 127Wednesday 4 Apri l 2012 (Afternoon) ...................................................................................127

1. Elect ion of a member of the Execut ive Commit tee .........................................1272. Communicat ion by Mr Er ic PHINDELA, Secretary to the Nat ional Counci l of Prov inces of South Afr ica: “The South Afr ican System of co-operat ive government and intergovernmental re lat ions: an analysis” ....................................1273. Communicat ion by Mr. Aust in ZVOMA, Secretary to the Par l iament of Zimbabwe: “The sub judice ru le: par l iament and the courts. Impl icat ions for the doctr ine of the separat ion of powers” ............................................................................1324. Communicat ion by Mr. Mohammad Kazim MALWAN, Secretary General of the Senate of Afghanistan: "Structure and funct ion of the Upper House: a br ief int roduct ion"........................................................................................................................... 140

SEVENTH SITTING.......................................................................................................................145Thursday 5 Apri l 2012 (Morning) ..........................................................................................145

1. New member............................................................................................................... 1452. Presentat ion by Mr Marc BOSC, President of the ASGP, Deputy Secretary General of the House of Commons of Canada, on the next ASGP meeting in Quebec (autumn 2012) ........................................................................................................1453. Communicat ion by Ms Claressa SURTEES, Clerk Assistant (Table) of the Austral ian House of Representat ives: “Developing a new document product ion system for the Chamber secretar iat – Phase one” ....................................................1454. Communicat ion by Mr. Habtamu NINI ABINO, Head of the Secretar iat of the House of Federat ion of Ethiopia: “Lessons from the work of the House of Federat ion in celebrat ing Ethiopian Const i tut ion Day 2011” ..................................1495. Communicat ion by Mr. Kursad MELIH SARIARSLAN, Deputy Secretary General of the Par l iamentary Assembly of Turk ic-speaking Countr ies: “Basic aspects and prospects of TURKPA’s internat ional co-operat ion” .........................1526. Examinat ion of the draft agenda for the next meeting (Quebec, October 2012) 1567. Closure......................................................................................................................... 158

FIRST SITTINGSunday 1 April 2012 (Morning)

Mr Marc BOSC, President, in the Chair

The Sitting was opened at 11.00 am

1. Opening of the Session

Mr Marc BOSC, President , welcomed al l those present, especia l ly new members. He thanked the Ugandan hosts for their welcome and for the organisat ion of the session.

2. Elections to the Executive Committee

Mr Marc BOSC, President , announced that two vacant posts on the Execut ive Commit tee would be f i l led dur ing the session: one of the two posts of Vice-Pres ident (with a vote, i f necessary, on Wednesday at noon, wi th the deadl ine for candidacies set at 4 pm on Monday), and a post of ordinary member (wi th a vote i f necessary on Thursday at 2.30 pm, wi th the deadl ine for candidacies set at 2.30 pm on Wednesday).

Any addit ional vacancy that might result f rom the elect ion of the Vice-President would be f i l led at the fol lowing session.

He reminded members that i t was usual for exper ienced and act ive members of the Associat ion to be candidates, rather than new members.

He also indicated that a guidance note on the organisat ion of the elect ions was avai lable to members.

3. Orders of the Day

Mr Marc BOSC, President , read the Orders of the Day proposed by the Execut ive Commit tee as fol lows:

Sunday 1 April

Morning

9.30 am Meet ing of the Execut ive Committee

11.00 am Opening of the session

Orders of the day of the Conference

New members

Welcome and presentat ion on the par l iamentary system of Uganda by Ms Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE, Clerk of the Par l iament of Uganda

Sunday 1 April

Afternoon

2.30 pm Communicat ion by Dr V.K. AGNIHOTRI, Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha of India: “ Impeachment of a Judge in the Indian Par l iame nt”

Communicat ion by Mr Phi l ippe SCHWAB, Secretary General of the Counci l of States and Deputy Secretary General of the Federal Assembly of Switzer land: “Strategic p lan of the par l iamentary serv ice of the Swiss Par l iament for 2012–16”

Communicat ion by Mrs Jacquel ine BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN , Secretary General of the House of Representat ives of the States General of Nether lands: “How to opt imal ly support a Par l iament in t imes of cutbacks”

Monday 2 Apri l

Morning

9.30 am Meet ing of the Execut ive Committee

10.00 am General debate: Things that can’ t be said: l imi ts on freedom of express ion in parl iamentary proceedings

Moderator: Mr Marc BOSC, President of the ASGP, Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons of Canada

Communicat ion by Mrs Yardena MELER-HOROWITZ, Secretary General of the Israel i Knesset: “The Knesset Vis i tors Centre -- Transparency and Accessib i l i ty ”

Monday 2 Apri l

Afternoon

2.30 pm General debate: Is i t necessary to constra in debate in p lenary s i t t ing?

Moderator: Ms Cor inne LUQUIENS, Secretary General of the French Nat ional Assembly

4.00 pm Presentat ion by Mr Mart in CHUNGONG and Mr Greg POWER on recent developments in the Inter-Parl iamentary Union and the Global Par l iamentary Report 2012

4.00 pm Deadline for nominations for the post of Vice-President of the ASGP

Communicat ion by Dr Ulr ich SCHÖLER, Vice-President of the ASGP, Deputy Secretary General of the German Bundestag: "Who decides which Members get to speak in the plenary - the President of the Bundestag or the pol i t ica l groups?"

Tuesday 3 April

7.30am – 4.15pm Vis it of Par l iament and excursion to J in ja

Wednesday 4 Apri l

Morning

9.30 am Meet ing of the Execut ive Commit tee

10.00 am Communicat ion by Mr Ibrahim Mohamed IBRAHIM, Secretary General of the Nat ional Assembly of Sudan: “Par l iamentary modal i t ies for managing a post-war s i tuat ion – The case of Sudan”

General debate: Raising matters of urgency or emergency in the Chamber

Moderator: Ms Claressa SURTEES, Clerk Assistant (Table) of the Austral ian House of Representat ives

12.00 pm Election to one post of Vice-President of the ASGP

Wednesday 4 Apri l

Afternoon

2.30 pm Deadline for nominations for one vacant post on the Executive Committee (ordinary member)

2.30 pm Communicat ion by Mr Er ic PHINDELA, Secretary to the Nat ional Counci l of Provinces of South Afr ica: “The South Afr ican System of co-operat ive government and intergovernmental relat ions: an analysis”

Communicat ion by Mr Aust in ZVOMA, Secretary to the Par l iament of Zimbabwe: “The sub judice ru le: par l iament and the courts”

Communicat ion by Mr Mohammad Kazim MALWAN, Secretary General of the Senate of Afghanistan: “Structure and funct ion of the Upper House: a br ief int roduct ion”

Thursday 5 Apri l

Morning

9.30 am Meet ing of the Execut ive Commit tee

10.00 am Communicat ion by Ms Claressa SURTEES, Clerk Assistant (Table) of the Austral ian House of Representat ives: “Developing a new document product ion system for the Chamber secretar iat – Phase one”

Communicat ion by Mr Habtamu NINI ABINO, Head of the Secretar iat of the House of Federat ion of Ethiopia: “Lessons from the work of the House of Federat ion in celebrat ing Ethiopian Const i tut ion Day 2011”

11.00 am Election of one ordinary member of the Executive Committee

Communicat ion by Mr Kursad MELIR SARIARSLAN , Deputy Secretary General of the Par l iamentary Assembly of the Turkic Countr ies: “Basic aspects and prospects of TURKPA’s internat ional cooperat ion”

Administrat ive and f inancia l quest ions

New subjects for discussion and draf t agenda for the next meet ing in Quebec (October 2012)

Closure

The Orders of the Day were agreed to. 4. New members

Mr. Marc BOSC, President, said that the Secretar iat had received 17 requests for membership, which had been put before the Execut ive Commit tee and agreed to. These were:

Mr. Khudai Nazar Nasrat Secretary General of the House of the People, Afghanistan(replac ing M. Ghulam Hassan Gran)

Mr. Shah Sultan Akifi Deputy Secretary General of the Senate of Afghanistan(replac ing Mr Mohammad Kazim Malwan who has become Secretary General)

Mr. Jamal Zowaid Secretary General of the Counci l of Representat ives of Bahrain(replac ing Mr. Nawar Al i A l-Mahmood)

Mr. Md. Mahfuzur Rahman Secretary General of the Par l iament of Bangladesh(replac ing Mr. Ashfaque Hamid)

Mr. Adalberto de Oliveira Mendes Secretary General of the Nat ional Assembly of Cape Verde(replac ing Mr. Eutrópio Lima da Cruz)

Mr Yoon, Won Joong Secretary General of the Nat ional Assembly of the Republ ic of Korea(replac ing Mr. Kwon, Oh Eul)

Mr. Sheikh Ali bin Nasir Al-Mahrooqi Secretary General of the Consul tat ive Counci l of Oman(replac ing M. Abdul Qadir Bin Sal im Al-Dhahab)

Ms. Jane Lubowa Kibirige Clerk to the Parl iament of Uganda(replac ing Mr. A. M. Tandekwire)

Mr. If t ikhar Ullah Babar Secretary General of the Senate of Pakistan(replac ing Mr. Raja Muhammad Amin)

Ms. Azarel Ernesta Clerk of the Nat ional Assembly of the Seychel les

Mr. Othom Rago Ajak Clerk to the Nat ional Legislat ive Assembly of South Sudan(This country is jo in ing the ASGP for the f i rst t ime)

Mr. Samuel Maccar Riak Clerk of the Counci l of States of South Sudan(This country is jo in ing the ASGP for the f i rst t ime)

Mr. Claes Mårtensson Deputy Secretary General of the Swedish Par l iament(replac ing Mr. Ul f Chr istoffersson)

Mr. Jiř i Uklein Secretary General of the Senate of the Czech Republ ic(replac ing Mr Frant isek Jakub)

Mr. Somsak Manunpichu Deputy Secretary General of the Senate of Thai land

For assoc ia te membersh ip :

Mr. Morad Boucaraf Deputy Secretary General of the Pan-Afr ican Par l iament

For observer s ta tus :

Mr. Khan Ahmed Goraya Execut ive Director, Pakistan Inst i tute for Par l iamentary Serv ices (PIPS)

The new members were agreed to.

5. Welcome and presentation on the parliamentary system of Uganda by Ms Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE, Clerk of the Parliament of Uganda

Mr. Marc BOSC, President, inv ited Ms Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE and Mr Paul WABWIRE, the Clerk and Clerk Assistant f rom the Ugandan Par l iament, to come to the podium for their presentat ion . Ms KIBIRIGE gave the presentat ion as fo l lows:

1.0 WELCOMING REMARKS

Welcome to Uganda!

I would l ike to take th is opportuni ty to express my grat i tude and pleasure that Uganda is the host of the 126th Assembly of the IPU. I hope you have now sett led in and I wish you a p leasant stay in Kampala. Please feel f ree to contact me in case you need any help, I wi l l be happy to provide al l the help that is wi th in my means.

As you may already be aware, the geographical posi t ion of Uganda is in East Afr ica and is bordered by the Republ ic of South Sudan in the North, Democrat ic Republ ic of Congo in the West , the Uni ted Republ ic of Tanzania and the Republ ic of Rwanda in the South and the Republ ic of Kenya in the East. Uganda is about 197,058,000 sq km (93,104 sq mi les) and has a populat ion of about 32 mi l l ion according to the 2002 Census. Uganda is uniquely endowed wi th among others fer t i le soi ls; r ich and var ied f lora and fauna; minerals; good weather a l l the year round; Lake Vic tor ia, the second largest f resh water lake in the world from which the Nile f lows northwards up to the Medi terranean sea and snow capped Rwenzor i Mountains just wi th in the tropics.Sir Winston Churchi l l , the former Pr ime Minister of Uni ted Kingdom, in h is book My Afr ican Journey publ ished in 1908 had th is to say about Uganda, “My journey is at an end, the ta le has been to ld. The reader who has fo l lowed so fa i thfu l ly and so far has a r ight to ask what message I br ing back.

I t can be stated in three words:

Concentrate upon Uganda!

Uganda is a l ive by i tself . I t is v i ta l , and in my view, . . . i t ought , in the course of t ime, to become the most prosperous.. . , and perhaps the ‘ f inancia l dr iv ing wheel ’ of th is part of the wor ld.

My counsel p lain ly is – concentrate upon Uganda! Nowhere else in Afr ica wi l l l i t t le money go so far? Nowhere else wi l l resul ts be more br i l l iant, more substant ia l or more rapid ly real ised.

Uganda is f rom end to end a ‘beaut i fu l garden’ where ‘staple food’ of the people grows almost wi thout labour. Does i t not sound l ike a paradise on earth? I t is the Pear l of Afr ica.Uganda became a Br i t ish colony in 1896 and atta ined i ts independence in October 1962. The young nat ion of Uganda which wi l l mark i ts 50th anniversary on 9th October 2012 has not had a rosy exper ience. I t has gone through pol i t ica l turmoi l

character ized by c iv i l wars, a dic tatorship of Id i Amin Dada, as wel l as socio-economic instabi l i ty . No wonder such calamit ies have af fected the general pace of development in Uganda. I t is however in the past 25 years that Uganda has had general pol i t ica l stabi l i ty in the greater part of the country.

2.0 DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM

The system of democracy that is being pursued in Uganda is a hybrid or a fusion of a President ial and a Parl iamentary System. There are many character ist ics of a President ia l System, one being that the President is the Head of the State, Head of Government and the Commander in Chief of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces and the Fountain of Honour. His/her term of Of f ice is f ixed for 5 years. He or she is d i rect ly e lected by the people through universal adul t suffrage. The Pres ident has the power to pardon or to commute sentences of convic ted cr iminals.

In Uganda, aspects of a Parl iamentary System are exhib i ted by the fact that other than the members represent ing specia l interest groups, Members of Par l iament are e lected through universal adul t suffrage. The President is g iven lee-way to appoint members of Cabinet e ither from the elected Members of Par l iament or any other Ugandans who qual i fy to be Members of Parl iament . Members of Cabinet appointed outside Par l iament automatical ly become Ex-off ic io Members of Parl iament . This means that they are free to part ic ipate in a l l del iberat ions of Par l iament but do not hold any vot ing r ights.

3.0 LINKAGE BETWEEN PARLIAMENT AND THE OTHER ARMS OF GOVERNMENT

3.1 Some areas of interface between the Executive and the Legislature:-

1. Bi l ls passed by Par l iament require pres ident ia l assent before taking ef fect.2. Cabinet (Except the President) is approved by the legis lature through the

Appointments Committee.3. The Execut ive makes recommendat ions on the budget est imates of the

Legislature.4. The Budget for the Execut ive is approved (appropr iated) by the Legislature.5. Par l iamentary recommendations on the audi t reports are forwarded to the

Execut ive for implementat ion.

3.2 Some areas of interface between the Legislature and the Judiciary:-

1. The elect ion of the Speaker is presided over by the Chief Just ice.2. The appointment of the Just ices of the Courts of Judicature are approved by

Par l iament through the Appointments Committee.3. The budget of the Judic iary is appropr iated by Parl iament .

The operat ions of parl iament and legis lat ive enactments can be scrut in ized by the Judic iary through the Const i tut ional Court for their conformity or otherwise wi th the Const i tut ion.

The Par l iament of Uganda is unicameral and operates under a Mul t iparty System, which was revived in 2006 after an absence of a lmost 2 decades. Pr ior to th is Uganda was operat ing under the Movement System (No Party) , which was broad based, al l inclusive, non-part isan and indiv idual mer i t based.

The 2005 Amendments to the 1995 Const i tut ion led to among others the int roduct ion of mul t ipar ty pol i t ical system in Uganda. The amendments created the of f ice of the

Prime Minister / the Leader of Government Business and the Leader of the Opposi t ion, who are responsib le for assist ing the Speaker in the running of par l iamentary business in Parl iament . In turn, they are assisted by the Whips, who are designated in two ways; the major i ty party in the House holds the posi t ion of the Government Chief Whip and has other whips who ensure that the party posi t ions on pol icy matters in Parl iament are upheld.

The Opposi t ion in the House has the off ice of the Opposi t ion Chief Whip tasked wi th harmoniz ing the opposi t ion posi t ions on mat ters before Par l iament. The Opposit ion Chief Whip is appointed f rom the Party wi th the second largest numerical strength in the House. The Opposi t ion Chief Whip is assis ted by whips f rom other part ies in the House.

The Parl iament of Uganda der ives i ts mandate and funct ions f rom the 1995 Const i tut ion, the Laws of Uganda and i ts own Rules of Procedure. The Const i tut ion provides for the establ ishment, composi t ion and funct ions of the Parl iament of Uganda.

4.0 COMPOSITION OF PARLIAMENT

Art ic le 78(1) of the 1995 Const i tut ion prescr ibes that Par l iament shal l consist of :

1. Members d i rect ly e lected to represent const i tuencies;2. One woman representat ive for every d istr ict ;3. Such numbers of representat ives of the Army, Youth, Workers, Persons wi th

Disabi l i t ies and other groups as Parl iament may determine; and4. The Vice-President and Ministers who, i f not a l ready elected Members of

Par l iament, shal l be ex-of f ic io members wi thout the r ight to vote on any issue requir ing a vote in Par l iament.

The current Par l iament which is the 9th Parl iament has 386 members const i tuted as fo l lows:

1. Const i tuency Representat ives 2382. Distr ict Women Representat ives 1123. Army Representat ive 104. Workers Representat ives 55. Youth Representat ives 56. Persons With Disabi l i t ies 57. Ex-of f ic io Members 11

5.0 FUNCTIONS OF PARLIAMENT

The funct ions of Par l iament are provided under Art ic le 79 of the Const i tut ion namely:-

i . To make laws on any matter for peace, order, development and good governance of Uganda.

i i . To make prov is ions having the force of law in Uganda except where i t confers such powers to a speci f ic author i ty by an Act of Par l iament

i i i . To protect the Const i tut ion and to promote democrat ic governance of Uganda.

Derived f rom the above broad const i tut ional prov is ions, Par l iament performs the fo l lowing speci f ic ro les:-

i . Passes laws for the good governance of Ugandai i . Provides legis lat ive sanct ions to taxat ion and acquis i t ion of loans, the

means of carry ing out the work of government.i i i . Scrut in izes government pol icy and administ rat ion referred by the House to

Par l iamentary Committees of Par l iament.iv. Scrut in izes expenditure and sums to be spent on Minist r ies, Departments

and Agencies of Government .v. Ensures t ransparency and accountabi l i ty in the use of publ ic funds.vi . Approves pres ident ia l nominees e.g. Ministers, Judges, Ambassadors and

other posi t ions speci f ied in the Const i tut ion.vi i . Asks Members of the Execut ive quest ions on pol icy or administrat ion of

af fa i rs of government on the f loor of the House. v i i i . Moni tors implementat ion of government programmes and projects.ix. Debates matters of topical in terests usual ly highl ighted in the President ’s

State of the Nat ion Address.

6.0 LEADERSHIP OF PARLIAMENT

The Par l iament of Uganda is presided over by the Rt. Hon. Rebecca Kadaga and deput ized by the Rt. Hon. Jacob Oulanyah.

The Speaker is the pol i t ica l head of the inst i tut ion, whi le the Clerk to Par l iament who is a publ ic of f icer appointed by the Pres ident wi th the advice of the Publ ic Service Commission heads the Par l iamentary Service.

7.0 PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION

Parl iament as a corporate inst i tut ion is managed by a Par l iamentary Commission (PC) which is establ ished under Art ic le 87A of the Const i tut ion. The PC is a corporate body wi th perpetual succession and has a common seal wi th powers to sue and be sued in i ts corporate name.

The Par l iamentary Commission is chaired by the Speaker of Par l iament and has other members, namely,

1. The Pr ime Minis ter /Leader of Government Business, 2. The Leader of Opposi t ion in Par l iament,3. The Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, and 4. Four Commiss ioners e lected from among the Members of Par l iament .

The Clerk to Par l iament is the Secretary to the Commiss ion and the l i fe t ime of the Commission is two and a half years.

The Commission is tasked among others:i . to appoint , promote and exerc ise discip l inary control over persons hold ing

publ ic of f ice in Par l iament;i i . to review the terms and condit ions of service, standing orders, t ra in ing,

and qual i f icat ion of persons hold ing off ice in par l iament;i i i . to prov ide secur i ty , by mainta in ing proper secur i ty for members of

Par l iament and faci l i t ies wi thin the precincts of Parl iament ;iv. to provide such staff and faci l i t ies as required to ensure the eff ic ient

funct ioning of Par l iament;v. to cause to be prepared in each f inancia l year est imates of revenue and

expendi ture for Par l iament for the next f inancial year.v i . to champion the wel fare of Members of Par l iament.

8.0 PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES

The Parl iament of Uganda has a vibrant commit tee system. I t is the committees which process al l matters that are referred to Par l iament and their recommendations debated and adopted in the Plenary. Parl iamentary Committees derive their mandate from the country ’s 1995 Const i tut ion. Art ic le 90 of the Const i tut ion prov ides that Par l iament shal l appoint Committees necessary for the eff ic ient d ischarge of i ts funct ions. I t a lso provides that the Rules of Procedure of Par l iament shal l prescr ibe the composi t ion and funct ions of Commit tees of Par l iament.

8.1 General Functions of Committees

The funct ions of Par l iamentary Committees, in addi t ion to their speci f ic funct ions provided under the Rules of Procedure of Parl iament of Uganda include the fo l lowing:-

i . To discuss and make recommendations on bi l ls laid before Par l iament.i i . To in i t iate any bi l l wi thin their respect ive areas of competence.i i i . To assess and evaluate act iv i t ies of government and other bodies.iv. To carry out re levant research in their respect ive f ie lds.v. To Report to Par l iament on their funct ions.vi . To moni tor and scrut in ize how publ ic funds are expended.

8.2 Categor ies of Commit tees

The Commit tees in the Parl iament of Uganda can be broadly categor ized as fo l lows:-i . In house Commit tees i i . Pol icy/ legis lat ive Scrut iny Committeesi i i . Accountabi l i ty Committeesiv. Ad hoc/Select Committees to handle any matter under the above 3

categor ies8.3 The Special Powers Conferred to the Committees

Art ic le 90(3) of the Const i tut ion and Rule 181 prov ides that in the exercise of i ts funct ions, a Committee -“ (a) may cal l any Minister or any person hold ing publ ic of f ice and pr ivate indiv iduals to submit memoranda or appear before them to give ev idence;(b) may employ qual i f ied persons to ass is t i t in the discharge of i ts funct ions;(c) may cal l or invi te any person to take part in the proceedings of the Commit tee wi thout the r ight to vote; and(d) wi l l have the powers of the High Court for -

( i ) enforc ing the attendance of wi tnesses and examining them on oath, af f i rmat ion or otherwise;( i i ) compel l ing the product ion of documents; ( i i i ) issuing of a commiss ion or request to examine wi tnesses abroad;( iv) conf ining for any speci f ic per iods recalc i t rant wi tnesses; and(v) c i t ing any person for contempt. ”

9.0 THE PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE

The Administ rat ion of Par l iament Act, 1997 as amended in 2006 provides for the organizat ion and administrat ion of the Par l iament of Uganda and for the employment and remunerat ion of staff of the Par l iamentary Service. The Chief Execut ive of the Service is the Clerk to Parl iament who is ass is ted by 2 Deputy Clerks. The Serv ice

has 10 Departments, which support the work of Par l iament, i ts committees and the Of f ice of the Speaker.

The Service is div ided into the fo l lowing funct ional departments:-

A. Legislative Services1. Par l iamentary Budget Of f ice2. Clerks Department3. Legislat ive and Legal Services Department4. Of f ic ia l Report (Hansard) Department5. Library and Research Serv ices Department

B. Administrat ive Services1. Finance and Administrat ion Department2. Sergeant-at-Arms Department3. Informat ion and Communicat ion Technology Department4. Human Resource Department5. Planning and Development Coordinat ion Off ice (PDCO)

Thank you for l is tening to me and I wish you f ru i t ful del iberat ions.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Ms LUBOWA KIBIRIGE and Mr GAMUSI WABWIRE for their presentat ion, and invi ted members present to put quest ions to h im.

Ms Corinne LUQUIENS (France) asked i f there were female Members of Par l iament e lected to const i tuency seats.

Ms Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE repl ied that there were thi r teen women direct ly e lected as const i tuency Members.

Mr. Johannes JACOBS (Namibia) asked why the Clerk required a recommendat ion in addi t ion to h is or her nominat ion by the Publ ic Service Commission.

Ms Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE repl ied that the Clerk was a civ i l servant.

Mr Mohamed Kamal MANSURA (South Africa) asked i f the Chamber played a ro le in the appointment of the Clerk, and i f there was a body that audi ted Par l iament’s accounts.

Ms Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE noted that the Publ ic Service Commiss ion fu l f i l led the funct ion of employer, and the President was happy to receive i ts recommendat ions. The accounts were audi ted by an independent auditor.

Mr Mahfuzur RAHMAN (Bangladesh) asked how representat ives of c iv i l soc iety (workers, young people etc .) were chosen.

Ms Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE repl ied that they were chosen by electoral col leges themselves made up of people e lected among workers, young people and disabled people.

Mr I ft ikhar Ullah BABAR (Pakistan) asked how the par l iamentary budget was compiled.

Mr Paul GAMUSI WABWIRE expla ined that the budget was prepared by a par l iamentary commission. In real i ty, i t was prepared in draft by par l iamentary staf f , then presented to the Speaker for his v iews. The Commission then proposed i t to Par l iament, tak ing into account the real needs of the country. Once approved by the Speaker, i t was incorporated into the general budget.

Mr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI ( India) thought that i t was very unusual to use a par l iamentary commission in th is context. He asked about the membership of th is commission, and i f i ts dec is ions could be chal lenged.

Ms Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE clar i f ied that the Par l iamentary Commission was establ ished under the Const i tut ion, and was made up of the Pr ime Minister , Leader of the Opposi t ion, the Finance Minister and four Members, three f rom the major i ty party and one from the Opposi t ion. The Clerk acted as secretary of the Commission, which had existed since 1997 and whose role was to assist the clerk in the good management of Parl iament . As a corporate body, i t could be taken to court and i ts dec is ions could be contested in t r ibunals.

Mr Paul GAMUSI WABWIRE added that the decis ions of this body had never been tested in court , doubt less because i ts composit ion and the moderat ion of i ts dec is ions meant that i t was a consensual body. He noted that the par l iamentary budget comprised no more than 2% of the nat ional budget.

Mrs Doris Katai Katebe MWINGA (Zambia) welcomed Ms KIBIRIGE to the Associat ion. She asked i f other members of the par l iamentary s taff were c iv i l servants l ike her, and i f she could be transferred to work for a government department .Ms Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE said that the recruitment of par l iamentary staf f was separate from the rest of the publ ic serv ice, and there was no possib i l i ty of s taf f moving to other parts of the publ ic service.

Mr Austin ZVOMA (Zimbabwe) asked what the f inancia l ru les were to which the par l iamentary budget was subject and i f there was never fr ic t ion between Parl iament and the Commiss ion on f inancial issues.

Ms Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE repl ied that the Clerk was guided by the relevant laws and rules in the administ rat ion of Par l iament, and i f the Commission tr ied to do something that was counter to the law on f inancial responsibi l i ty, or to adopt a budget that did not meet Parl iament ’s needs, the Clerk guided and advised i t , and reminded i t of the law and the tenets of good f inancia l management.

Mr Geert HAMILTON (Netherlands) asked i f Par l iament could ini t ia te legis lat ion or i f i t had to wait for b i l ls to be presented by ministers. He also asked i f par l iamentary staff were involved in the draft ing of these bi l ls and i f the President had a r ight of legis lat ive veto.

Mr Paul GAMUSI WABWIRE expla ined that, a l though indiv idual parl iamentar ians could present b i l ls , the major i ty were ini t ia ted by the Government . I f necessary the par l iamentary service would draft these non-government proposals. More non-government b i l ls had been presented s ince the beginning of the current legis lature : three had already been passed and a fourth on the batt le against tor ture was due to be examined short ly . He recal led that in 1996 parl iamentar ians had taken one bi l l par t icular ly to heart , and had threatened to reject the budget i f i t was not passed. I t

was fo l lowing this inc ident that the Commission had been created in 1997. Moreover, every b i l l needed to pass through several s tages, including president ial approval – the President d id indeed have a veto. Such a veto was sent back to Par l iament, which could approve the bi l l despi te i t , but only wi th a two-th i rds major i ty.

M. Modibedi Eric PHINDELA (South Afr ica) asked to what extent Par l iament held the Execut ive to account, and to what extent the decis ions of the Commission were just ic iable.

Mr Paul GAMUSI WABWIRE said that the Const i tut ion provided for a c lear separat ion between the three arms of the State, wi th means for each to hold the others to account. Each arm played i ts ro le. Whi le d isagreements occurred, which had to be resolved in court , the Execut ive took charge of the good conduct of the pol i t ics of Government, Par l iament passed legis lat ion, and the judic iary interpreted the Const i tut ion and the law. As for par l iamentary scrut iny of the Execut ive, president ial appointments needed to be rat i f ied by Par l iament, as d id minis ter ia l budgets. Moreover, parl iamentary committees scrut inised the conduct of government business. Par l iament exerc ised th is scrut iny through mot ions and pet i t ions. I t was dif f icu l t to say in what c i rcumstances the Commission’s decis ions could be chal lenged in court , as th is had never happened. The Commission had ex is ted for only f i f teen years, and the Const i tut ion for seventeen, so these inst i tut ions were st i l l sett l ing in.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, asked how many people were current ly employed by Par l iament.

Mr Paul GAMUSI WABWIRE repl ied that there were current ly around 305 employees, of whom around 100 performed junior ro les, the remaining two thi rds being professionals in d i f ferent f ie lds, such as economists and lawyers. Parl iament recrui ted and paid i ts own staf f . Staff were not recruited on pol i t ica l cr i ter ia. The rules on promot ion and discip l ine were str ict , and lef t l i t t le room for arbi t rar iness.

Mr Mohammad Kazim MALWAN (Afghanistan ) asked how members of the Supreme Court were chosen, how the judic ial budget was set and what powers the judic iary had.

Mr Paul GAMUSI WABWIRE expla ined that there were three levels of the judic iary : the ass ize courts, the High court and the Supreme Court . The membership of the High Court and the Supreme Court were determined by the Const i tut ion. A committee prepared l ists of magist rates who could be nominated for these posts, then the Head of State made nominat ions on the basis of these l ists. The nominat ions were then approved by Par l iament. The budget was set on the same basis as other ministr ies. The re levant minister made a recommendation which was submit ted for parl iamentary approval . The powers of the judic iary were protected and guaranteed by the Const i tut ion. Judges could subpoena wi tnesses.

Mr Emmanuel ANYIMADU (Ghana) asked for c lar i f icat ion on the ro le of the Commission in issues such as the pay of parl iamentar ians.

Mr Paul GAMUSI WABWIRE repl ied that a law prov ided that i t was par l iamentarians themselves who set their own levels of pay through resolut ions. When a proposal for such a resolut ion was made, i t was studied by the Commiss ion, sent to the re levant committee, and i f th is committee was in favour, the proposal was debated in p lenary.

During the current and previous legis lature, there had been no s igni f icant changes to the pay of par l iamentar ians, mainly because publ ic opin ion could sometimes be affected by the benef i ts avai lable to parl iamentar ians, such as the fact that they had access to a personal vehic le throughout the legis lature.

Mr Henry H. NJOLOMOLE (Malawi) asked what other benef i ts par l iamentar ians had access to.

Mr Paul GAMUSI WABWIRE repl ied that i t was mainly a quest ion of re imbursement of telephone and fuel costs.

Mr Mahamat Hassan BRÉMÉ (Chad) asked how the procedure worked for impeaching members of the Government who were also parl iamentar ians, where they were accused of misappropr iat ion of publ ic funds.

Mr Paul GAMUSI WABWIRE repl ied that h is country had a troubled history, and for th is reason, the Const i tut ion had been the subject of extensive consul tat ion before leading, af ter a lmost s ix years, to a consensus. The members of the const i tuent assembly had perhaps thought that i t would be tempt ing to be a Minister and a par l iamentar ian at the same t ime. Art ic le 118 of the Const i tut ion set out the grounds for censuring a Minister for incompetence. There was also a procedure for removing the Head of State i f he v iolated the Const i tut ion. I t had al ready been proposed that there should be a str icter separat ion of powers, but th is had led nowhere. For the moment, the inst i tut ions funct ioned wel l , and the future would tel l whether they were durable and prov ided enough stabi l i ty.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Ms Lubowa Kibi r ige and Mr Gamusi Wabwire for their presentat ion as wel l as a l l members who had put quest ions to them.

The si t t ing rose at 12.30 pm

SECOND SITTINGSunday 1 April 2012 (Afternoon)

Mr Marc BOSC, President, in the ChairThe Sitting was opened at 2.30 pm

1. Communication by Dr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI, Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha of India: “Impeachment of a Judge in the Indian Parliame nt”

Mr Marc BOSC, President invi ted Dr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI, Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha of India, to present h is communicat ion, as fo l lows:

“ INTRODUCTIONThe Indian judic iary is an important organ of our state and commands considerable respect f rom the people of India for dispensing just ice impart ia l ly. The independence and integr i ty of the members of the judic iary has always been a crucia l e lement in the funct ioning and matur ing of our democracy. However, sporadic a l legat ions of corrupt ion, s leaze, nepot ism and misbehaviour involv ing the Judges of the higher judic iary have threatened to lower the prest ige of the judic iary . In the recent past , the subject of impeachment of a Judge captured nat ional at tent ion in India and st i r red a debate in the wake of the recommendat ion of the Chief Just ice of India for removal of Just ice Soumitra Sen, a s i t t ing Judge of Calcutta High Court . Against this backdrop, i t would be worthwhile to look into the const i tut ional provis ions and the procedural developments that have taken place in the legis lature in regard to the impeachment of Judges.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONSThe Const i tut ion of India contains certa in provis ions for removal of a Judge from his off ice and regulat ion of the procedures thereof. The Const i tut ion provides that a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court may, by wri t ing under h is hand addressed to the President , res ign his of f ice, but he cannot be removed from his off ice except by an order of the President passed af ter an address by each House of Par l iament in the prescr ibed manner.The Const i tut ion fur ther provides for a “method” and “grounds” on which a Judge of the higher judic iary is to be removed which is as under:“A Judge of the Supreme Court shal l not be removed f rom his off ice except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Par l iament supported by majori ty of the total membership of that House and by a majori ty of not less than two-th i rds of the members of that House present and vot ing has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapaci ty. ” I t can thus be inferred from this provis ion that the Const i tut ion enjoins the fo l lowing pre-condi t ions for the removal of Judge of the Supreme Court :( i ) a Judge of the Supreme Court shal l be removed only by an order of the President ;

( i i ) i t should be after presentat ion of an Address by each House of Par l iament;

( i i i ) the Address should be supported by a specia l major i ty;

( iv ) the Address should be presented to the President in the same session; and

(v) removal has to be on the grounds of “proved” misbehaviour or incapaci ty.Further, the Const i tut ion s t ipulates that “ the Par l iament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentat ion of an address and for the invest igat ion and proof of the misbehaviour or incapaci ty of a Judge.

THE JUDGES ( INQUIRY) ACT, 1968

The Judges (Inquiry) Bi l l , 1964 was formulated, laying down the procedure as contemplated by the above prov is ion of the Const i tut ion and the Bi l l was referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. Af ter e laborate discussion before the Commit tee, in which eminent Members of Par l iament and the then Attorney General and former Attorney General gave their evidence, the Joint Commit tee gave i ts report on 13 May 1966. The recommendat ions of the Committee were taken into account and The Judges ( Inquiry) Act , 1968 was passed prescrib ing the procedure for the invest igat ion and proof of misbehaviour and incapaci ty of Judges of the Supreme Court , inc luding the Chief Just ice of India, the Chief Just ices and Judges of the High Courts.

Procedure la id down in the Act :

Under the procedure laid down in the Act, a not ice of a mot ion for present ing an Address to the President for the removal of a Judge, i f g iven in Rajya Sabha (Upper House of the Indian Par l iament) , is to be signed by not less than f i f ty members of the House and, i f g iven in Lok Sabha (Lower House), by not less than one hundred members of that House. The Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, af ter due considerat ion and consultat ion, may admit or refuse to admit the mot ion.

Consequent on the admit tance of the motion, the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, wi l l const i tute a Committee of three members, one each from ( i ) the Chief Just ice and other Judges of the Supreme Court ; ( i i ) Chief Just ices of the High Courts ; and ( i i i ) d ist inguished jur is ts. In case the not ices of motion are given on the same day in both the Houses, the Committee wil l be const i tuted only i f the motion has been admit ted in both the Houses and thereupon joint ly by the Chairman and the Speaker. In case not ices of mot ion are g iven in both the Houses on di f ferent dates, the not ice which is g iven later shal l stand re jected.

The Committee wi l l f rame def in i te charges against the Judge on the basis of which invest igat ion is proposed to be held and wi l l have the powers of a Civi l Court in respect of summoning persons for examinat ion on oath, product ion of documents, etc. In a case of al leged physical or mental incapaci ty and where such an al legat ion is denied, a Medical Board wil l be appointed for the medical examinat ion of the Judge by the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, or , where the Commit tee has been const i tuted joint ly, by both of them.At the conclusion of the invest igat ion, the Committee wi l l submit i ts report to the Chairman or , as the case may be, to the Speaker, stat ing therein i ts f indings on each of the charges separately wi th such observat ions on the whole case as i t th inks f i t . The report wi l l , thereafter , be la id before the respect ive House or the Houses, i f the Committee has been appointed jo int ly by the Chairman or the Speaker.

I f the Committee absolves the Judge of any misbehaviour or incapaci ty , the motion pending in the respect ive House or Houses, as the case may be, wi l l not be proceeded wi th. I f the report of the Commit tee contains a f inding that the Judge is gui l ty of any misbehaviour or suf fers from any incapaci ty , the mot ion wi l l , together wi th the report of the Commit tee, be taken up for considerat ion by the House or the Houses in which i t is pending.

In the event of the adopt ion of the mot ion in accordance wi th the const i tut ional provis ions, the misbehaviour or incapaci ty of the Judge wil l be deemed to have been proved and an Address pray ing for the removal of the Judge wil l be presented in the prescribed manner by each House of Parl iament in the same Session in which the motion has been adopted.

INSTANCES OF IMPEACHMENT

After the passing of The Judges ( Inquiry) Act, 1968 a not ice of a mot ion for present ing an address to the Pres ident for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court was given in Lok Sabha by 199 members on 15 May 1970. However, the Speaker d id not consider i t to be a f i t case for act ion under The Judges ( Inquiry) Act, 1968 and did not admit the not ice.

So far judic ia l enquiry or impeachment motion has been ini t ia ted only against three Judges in India. The f i rs t such case involved the impeachment motion in Lok Sabha of Just ice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court in May 1993 on charges re lat ing to gross abuse of h is f inancial and administ rat ive powers as the Chief Just ice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and cr iminal misappropr iat ion of property. However, the impeachment motion was defeated as i t could not garner specia l major i ty in the House as required.

The second case involved Just ice Soumitra Sen of the Calcut ta High Court whose removal f rom off ice was sought on two grounds by the fo l lowing mot ions: ( i ) misappropr iat ion of large sums of money in h is capaci ty as the receiver appointed by the High Court of Calcutta; and ( i i ) misrepresentat ion of facts wi th regard to th is misappropr iat ion of money before the High Court of Calcutta. The Upper House voted in favour of h is impeachment by 189 votes in favour and 16 votes against , f i rst by a voice vote and then through div is ion. The motion for his impeachment was to come up in the Lower House. However, Just ice Soumitra Sen sent in h is resignat ion as a Judge of the Calcut ta High Court to the President of India, wi th a copy to the Speaker, Lok Sabha, before h is impeachment proceedings could begin in the Lok Sabha. The message relat ing to the decis ion of the Lok Sabha not to proceed wi th the matter was reported in the Rajya Sabha on 6 September 2011. Thereafter , the impeachment motion lapsed.The th i rd case involved Just ice P. D. Dinakaran, Chief Just ice of the Karnataka High Court , against whom charges of corrupt ion were made. The Chairman, Rajya Sabha, set up another Inquiry Committee on 15 January 2010, to invest igate into the grounds on which his removal was sought for . However, before the Committee could complete i ts invest igat ion and submit i ts Report , the concerned Judge submitted his res ignat ion on 29 July 2011 by address ing a let ter to the President of India. In v iew of this, the not ice of mot ion praying for present ing an Address to the President became inf ructuous and the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, brought the work of the Inquiry Commit tee to a c lose. A Not i f icat ion and a Par l iament Bul let in Part- I I were issued in th is regard.

THE CASE OF JUSTICE SOUMITRA SEN

Under ar t ic le 124(4) of the Const i tut ion, not ice or not ices of Motion wi th support ing documents, and signed by not less than 50 Members of Rajya Sabha is /are submit ted to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, praying for removal of a Judge of High Court /Supreme Court . The f i le is put up for orders of the Chairman under sect ion 3(1) of the Act, who after consul tat ion and considerat ion ei ther may admit the Motion or refuse to admit the same.

I f the Chairman admits the motion, a para in Rajya Sabha Bul let in Part- I I is publ ished to th is ef fect for information of Members. The process of const i tut ion of a Commit tee under sect ion 3(2) of The Judges ( Inquiry) Act, 1968 is a lso in i t ia ted immediate ly. The Chairman may seek from the Chief Just ice of India, a panel of the names of Judges of the Supreme Court and Chief Just ices of High Court , f rom amongst whom he may choose one name each for the const i tut ion of the Commit tee. The name of an eminent jur ist , as the th i rd Member of the Commit tee, is chosen by the Chairman, Rajya Sabha himsel f .

As and when the Committee is const i tuted, a not i f icat ion in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part - I I and a Par l iamentary Bul let in Part - I I are issued to that ef fect (Annexures I & I I ) . A note is sent to the Department of Just ice for information about the const i tut ion of the Commit tee and request ing that Department to issue President ia l Requests in respect of the serving Judges who are members of the Commit tee so as to enable them to work in the Commit tee (Annexure I I I ) . Another note is sent to the Department of Legal Affai rs request ing them to make the necessary budgetary prov is ions to meet the expenses of the Committee as la id down in Rules 14 and 15 of the Judges ( Inquiry) Rules, 1969 (Annexure IV).

Once the Department of Just ice obtains the President ia l Request and int imates the same (Annexure V), le t ters are issued to the Judge members of the Commit tee as also to the eminent Jur is t , s igned by the Secretary-General , in forming them about the const i tut ion of the Commit tee and their appointment to work as Members of the Commit tee (Annexure VI) .

The Chairman, Rajya Sabha, on receipt of a Motion submitted by Members of Rajya Sabha, on 20 March 2009 and having found the Motion in order, had accordingly appointed a Commit tee to inquire into the al legat ions of misbehaviour/misconduct in respect of Mr. Just ice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta High Court and the fact was communicated to i ts members. Submission of Report to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha and lay ing the same on the Table of both Houses of Parl iament :

In pursuance of proviso to Rule 9(2) (c) of the Judges ( Inquiry) Rules, 1969, the Judges Inquiry Committee const i tuted in respect of Just ice Soumitra Sen sought extension of t ime of two months for submission of Report on two occasions and the extension was granted by the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, on meri ts, in each case. The Report of the Committee, duly authent icated by the Pres iding Off icer , was presented to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha on 10 September 2010, in the presence of two other members of the Committee.

The Report of the Judges Inquiry Committee was la id on the Table of both Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on 10 November 2010 along wi th a copy of the evidence tendered before the Commit tee and documents marked as Exhib i ts by the Commit tee. Pr inted copies of the Report were also made avai lable to Members of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respect ively.

Considerat ion of the motion for present ing an Address to the President praying for the removal of a Judge of High Court by the Counci l of States in Just ice Soumit ra Sen’s case:

Af ter the laying of the Report , a copy of the Report was forwarded to Just ice Soumitra Sen to f i le h is reply. At h is request, Just ice Soumit ra Sen was given approximately one month’s t ime to f i le a wr i t ten reply on the f indings of the Report . He gave his reply on 9 December 2011, copies of which were c irculated to a l l the Members of Rajya Sabha. A para in the Par l iamentary Bul let in Part - I I was also issued.

Af ter the laying of the Report , Members gave Not ices of Mot ion for considerat ion of the Report . Not ices of only those Members were enterta ined who were s ignator ies to the or ig inal pending motion. I t was also decided to broadly fol low the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Counci l of States, governing the ‘Mot ion on matters of publ ic interest ’ in respect of the subsequent not ices of mot ion. These not ices of mot ion for considerat ion of the Report of the Inquiry Committee were admit ted by the Chairman and publ ished in the Par l iamentary Bul let in Part - I I as ‘No-day-yet-named’ mot ion.

The Chairman, Rajya Sabha, in consul tat ion wi th the Minister of Par l iamentary Af fa i rs and the Leader of Opposit ion, informal ly decided the date for considerat ion the motion in the Rajya Sabha. The Business Advisory Commit tee, in i ts meet ing held on 11 August 2011, a l lot ted four hours for d iscussion on the mot ion, exc luding the t ime given to the Judge or h is representat ive to present h is arguments before the House. A Par l iamentary Bul let in Part - I I was issued in th is regard and a copy forwarded to the Lok Sabha Secretar iat for their in formation.

I t was fur ther decided that the mot ion would be discussed in the House on two days and an opportuni ty would be given to the concerned Judge to make his submission from the Bar of the House. In v iew of this , the Lobby Off ice was requested suff ic ient ly in advance to erect a bar wi th ra ised lectern at the appropr iate p lace. The Parl iamentary Securi ty Service, Rajya Sabha, was requested to al low the entry of the concerned Judge and his two counsels in the Parl iament House, to escort them into the inner lobby and out of the precincts of the House immediate ly after the submission before the House.

Immediately af ter f ix ing of the date for taking up the mot ion in the Rajya Sabha, Secretary-General , in formed Just ice Sen about the same. In i t ia l ly , he was given 90 minutes t ime and was advised to make only oral submiss ion during his presentat ion in the House. On the day on which the Motions were to be taken up in the House, the or ig inal pending motion, a long wi th subsequent motion for considerat ion of the Report of Inquiry Committee, were l isted in the names of the movers of the subsequent motion (Annexure VII ) . On the motion being taken up in the House on 17 August 2011, at the outset, the Chairman made an announcement sett ing out the procedure to be fo l lowed for consider ing the motion.

Thereafter , one of the signator ies of the or ig inal and subsequent motion, moved both the motions and spoke thereon. The Judge then presented his defence f rom the bar of the House and wi thdrew. After that the House proceeded to consider the motion and several Members spoke on i t . The discussion on the motion cont inued for two days i .e. 17 and 18 August and, in the end, the mover of the motion repl ied to the debate.

After the end of the debate, the motion for present ing an Address under ar t ic le 124, read with c lause (4) of art ic le 217 of the Const i tut ion, along wi th the Address to the President was put to vote. Both were adopted by a major i ty of tota l membership of the House and a major i ty of two-th irds of Members present and vot ing.

On the day the motion was adopted, a message, enclosing a copy of the Address to the President, was communicated to the Lok Sabha. The message was reported in that House which l isted i ts own mot ion for discussion on 5 September 2011 and inc luded an i tem in the List of Business for that day accordingly. The concerned Judge, however, resigned from of f ice before the motion could be taken up in the Lok Sabha. The resignat ion let ter being in order, was accepted by the Pres ident of India and the Minist ry of Law and Just ice issued a not i f icat ion in th is regard. Before the Motion could be taken up in Lok Sabha, the fact of resignat ion of the Judge was reported by the Union Law Minis ter in the Lok Sabha. Thereafter , the Speaker, Lok Sabha, took the sense of House and decided not to proceed wi th the Motion and address for removal of Just ice Sen. Secretary-General , Lok Sabha communicated the fact through a message, which was reported in the Rajya Sabha. The concerned f i le was, thereafter , p laced before Hon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha to treat the matter as c losed.

CONCLUSION

The pr imary ro le of Par l iament is to legis late. However, i t has a judic ia l funct ion too. To deal wi th the issue of a Judge’s misconduct or proven misbehaviour, with in the meaning of Art ic le 124 and 217 of the Const i tut ion, is the prerogat ive of the Par l iament. The removal proceedings against a judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court are no doubt a serious matter . For the f i rst t ime in the history of the Indian Parl iament , the Upper House adopted a Motion for removal of a judge. Just ice Soumitra Sen's impeachment proceedings in August 2011 were also the f i rst to be te lev ised l ive. Speaking on the occasion, the Leader of Opposi t ion in Rajya Sabha termed i t as “both h istor ic and sad ” . But by invoking the legit imate const i tut ional provis ions, Rajya Sabha had sought to ensure that the sanct i ty of our Const i tut ion is mainta ined and the sovereignty of the people is establ ished through the Par l iament. The misbehaviour of an indiv idual Judge could not be al lowed to tarnish the integr i ty of the Judiciary. While an upright and transparent higher judic iary in the country would enhance i ts image, a d iscip l ined judic iary is an essent ia l condi t ion for strengthening the fabric of democracy. The process of removal of a judge is qui te labor ious and lengthy and the Parl iament exercises th is responsib i l i ty as a puni t ive or deterrent measure in the rarest of rare cases.

The const i tut ional and statutory safeguards ensure that judges discharge their dut ies wi thout fear or favour in the pursui t of del ivery of just ice. I t is , therefore, essent ial that the pr incip les of t ransparency and accountabi l i ty in the funct ioning of the judic iary are put in p lace to address such issues. With this object ive, the Judic ia l Standards and Accountabi l i ty Bi l l , 2010 has been introduced in the Par l iament to lay down judic ia l standards and prov ide for accountabi l i ty of judges. I t seeks to repeal the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 whi le retain ing i ts basic features. I t a ims to create a s tatutory mechanism for enquir ing into indiv idual complaints against judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court and recommending appropr iate act ion, enabl ing declarat ion of assets and l iabi l i t ies of judges etc.” __________________ References:

1.The Const i tut ion of India2.The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 19683.The Judge ( Inquiry) Rules, 19694.Note on Procedures No._: Judges Inquiry Commit tee- Part - I , Rajya Sabha Secretar iat : Off ic ial Bul let in, New Delhi , December, 2010.5.Note on Procedures No._: Judges Inquiry Commit tee- Part - I I (Procedure af ter lay ing of Report) , Rajya Sabha Secretar iat : Off ic ia l Bul let in, New Delhi , October, 2011.6.M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdher, Pract ice and Procedure of Par l iament , 6th Edi t ion, 2009, New Delhi7.Rajya Sabha Debates, dated 17 August 2011 and 18 August 2011.8.Resume of the Business transacted by the Rajya Sabha, 223rd Session (1 August to 8 September 2011), Rajya Sabha Secretar iat , New Delhi .

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Dr AGNIHOTRI for his communicat ion, and inv ited members present to put quest ions to him.

Mr Geert HAMILTON (Netherlands) thanked Dr AGNIHOTRI for his interest ing presentat ion. He thought the procedure descr ibed was very unusual. The Dutch House of Representat ives had a ro le in the nominat ion of Supreme Court judges but Par l iament could never remove a judge from off ice. He asked i f th is k ind of procedure existed in other countr ies, and i f i t was real ly useful and effect ive.

Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER (Germany) congratulated Dr AGNIHOTRI and said that the German system was simi lar to the Dutch. He asked i f the Indian Const i tut ion provided for the independence of the judic iary , and i f th is procedure had never been abused in the past. Final ly, he asked how the rol l cal l vote worked.

Mr Hans BRATTESTÅ (Norway) expla ined that such an impeachment procedure existed in Norway, where judges, Ministers, and MPs could be judged by a specia l cr iminal court made up of par l iamentar ians and Supreme Court judges. Par l iament could launch th is procedure, as could a specia l ised committee, i f the proposal was supported by a thi rd of i ts members.

Mrs Doris Katai Katebe MWINGA (Zambia) said that the impeachment of judges was possib le in Zambia on the request of a judic ia l commit tee. A tr ibunal was created, br inging together serving magistrates and a legal expert . This tr ibunal came up with a proposal once i ts work was completed, whi le the accused judge was able to defend himsel f . Other than through th is procedure, judges could not be removed from of f ice, and in no case would a judge have to defend himsel f before Par l iament . Only one judge had been brought before th is t r ibunal , and he had resigned before i t had completed i ts work.

Mr David BEAMISH (United Kingdom) said that there was a simi lar procedure in the Uni ted Kingdom, but i t had not been used for a very long t ime. He asked Dr AGNIHOTRI what he thought of the procedure and how it had been received by publ ic opinion.

Mr Henry NJOLOMOLE (Malawi) asked i f Par l iament ’s decis ion needed to be rat i f ied by another author i ty.

Ms Corinne LUQUIENS (France) said that there was no equivalent in France, as cases against judges were brought by an independent author i ty, not by Par l iament . She asked i f th is procedure did not suffer the r isk of looking l ike a pol i t ica l move,

and i f i t could not be proceeded with under the cr iminal law, as the case in point concerned a quest ion of corrupt ion.

Mr Somsak MANUNPICHU (Thai land) expla ined that a s imi lar case had ar isen in Thai land, concerning the commissioner responsible for the f ight against corrupt ion. I t eventual ly emerged that the defendant had l i t t le to be ashamed of. In Thai land, the procedure could be brought against h igh off ic ials , Ministers or judges.

Dr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI repl ied that th is procedure was certa in ly pol i t ical , a lbeit supported by a judic ia l process. The Commission of Inquiry could be thought of as a cr iminal court , Par l iament had to trust i ts report and could not take a decis ion going against i ts conclusions. I f the report found that there were no grounds to charge the judge, the procedure would come to an end. Otherwise i t would cont inue, wi th Par l iament playing the role of the jury , more or less. Two of the three judges accused in recent years had resigned before the process could come to a conclus ion.

The ro l l-cal l vote took place simply by cal l ing out yes or no; otherwise an electronic vote would take place. The judge did not have to appear before the Commiss ion of inquiry or before Par l iament, and could send his lawyer instead. In this case, the judge had chosen to make his own defence. This story had been much ta lked about in India, dur ing a per iod when the subject of corrupt ion was high on the news agenda. The decis ion reached was not f inal, and could be appealed to the other House, and then to the Supreme Court . I t was, however, unl ikely that the Supreme Court would overturn Par l iament’s decis ion, which was why one of the judges under invest igat ion had decided, af ter being found gui l ty by both Houses, to resign wi thout making a further appeal. Final ly, a magist rate act ing in the pursui t of his funct ions could not be prosecuted in the ordinary courts.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Dr AGNIHOTRI for his communicat ion, as wel l as a l l those members present who had put quest ions to h im.

2. Communication by Mr Philippe SCHWAB, Secretary General of the Council of States and Deputy Secretary General of the Federal Assembly of Switzerland: “Strategic plan of the parliamentary service of the Swiss Parliament for 2012–16”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, invi ted Mr Phi l ippe SCHWAB, Secretary General of the Counci l of States and Deputy Secretary General of the Federal Assembly of Switzerland, to present h is communicat ion, as fol lows:

“Our p lans miscarry because they have no aim. When a man does not know what harbour he is making for , no wind is the r ight wind” Seneca the Younger 1 .

Why the need for a strategy?

For many years, par l iament’s administ rat ion, fo l lowing the example of other publ ic administrat ions in Switzer land, never fe l t any part icular urge to quest ion how things were done. In fact, the last ing nature of the structures and staf f in p lace was long considered essent ia l . I t was deemed indispensable to have a permanent and sol id organisat ion to assure the proper funct ioning of a par l iament whose composi t ion was fundamental ly instable and which var ied wi th each elect ion. The princip le appl ied in

structur ing the organisat ion was: ‘members of par l iament come and go, the administrat ion remains’ .

The organisat ion of the Par l iamentary Services is the fru it of a long and constant evolut ion which began in 1848. Dr iven by a form of ‘ inst i tut ional Darwinism’, they have constant ly adapted to the needs of the moment and their environment, of ten by leaps, but wi th no general plan or long term vis ion.

Matters changed after 2000 wi th the cr is is in publ ic f inances and the subsequent auster i ty measures. At the t ime, parl iament on several occasions examined proposals a imed at reducing publ ic sector staff on budget grounds. These proposals, supported by the largest parl iamentary group, concerned both government and par l iamentary adminis trat ion s taff . The reduct ion in staf f levels at the Par l iamentary Services was motivated by the idea of shared sacr i f ice. One could not expect ef for ts on the part of government wi thout a lso demanding ef for ts on the part of those elected. In other words, i t was not that par l iament and i ts services were deemed to be too cost ly, 2 but instead that an example should be shown at a t ime of cr is is in publ ic sector f inances.Par l iament ul t imately abandoned the idea wi th regard to i ts own staff , but the threat has not been l i f ted def in i t ive ly and indeed looms over upcoming budgetary debates.

At the beginning of 2011 this s i tuat ion of uncertainty led the Par l iamentary Serv ices to begin a st rategic ref lect ion for the per iod 2012-2016. The aim of this process is to ident i fy pr ior i ty act iv i t ies – exist ing and forecast – and to do away with outdated habi ts and pract ices. In more general terms, th is ref lect ion is to take a f resh look at the def in i t ion of the Par l iamentary Services’ mission, in other words at i ts corporate strategy.

Indeed, in a constant ly changing environment, i t is v i tal to def ine clearly for the benef i t of members of parl iament , but a lso i ts staf f , where the Parl iamentary Services stand, i ts prof i le , core competences and the range of serv ices i t of fers a long wi th i ts pr ior i t ies. This strategy should al low those concerned to have the same v iew of the current s i tuat ion as wel l as of the pr ior i t ies and future developments.

2. Init ial si tuation and general characterist ics of the Swiss parl iamentary administrat ion

2.1.The Parliamentary Services.

Art ic le 64 of the Par l iament Act s tates that “ the Par l iamentary Serv ices assist the Federal Assembly in the exerc ise of i ts dut ies” . To th is end they provide the services needed by par l iament, the committees and members in order to fu l f i l their tasks.

The Par l iamentary Serv ices are an organisat ion shared by both chambers and they are headed by a Secretary General. An Administrat ion Delegat ion, composed of the presidents and vice presidents of the chambers, exerc ise overal l contro l and supervis ion. I t is the supreme administ rat ive body of the Parl iamentary Services and sets the responsib i l i t ies and f ramework for the services i t prov ides in the form of an internal regulat ion. The Administrat ion Delegat ion is a lso responsib le for managing the budget for par l iament and i ts administrat ion. The budget is presented to par l iament for adopt ion. In terms of i ts staf f , par l iament is f ree to apply publ ic sector legis lat ion or to establ ish i ts own ru les.

The Parl iamentary Serv ices were created in 1920, however, they remained at tached to the government unt i l 1999 when their independence was enshr ined in the revised Federal Const i tut ion (Art . 155 of the Const i tut ion) . Since then the Par l iamentary Services have enjoyed autonomy f rom the execut ive branch, which is compat ible wi th the pr inc ip le of the separat ion of powers and corresponds to par l iament’s funct ion as the ‘supreme author i ty of the Confederat ion’ (Art . 148 § 1 of the Federal Const i tut ion) .

Under the const i tut ion, the ru les governing the Par l iamentary Services, i ts organisat ion and budget are matters for the chambers. As a sign of this independence, the Secretary General is appointed by the Off ices of the Counci ls and the nominat ion is then conf i rmed by the Nat ional Counci l and the Counci l of States in a joint sess ion. The Secretary General cannot be removed for the per iod of of f ice which lasts four years. He may step down at the end of this per iod but is otherwise reappointed automatical ly. The Secretary General and his deputy are accountable to the pres idents for the proper funct ioning of the Parl iamentary Services.

Schematical ly, the Par l iamentary Services have four broad areas of act iv i ty: The Scient i f ic Services Divis ion is responsible for a l l counci l act iv i t ies and

documentat ion related to the chambers and the committees in terms of legis lat ion, oversight and budget .

The Internat ional Relat ions Divis ion is responsib le for par l iament’s b i lateral and mult i la teral act iv i t ies, v is i ts, protocol , and interpretat ion and trans lat ion services.

The Information and Communicat ions Divis ion manages re lat ions wi th the media, electronic informat ion platforms, publ ic re lat ions and inst i tut ional communicat ion.

Final ly, the Resources, Securi ty and Logist ics Divis ion deals wi th f inancia l matters, IT systems, project management, personnel , secur i ty and inf rast ructure.

The staff of the Par l iamentary Services are bound by an obl igat ion to be pol i t ica l ly neutra l . They are servants of par l iament as an inst i tut ion and as such must refuse any instruct ions or tasks of a part isan nature. They are at the service of the par l iamentary bodies and i ts members regardless of pol i t ica l or ientat ion. Tensions wi th the pol i t ica l author i t ies are extremely rare as they too seek to respect the services’ str ict neutra l i ty. This is the case across the whole of the Swiss administrat ion where there is a c lear separat ion between the publ ic administ rat ion and pol i t ica l actors.

The Par l iamentary Serv ices have evolved signi f icant ly to keep pace wi th the reinforcement of par l iament ’s powers and responsib i l i t ies. In 1970, the Par l iamentary Serv ices had a staff of around 30; forty years on and staff levels have increased tenfold. At present, the Parl iamentary Serv ices employ around 300 staf f who work fu l l or part t ime, not inc luding the large number of service providers act ive in the f ie lds of secur i ty , IT, t ranslat ion, logist ics and cater ing.

The Parl iamentary Serv ices is a mul t i l ingual organisat ion ref lect ing our four nat ional languages. Staff are employed fol lowing open compet i t ions. In contrast to other countr ies with a system of par l iamentary staf f wi th specif ic competi t ions, a l l Par l iamentary Services staf f are recrui ted to fu l f i l a speci f ic funct ion in which they wi l l remain for as long as they cont inue to work in the adminis trat ion. There is no

statutory obl igat ion to of fer mobi l i ty , whether with in or outside the Parl iamentary Services. With the except ion of senior management posi t ions, a l l other s taff are appointed by the Secretary General .

The Par l iamentary Serv ices carry out a large number of tasks ranging from advis ing members of par l iament to IT support as wel l as administrat ion and secur i ty . Al l staf f ident i fy st rongly wi th the inst i tut ion of par l iament of which they are a part . I t is qui te rare for s taff to move from par l iament to the federal administrat ion or government departments. There is therefore strong staff loyalty and a h igh degree of organisat ional stabi l i ty. The last major reorganisat ion of the Parl iamentary Services dates back over twenty years.

2.2. . . . for a part-t ime Parliament

The Par l iamentary Serv ices play a key ro le in the funct ioning of the two chambers due to the fact that deput ies are not fu l l t ime pol i t ic ians. The Swiss parl iament is what is known as a ‘mi l i t ia parl iament ’ where the major i ty of members exercise a profess ional occupat ion alongside their par l iamentary mandates. Depending on the indiv idual and the chamber to which they belong, par l iamentary dut ies wi l l take up between 50 and 70 per cent of a deputy ’s t ime. 3 I t is also worth not ing that many par l iamentary ro les are not carr ied out on a permanent basis; Counci l presidents are e lected for a one year term and commit tee presidents for a two year term ( they cannot stand for re-elect ion).

The mi l i t ia pr inciple has a long tradi t ion in Switzer land’s system of d irect democracy and proximity between the author i t ies and ci t izens. I t can be observed at local and cantonal level as wel l as in the armed forces. I t is also faci l i ta ted by Switzer land’s smal l s ize which al lows the major i ty of deput ies to dedicate part of their day to their profess ion and the rest to their pol i t ica l act iv i t ies.

The ‘mil i t ia system’ is f i rmly anchored in the Swiss psyche. I t forms part of the not ion of the ‘act ive ci t izen’ as hai led by Jean-Jacques Rousseau 4 250 years ago. The mi l i t ia system has the advantage that deput ies remain in d i rect touch wi th socia l real i t ies as doctors, lawyers, farmers, business men and women, teachers or union employees. This a l lows them to reta in a foothold in the economy outside their pol i t ica l mandate which in turn guarantees their f reedom of opin ion and independence wi th respect to their part ies (Art . 161 § 1 of the Federal Const i tut ion impose that “no member of the Federal Assembly may vote on the instruct ions of another person”). This system also has the mer i t of a l lowing the deputy to re-enter profess ional l i fe more easi ly at the end of h is or her mandate.

The l imi tat ions of the mi l i t ia pr incip le become apparent in the capaci ty of deput ies to dedicate suf f ic ient t ime to their mandate, and th is at a t ime when issues are becoming increasingly technical and complex, t ime pressures more demanding and ever greater demands on the part of the media. Not many deput ies have fu l l contro l over their agenda and an overview of al l pol i t ica l issues and procedures.

Under such c i rcumstances, i t is understandable that most deput ies f ind i t d i f f icu l t to juggle their professional and pol i t ica l careers. Confronted wi th the profess ional ism and durabi l i ty of the government and the federal administ rat ion, i t is not a level p laying f ie ld. The Parl iamentary Services help to even out this imbalance by provid ing deput ies wi th the resources, information and expert ise they need, whi le ensur ing that proper procedures are fo l lowed. They effect ively form the backbone of par l iament and serve as i ts memory.

3. Approach and outl ine

The management board of the Par l iamentary Services launched i ts strategic process in May 2011 and informed al l of i ts senior staff and employees.Firs t of a l l , the management board decided that the strategic process would be conducted on the basis of the current organisat ion and exist ing resources. The process involves three successive and staggered stages:

an analysis phase (May to September 2011) ; a concept phase, fo l lowed by a consul tat ion and val idat ion phase (October

2011 to Apr i l 2012) ; an implementat ion phase ( from May 2012).

At present, the process is on-going and the resul ts are st i l l a t the project stage: the analysis phase has been completed and the concept phase and val idat ion is in progress. The implementat ion phase wi l l commence in the second hal f of the year as soon as the st rategy has been adopted by the Administrat ion Delegat ion, which is expected at the end of Apri l .The focus in the rest of the document is on the analys is phase as th is is current ly the most advanced phase of the project .

3.1 Analysis phase

3.1.1 Procedure and methodology

The analysis phase began in May 2011 over a per iod of f ive months.

In an in i t ial per iod, the management board updated i ts corporate charter which def ines the mandates and phi losophy of the Par l iamentary Services. The charter is a general document which sets out the values by which the administrat ion of par l iament acts. I t determines the long term vocat ion of the organisat ion and aims to guide the act ions of the Par l iamentary Services in a common direct ion shared by al l of i ts employees. I t is based on the basic idea that in order to work together i t is necessary to share common values and aims. I t is part icular ly important for an organisat ion such as ours which consists of a large number of services wi th extremely d iverse tasks.

In a second period, the management board conducted an analys is of the organisat ion. This focussed on the services processes and structures across al l areas of act iv i ty in the Par l iamentary Services. This led us to ask the fol lowing type of quest ions:

What services do we current ly of fer? What new serv ices need to be of fered in the future and what services could

we forgo or t ransfer? Does the effect iveness of our processes meet expectat ions? Do they enable

us to of fer good qual i ty and t imely services? How is col laborat ion between the var ious internal services and wi th other

th i rd part ies? Do we have suf f ic ient resources and the necessary ski l ls to meet these

needs?

In order to ensure a systemat ic approach we appl ied a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportuni t ies, Threats) .The analysis gr id takes two di f ferent angles (appendix 1) :

a structural angle which highl ights the s trengths and weaknesses of the organisat ion using an internal d iagnost ic tool taking into account the posit ioning, act iv i t ies and current organisat ion of the Parl iamentary Services;

a cyc l ical angle describ ing the environmental opportuni t ies and threats using an external analys is taking into account foreseeable evolut ions in supply , demand and inf luences.

This analys is was conducted by the management board in c lose col laborat ion wi th a l l of the senior staff (approx. 40 people). They were inv i ted to respond anonymously to an electronic quest ionnaire. In order to avoid any inter ference, the catalogue of quest ions was prepared by an external agent who then evaluated the responses received. In their responses, some senior staff expressed their personal v iews in which they of fered remarks and suggest ions.

This analys is was conducted via a s taff sat isfact ion survey. This was also conducted anonymously.

Final ly, the analys is a lso addressed the needs on the part of members of parl iament . Some deput ies were therefore asked about the st rengths and weaknesses of the organisat ion, as wel l as their level of sat isfact ion wi th the services provided by the Par l iamentary Serv ices and their needs and expectat ions. The interv iews were conducted by an agent f rom outside the administrat ion of par l iament in order to guarantee conf ident ia l i ty.

3.1.2 Results

The resul ts of the analyses provided the management board with a good overal l v iew of the s ituat ion. Without going into detai l , here are some of the observat ions that can be revealed:

Firs t observat ion : At a structural level, the internal d iagnost ic tool showed that the main s trength of the Par l iamentary Services is i ts staff . Employees are competent and motivated and that is ref lected in the qual i ty of the work performed. The working atmosphere is judged to be pleasant and working condit ions and remunerat ion are above average. The organisat ional structure, wi th a shal low hierarchy and the independence of the Parl iamentary Services guarantees swi f t decis ion-making; that i t works is a model of ‘pragmatic ’ administ rat ion. The work of the employees and the processes are focussed on serv ices and the needs of the parl iamentary bodies and i ts deput ies. The services provided by the Parl iamentary Services meet the needs of deput ies in terms of both qual i ty and quant i ty . General ly speaking, employees are devoted; they display a very s trong attachment to the inst i tut ion of par l iament and to the values of autonomy and publ ic service. This attachment is mani fested by a low staff turnover which also benef i ts their specia l isat ion.

Second observat ion : In terms of processes, the analyses showed that col laborat ion between the di f ferent internal services is not opt imal . The resul t is loss of synergies and a certain compartmental isat ion of thoughts act ions. 5 Openness for change and innovat ion is weak: in general terms, employees are attached to the processes they are fami l iar wi th. In some services this leads to a k ind of ‘wai t-and-see’ at t i tude and a tendency to mainta in the status quo. The Par l iamentary Services have too great a

tendency to prov ide services ‘on demand’ when they could take a more pro-act ive role incorporat ing new problems and chal lenges.

Third observat ion : The Par l iamentary Services do not have suff ic ient resources to deal wi th an ever increasing workload and sat isfy ever greater demands. The upshot is a s i tuat ion of over load which r isks leading to a drop in the qual i ty of services provided and unmotivated staff . Moreover, the st ructure of the Par l iamentary Services is ambivalent as the major i ty of staf f pr imari ly take their instruct ions from the par l iamentary bodies for which they work, rather than from their administrat ive h ierarchy. This lack of c lar i ty in terms of who reports to who makes ef fect ive s taff management d i f f icul t . Employees do not real ly know who they answer to and are often exposed to pressures over which they have l i t t le inf luence. The f i rst cr i ter ia of management is of ten not one of ef fect iveness or return, but of complying to the wi l ls , whether real or supposed, expressed by the deput ies.

Fourth observat ion : The environment in which par l iament exists has undergone great changes in recent years. On a pol i t ica l level , the problems that par l iament is expected to resolve are becoming ever more numerous, complex and interdependent . The boundaries between foreign and domest ic pol icy have blurred. An increasing number of sectoral pol ic ies have an internat ional reach and v ice versa. Furthermore, a shi f t in re lat ions between the execut ive and the legis lature can be observed, wi th the lat ter seeking to counter the growing inf luence of the government . In recent years, parl iament has gradual ly emancipated i tsel f f rom government . Today, over one in four b i l ls or ig inates from par l iament, at t imes against the advice of government. Par l iament has also s trengthened the inst ruments at i ts d isposal to oversee government and evaluate publ ic pol icy. On a general level , i t is not iceable that the bi l ls submit ted are increasingly controvers ia l and that the behaviour of var ious actors has a polar is ing effect: re lat ions between the execut ive and the legis lature are more st ra ined as they are between the pol i t ica l part ies. This s i tuat ion makes i t more di f f icu l t to reach a compromise. Meeting the demands of expectat ion means that swi f t responses and urgent procedures are becoming the norm. Pol i t ical debate is becoming more intense in nature, but a lso more unpredictable and more superf ic ia l . The resul t is that the Par l iamentary Services, by the sheer weight of momentum, f inds i tsel f deal ing increasingly wi th short term problems instead of look ing to the medium term.

Fi f th observat ion : The current pol i t ical environment is marked by growing media interest and presence, of ten character ised by immediacy, spectacle and a g lut of information and images. The complexi ty of the issues at hand is of ten reduced to the lowest common denominator and i t is not unusual for the images and evocat ive headl ines on an issue to be handled according to the adage that i t is easier to show than expla in. The advent of mul t imedia and the formidable evolut ion of the Internet, which operates in real t ime and which never s leeps, has set a new pace in terms of news and information which is instantaneous, urgent , ubiqui tous, at the same t ime reducing the opportuni ty for analysis and ref lect ion. The short term approach and speed have become the basis of media power and par l iament, which needs detachment, t ime for contemplat ion and consul tat ion, f inds i t d i f f icu l t to respond. This hiatus between media t ime and par l iamentary t ime has an impact on the way in which par l iament and i ts administrat ion funct ions.Six th observat ion : The onset of new information and communicat ions technologies has fundamental ly a l tered the s ty le of interact ion between deput ies, the administrat ion and c it izens. Today deput ies are d i rect ly and permanent ly connected to the soc ia l body that they represent. Managing communicat ion and informat ion has become an essent ia l par t of pol i t ica l work. From now on, i t is s imply not poss ib le to

imagine performing par l iamentary work wi thout ef f ic ient IT and te lematics resources. On a technical level there are growing demands in terms of avai labi l i ty, qual i ty and systems secur i ty.

Seventh and f inal observat ion : The resources al lot ted to par l iament wi l l remain l imi ted in the years ahead. An increase in f inancial resources is not to be expected in the current legis lat ive period.

These pol i t ica l, media and technological developments have signif icant ly t ransformed the work of the deput ies and pose many chal lenges which have to be met.

The dynamics of par l iamentary act iv i ty therefore require the Parl iamentary Serv ices to be even more f lex ib le and responsive, and to have the capaci ty to develop innovat ive solut ions, whi le at the same t ime respect ing the need to be economical and sat isfy the needs of deput ies. I t is a lso necessary to establ ish a scale of pr ior i t ies wi th regard to the range of serv ices of fered: That way the needs of the par l iamentary bodies must take precedence over the request of indiv idual deput ies.The aim is to of fer the par l iamentary bodies and deput ies the best poss ib le solut ions, and at the same t ime to respond in a professional manner to the growing and changing demands whi le keeping costs low. I t is a lso necessary to explo i t exist ing synergies and to place emphasis on encouraging greater versat i l i ty among staff .

3.2 Concept and validation phase

The concept phase was staggered over a per iod of seven months between October 2011 – Apri l 2012 (appendix 2) .Based on the general analys is , the management board f i rs t drew up a strategic v is ion looking to 2016. This v is ion sets out a number of specif ic character ist ics regarding the si tuat ion in which the Par l iamentary Services would l ike to be in looking towards 2016. The text was del iberate ly kept short and easi ly understandable, and is intended for the senior staf f of al l the serv ices.The vis ion consists of f ive main pr inc ip les which are interrelated and complement each other:

Fi rs t pr incip le: The Par l iamentary Services are independent and uphold the interests of parl iament . They contr ibute to the strengthening of par l iament as an inst i tut ion.

Second pr incip le: The Parl iamentary Services act ively assist parl iament , i ts bodies and members in the fu l f i lment of their tasks.

Third pr inc ip le: The Par l iamentary Services operate to a greater extent as an ent i ty in i ts own r ight. They demonstrate forward planning and show a high level of profess ional ism, provide the best service possible, are attent ive to the needs of ‘c l ients ’ , and to the economic eff ic iency of their work and th ink global ly.

Fourth pr inciple: The Par l iamentary Serv ices cont inual ly improve Par l iament’s information and communicat ions services on behal f of the publ ic .

Fi f th pr inciple: The Par l iamentary Services foster openness and respect. They encourage cont inuing educat ion and t ra in ing and improvement. The employer and i ts employees demonstrate f lexibi l i ty in terms of responsibi l i t ies and socia l competences.

In a second stage, the management board transposed these f ive pr incip les into a number of s trategic goals which are l inked to f ie lds of act ion.Schematical ly, the management board ident i f ied ten pr ior i ty f ie lds of act ion:

Role and posi t ioning of the Par l iamentary Services Cost t ransparency Range and scope of services Innovat ion in terms of services Service guarantees New technologies Harmonisat ion of processes Culture of change Staff development Staff and team management

Final ly, the st rategic v is ion, the goals and the f ie lds of act ion were la id open for consultat ion, in the form of projects , f rom senior s taff and the personnel commission. The commission was invi ted to make i ts v iews known and to propose modi f icat ions. The statements were then discussed by the members of the management board. This in turn resul ted in a project which was turned into a workshop involv ing al l senior staff af ter which there was f inal val idat ion.The management board wi l l present i ts project to i ts supervisory body, the Administrat ion Delegat ion, at the end of Apr i l .

3.3 Implementation phase

The implementat ion phase, which is by far the most del icate, should star t in May of th is year.This wi l l involve

sett ing plans of act ion and detai l ing the measures for each pr ior i ty f ie ld of act ion,

determining responsib i l i t ies, t imeframes and re levant indicators, and to moni tor implementat ion.

The plan is for the heads of service to draw up plans of act ion under the superv is ion of the management board. For the t ime being, there are no plans to conduct restructur ing. However i t cannot be ru led out that implementing the s trategy requires a s impli f icat ion of structures and a real locat ion of resources.

3.4 A few observations in the shape of a conclusion

I t is st i l l too ear ly to draw f i rm conclus ions about the approach taken by the Par l iamentary Serv ices.At th is stage, i t is possib le to make a few observat ions:

One of the factors of success in drawing up a strategy l ies in the essent ia l place given to part ic ipat ion by senior staff , employees and employee associat ions.

Throughout the process the management board was at pains to put in p lace a transparent procedure and to make t ime for d iscussion and communicat ing information. Senior staf f were involved at a l l stages of the procedure (analysis, v is ion and implementat ion) . The i terat ive process chosen al lowed the management

board and senior staf f to return to the di f ferent stages of the process on numerous occasions in order to complete and subsequent ly val idate them. The approach also focussed on the recognising the qual i t ies of senior s taff in their f ie ld and the pr ide of staff in working for parl iament . With very few except ions, the approach has wel l accepted and those involved demonstrated a responsib le and construct ive att i tude.

The preparat ion, formulat ion, fol lowed by the implementat ion of a s trategy requires a great deal of involvement on the part of management. Right f rom the outset the management board took the decis ion not to cal l on the services of an external consultant to do the job in i ts place; in order to make the s trategy i ts own, the management board took the v iew that i t had to do the work i tsel f . This demanded a great deal of t ime: the management board held a large number of working meetings in order to def ine the r ight approach to take and to moni tor the process.

This was not without problems. Change management is rather a foreign concept to the cul ture of the Parl iamentary Services. In order to convince people of the sound reasoning behind the approach the management board had to dispel numerous fears and overcome certa in obstacles. On several occasions the management board had to remind people that the preparat ion of a strategy was not intended to resolve past d if f icu l t ies, but to respond to future needs and issues.

A s trategic process imposes a subt le dose of speed and rest ra int , of coercion and dia logue. One needs to proceed swif t ly to benef i t f rom a certa in momentum, but too hast i ly; one has to be f i rm on certain set pr incip les, but demonstrate great f lexibi l i ty wi th regard to their appl icat ion in operat ional real i ty ; the ski l l l ies in foster ing dia logue wi th those concerned.

The not ion of dia logue is essent ia l . In the present case, dia logue took place between the management board and senior s taff , but a lso among senior s taff . These exchanges were benef ic ia l in the fact that they al lowed the services to get to know and understand each other bet ter.

I t is c lear from what has been said that a st rategic process is above al l a learning process in i tsel f and opportunity for introspect ion. The chosen approach had the advantage that i t a l lowed the parl iamentary administrat ion to quest ion i ts own pract ices and habi ts, to quest ion i ts own organisat ion and ra ison d’êt re. By taking a cr i t ica l look at themselves, the services demonstrated that they were capable of quest ioning their way of doing th ings in order to grow. This awareness created the beginnings of a new culture based on change.

We are aware that we are at the s tart of a lengthy process and that the outcome four years from now wi l l be vast ly di f ferent f rom what we imagined. Nevertheless, creat ing a s trategy is just as much an aim in i tsel f as an approach. The aim is to improve serv ice and strengthen the act iv i ty of par l iament and the qual i ty of democracy. The approach is to be constant ly cr i t ical of the way in which i t funct ions and to seek ways of improving i t .

References

1.Moral Let ters to Luci l ius LXXI, in: « Œuvres complètes de Sénèque le phi losophe », tome 6, C.-L.-F. Panckoucke, Par is, 1834, p. 149.2.With a budget of EUR 85 mi l l ion, the Swiss parl iament is re lat ively good value for money: according to a comparat ive study conducted on behal f of the Par l iamentary Services among twenty OECD states, the Swiss par l iament is the one wi th the

lowest operat ing costs ; i t is second from last in the l is t of MPs’ bas ic remunerat ion (H. Z'graggen, « Die Professional is ierung von Par lamenten im histor ischen und internat ionalen Vergleich », Haupt Ver lag, Bern/Stuttgart /Wien, Berner Studien zur Pol i t ikwissenschaft , Nr. 19, 2009, p. 100).3.A recent survey carr ied out among members of par l iament showed that over hal f of Nat ional Counci l members considered themselves to be semi-profess ional MPs and that over half of Counci l of States members considered themselves to be profess ional MPs (S. Büt ikofer / S. Hug, “Auf dem Weg zum Berufspar lament” , Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 4.5.2010). According to the same authors, “Switzer land’s mi l i t ia par l iament has become a chimera” (S. Büt ikofer / S. Hug, “Le par lement de mi l ice cher aux Suisses a de fa i t d isparu” , Le Temps, 5.5.2010).4.« Les hommes droi ts et s imples sont di f f ic i les à tromper […]. Quand on voi t chez le p lus heureux peuple du monde des t roupes de paysans régler les af fa i res de l ’Etat sous un chêne et se conduire toujours sagement, peut-on s’empêcher de mépr iser les raff inements des autres nat ions qui se rendent i l lust res et misérables avec tant d’ar t et de mystères ? » [« Simple s traightforward men are hard to deceive […]. When among the wor ld ’s happiest people we see a group of peasants gathered under an oak to regulate the s tate ’s affai rs, and always act ing wisely , can we help scorning the sophist icat ion of other nat ions, which put so much ski l l and so much mystery into making make themselves i l lustr ious and wretched?” (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “Du contrat socia l, ou Principes du droi t pol i t ique”, Amsterdam, Marc Michel Rey, Amsterdam, 1762, p. 233).5.As an anecdote: for a large number of staff , the possessive is a standard part of their language as they never cease to refer to ‘ their ’ committee, ‘ their ’ president, etc. ref lect ing a form of appropr iat ion of the par l iamentary bodies for which they work.”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr SCHWAB for h is communicat ion, and inv ited members present to put quest ions to h im.

Mrs Danièle RIVAILLE (France) asked why the idea of conduct ing an external audi t had in the end been re jected, whether there were f inancia l or other reasons, given that reports by external audi tors were often thought to be more impart ia l . She also asked how the consultat ion with the trades unions had gone.

Mr Mohamed Kamal MANSURA (South Africa) expla ined that a review of good governance pol ic ies had been launched in South Afr ica, and that par l iamentar ians themselves had guided th is reform by establ ishing a s trategy, which had set out concrete object ives for indiv idual Departments. He ci ted in part icular the passing of the law on the f inancia l reform of Par l iament, which provided that i t was necessary to just i fy the f inancia l need and to account for the resul ts of the spending. Mr Mansura thought that this was part of a wor ldwide evolut ion in the administrat ion and management of Par l iaments, that of account ing on the one hand to par l iamentar ians, and on the other, to the publ ic.

Mr Gherardo CASINI, (Global Centre for IT in Parl iament; Observer) said that the Global Centre had worked wi th many Par l iaments on strategic p lanning. He asked i f c iv i l society representat ives had been consul ted, and i f the AFOM strategy had been accompanied by targeted strategies for technical Departments.

Ms Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE asked how Swiss MPs managed having another profess ional act iv i ty , and i f they therefore received two salar ies.

Mrs Doris MWINGA (Zambia) asked i f an internal audit was suf f ic ient , how MPs had been involved in th is st rategic in i t ia t ive, and i f they had also looked at the way they div ided their t ime between their work as an MP and their profess ional act iv i t ies.

Mr Alexis WINTONIAK (Austr ia) noted the simi lar i t ies of the chal lenges faced in a l l countr ies. He asked who in the end – pol i t ic ians or administrat ion – had def ined the strategic object ives.

M. Geert HAMILTON (Netherlands) stressed the speci f ic i ty of the Swiss system, and i ts shared adminis trat ion for the two Houses. He asked how th is had been taken into account in the context of the reform, to the extent that the interests of the two Houses are necessar i ly and happi ly d i f ferent . He asked i f there had been di f ferences in the way the reform had been viewed between the two Houses.

Dr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI ( India) asked i f the implementat ion of the strategic plan had led to sav ings or increased expense.

Mr. Austin ZVOMA (Zimbabwe) said that in h is country, the system was also bicameral wi th a shared par l iamentary adminis trat ion, and expla ined that two strategic plans had been launched, one for the administrat ion, the other for the inst i tut ion i tsel f , concerning par l iamentar ians more di rect ly. These strategies had been implemented wi th the help of an external faci l i tator. He thought that the party that had been the most resistant to the change was not necessar i ly the civ i l servants, but rather the par l iamentarians themselves.

Mr Phil ippe SCHWAB expla ined that the decis ion to use internal audi tors was not l inked to f inancia l constraints , but to a desire to involve staf f as much as possib le in the implementat ion of the s trategy. The parl iamentary administ rat ion was very speci f ic, and could not be compared wi th a pr ivate business or other branches of the publ ic service. A comparat ive methodology, borrowing from good pract ice used in neighbour ing countr ies, had been adopted. Quant i tat ive and qual i tat ive indicators had also been developed internal ly. From the beginning, i t had been stated c lear ly that i t was not a quest ion of saving money or restructur ing, but of seeing i f i t was possible to reorganise th ings to of fer a bet ter service wi th the same resources. The reform thus had to be carr ied out to a constant budget. Par l iamentar ians had also been asked to be able to determine pr ior i t ies, as they were not a lways aware of the impl icat ions of the requests they made.

As the search for consensus and compromise was very present in Switzer land, the two Houses had been brought to agreement wi thout great d i f f icu lty; th is had to be the case in any event, as no one could overru le the other. The Speakers and Deputy Speakers, as wel l as the top off ic ia ls, had determined the s trategic object ives. The publ ic had not been consul ted, the views of the publ ic being in any case ident i f iable through e-mai ls, let ters etc. For now, only an overal l st rategy had been def ined, but the idea of developing this into local st rategies had not been ru led out . Final ly, Mr Schwab expla ined that more and more par l iamentarians were fu l l - t ime or a lmost fu l l -t ime in their parl iamentary dut ies : th is was the case for around 50-60% of the members of the upper House and 80% of those of the lower House. I f they had another job, par l iamentar ians were paid only pro rata for the t ime they dedicated to Par l iament. Some jobs were incompatib le wi th being a Member of Par l iament.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr SCHWAB for h is communicat ion, as wel l as a l l those members present who had put quest ions to him.

3. Communication by Mrs Jacqueline BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN, Secretary General of the House of Representatives of the States General of Netherlands: “How to optimally support a Parliament in times of cutbacks”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, invi ted Mrs Jacquel ine BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN, Secretary General of the House of Representat ives of the States General of Nether lands, to present her communicat ion, as fo l lows:

“Today I would l ike to d iscuss with you the fo l lowing quest ion: How can we opt imal ly support our parl iaments in t imes of cutbacks?

I wi l l descr ibe in broad out l ine the re lat ionship between the Dutch Cabinet and the House of Representat ives of the Nether lands as far as the budget of the House is concerned. I wi l l also describe the out l ine of a new pi lot project “ the new Way of Working”. Af ter that I would l ike to hear from you about your exper iences wi th the choices and di lemmas I am about to share wi th you.

In the Nether lands, the Minis ter of the Inter ior and Kingdom Relat ions is const i tut ional ly responsib le, on behalf of the Government, for drawing up the budget of both chambers of the States-General - as the Dutch Par l iament is cal led - and the other so-cal led High Counci ls of State. This is laid down in our Const i tut ion and in the Government Accounts Act .The responsib i l i ty of the Minister of the Inter ior and Kingdom Relat ions involves that the Government can exercise inf luence on the s ize of the budget as wel l as on the al locat ion of the money; for the House of Representat ives ' expendi ture is part of the overal l nat ional budget. However, wi thout d iscr iminat ion to the responsibi l i ty at tr ibuted by the Government Accounts Act to the Minister of the Inter ior and Kingdom Relat ions, the House of Representat ives contro ls i ts own budget.

The way in which the budget of the House of Representat ives is prepared, d i f fers from the way in which the annual budgets of the Government departments are drawn up. This is due to the complex re lat ion between the Minister of the Inter ior and Kingdom Relat ions and the House of Representat ives.

Every year in May or June, pr ior to the next budget year, the House of Representat ives draws up i ts own budget , cal led the Est imates. I t contains provis ions for MPs (compensat ion and the cost of t ravel and other expenses), former MPs, ( t ransi t ional a l lowances and pensions), al lowances for the costs of par l iamentary groups and the House's operat ing costs (staf f and equipment).

In i ts capaci ty as co- legis lator, Par l iament a lso plays a formal ro le in drawing up i ts own budget . Moreover, Par l iament can exercise inf luence on the contents of i ts budget. Both chambers of Par l iament adopt their own Est imates in separate publ ic s i t t ings, wi thout the Government being involved. Subsequent ly , the Est imates of both chambers are submit ted to the Minist ry of the Inter ior and Kingdom Relat ions for inclusion in the nat ional budget. The Est imates form the basis of what wi l l eventual ly be the nat ional budget chapter I IA on the States-General .

The House of Representat ives is not only co- legis lator , but - being the body formal ly represent ing the people - a lso has the duty to scrut inize the work of the Government. This leads to the si tuat ion that the Government, whose work is

scrut in ized by the House of Representat ives, has some contro l over the budget of the body whose job i t is to scrut in ize the Government 's work. In the past many disagreements occurred between the Government and the House of Representat ives about the size of the budget ( the Est imates) drawn up by the House of Representat ives.

Ear ly in the 1990s, a management arrangement was concluded wi th the Minister of the Inter ior and Kingdom Relat ions. In br ief , this arrangement comes down to the Government tak ing note of the Est imates before incorporat ing them into the nat ional budget. Subsequent ly , the Government comments on the draft Est imates. The House of Representat ives is f ree to incorporate the comments made by the Government, or not . So, in pr inc ip le, the Est imates are incorporated unal tered into the nat ional budget, i f the House of Representat ives so desires. I f necessary, the House can enforce th is through the r ight of amendment.

In the event of nat ional retrenchment targets being set by the Government , the House of Representat ives has always contr ibuted, of i ts own wi l l , to the cutbacks required. As a rule, i t does so by accept ing a best ef for ts obl igat ion, meaning that i t fo l lows a pol icy of restra int spending, rather than reducing the budget in advance.

The management arrangement has come under pressure as a resul t of the current recession. The Minister of the Inter ior and Kingdom Relat ions expects the House of Representat ives to contr ibute to meet ing the cutback target set by the nat ional Government. In the draft 2012 budget, the Minister of the Inter ior and Kingdom Relat ions introduced a reduct ion of the budget of the States-General , which factual ly const i tutes a v io lat ion of the management arrangement . Subsequent ly , the House of Representat ives once again expressed i ts readiness to take on a best ef forts obl igat ion wi th regard to those budget sect ions cover ing the House's adminis trat ion and the pol i t ica l organizat ion that can be inf luenced.

The Government has calculated the amount of the cutback target over the ent i re budget of the House, including for instance budget i tems such as MPs' compensat ion, t ransi t ional al lowances and pensions. There is an ongoing discussion wi th the Minister of the Inter ior and Kingdom Relat ions about the impossib i l i ty of incorporat ing these budget i tems in the best ef for ts obl igat ion. This budget i tem cannot be af fected without changing the law, which would require a two-th i rd major i ty of the House. On the contrary al lowances for the costs of par l iamentary groups, the Par l iamentary inquiry budget, pr int ing and t ravel expenses of working vis i ts of MP’s, are expl ic i t ly included in the cutback operat ion. The House takes the posit ion that the best ef forts obl igat ion may not exceed 6%. As a resul t the House and the minister of the Inter ior and Kingdom Relat ions are in d isagreement.

This is a l l the more press ing as the pol i t ica l groups in Par l iament see the storm bui ld ing and take up arms. They now look with Argus' eyes at the House's administrat ion: is the human resources department perhaps too big? What does the information department actual ly do and should the communicat ions department work more eff ic ient ly? Warding of f such quest ions f rom pol i t ic ians requires razor-sharp ins ight in al l the s tat ist ics, f igures, serv ices and products.

On the one hand, the House of Representat ives is prepared to contr ibute to the nat ional target . On the other hand, due to best ef for ts obl igat ions from the past, there is l i t t le f lexib i l i ty lef t in the budget of the House of Representat ives. Therefore, a lmost any cutback wi l l lead to a reduct ion in serv ices and inevi tably a lso to staff reduct ion. Implementing these budget cuts wi l l cur ta i l the possibi l i t ies of the House

to ful f i l i ts dut ies as co-legis lator and to scrut inize the work of the Government. I t is inevi table that the pol i t ic ians wi l l exper ience the consequences of the reduced and poorer services. This is part icular ly poignant because at the same t ime, the demand from society of services provided by the House is increasing rather than decreasing. The number of act iv i t ies carr ied out by and on behal f of MPs has grown considerably over the past years. Moreover, the number of v is i tors to the House of Representat ives is growing, which also leads to a greater appeal being made to some departments of the House's administrat ion. A sustainable solut ion for these developments has to be found f i rst of a l l wi th in the exist ing Est imates of the House. The solut ion has to be found f rom real locat ions wi thin the overal l budget, because cla ims to increase the budget are out of the quest ion.

That is why, in 2011, the Management Board of the House of Representat ives set up the Best Effor ts Obl igat ion Steer ing Committee. The assignment given to the steer ing committee was to analyse the current services, to map the savings opt ions and to lay them down in a catalogue.

Part ly thanks to the ef for ts of the Steering Committee, a l is t of 23 sav ings suggest ions was drawn up. The sum of the savings involved is s l ight ly h igher than the best ef forts obl igat ion, which leaves room, wi th in the savings opt ions, for ( l imi ted) setbacks. In June 2012, the proposals to meet the cutback target wi l l be submit ted to the House as part of the 2013 Est imates.

Meanwhi le, the House's administrat ion does not stand st i l l . A work ing group focusing on "smarter" working methods, set up by the Best Effor ts Obl igat ion Steer ing Committee, is consider ing possib i l i t ies of working more eff ic ient ly in a structural way. Personal pr inters in off ices can be done away wi th, subscr ipt ions to paper magazines can be cancel led and the telephone switchboard can be re located to the contro l room. I t was also found that is appropr iate in these t imes to l imi t the internal and external physical mai l del ivery services.

In the meantime, the Committee Support Uni ts have star ted a p i lot project: " the New Way of Working". This is a means of promoting being a good employee and promoting good employment pract ices, in l ine with soc ia l and technical developments. Both are spearheads of the human resources pol icy of the House of Representat ives. The New Way of Working can lead to a more effect ive, more eff ic ient and more pleasant way of working. Staf f members are g iven the opportuni ty to make the most of themselves, by g iv ing them more freedom as to how, where and wi th whom the job is done. Character ist ic features are: the work can be done regardless of t ime and locat ion, management is resul t-or iented, everyone has f ree access to knowledge and exper ience, working re lat ionships are f lexible. Moreover, the pi lot project works both ways: in due course, th is way of working wil l have posit ive f inancia l ef fects as wel l , as t ravel expenses and extraordinary running costs wi l l go down.

Thank you very much for your attent ion. Now that I have out l ined the di lemma we are caught in, I am of course very interested in your experiences in this t ime of budget cuts. I am looking forward to your response.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Ms BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN for her communicat ion, and invi ted members present to put quest ions to her.

Mrs Phi l ippa HELME (United Kingdom ; substitute member) expla ined that the House of Commons Administ rat ion had been asked to reduce i ts outgoings by 17%

over the next three years. I t had been decided to reduce pr int ing, to look at outsourcing some services, and to try to generate income from some act iv i t ies, for example by charging tour ists to go up Big Ben. But th is last idea had been rejected by the House, and others would a lso perhaps not be accepted. I t was also proposed to reduce the number of senior posts by 10-15%: MPs approved of th is idea, but i t could pose organisat ional issues and create a shortage of promot ion opportuni t ies.

Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER (Germany) said that the same debate had taken place in the Bundestag, which was current ly f ree to v is i t , something that MPs did not want to change. Dr SCHOLER wanted to know where the savings had been found in the Dutch Par l iament, say ing that reducing staf f numbers could increase others’ work load considerably and create heal th problems at work, which had been ident i f ied in the Bundestag.

Mrs Jacquel ine BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN explained that the savings plan had been devised in col laborat ion wi th staf f f rom the pol i t ical groups and par l iamentary staff . Around one hundred suggest ions had been made, 23 had been taken on board, among them the closure of cer ta in restaurants, and l imits on the numbers of wri t ten quest ions that could be asked of committee secretar iats – al though demand cont inued to increase. At the same t ime, i t was essent ia l to avoid hours and working condi t ions becoming such that many staff , especial ly young staff with chi ldren, lef t the adminis trat ion. This would be a ser ious loss, especia l ly in terms of inst i tut ional memory.

Mr Mohammad Kazim MALWAN (Afghanistan) asked what exact ly the Par l iament’s budget covered, and whether th is included the costs of the par l iamentary groups.

Mrs Jacquel ine BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN repl ied that the money went to the par l iamentary groups and not to the pol i t ical part ies. This money, which was part of the par l iamentary budget , could never be used to f inance the part ies.

Mr Paul GAMUSI WABWIRE (Uganda) said that the Ugandan Parl iament was also try ing to reduce i ts costs, by l imi t ing the number of fore ign tr ips, reducing the size of delegat ions, but a lso through a recrui tment freeze, withdrawal f rom some internat ional organisat ions, a reduct ion in the number of seminars organised for MPs and their staf f etc.

Mrs Jacqueline BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN expla ined that in the Netherlands, the part ies themselves decided on the part ic ipat ion of their members in foreign tr ips.

Mr Alexis WINTONIAK (Austria) said that h is Par l iament had ident i f ied 19 sav ings measures, and that i t had proved di f f icul t to def ine intel l igent savings measures. I t was of ten said in the United States that you had to take advantage of a cr is is to restructure, but i t was for a l l that necessary not to forget your long-term object ives to avoid too sharp a deter iorat ion in the service provided.

Mrs Jacquel ine BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN repl ied that some pr ior i t ies on which there was no quest ion of scr imping had been def ined. A working group had been put in p lace to improve the eff ic iency of the par l iamentary administrat ion and take long-term object ives into account.

Mr Hans BRATTESTÅ (Norway) explained that in Norway, the Secretary General prepared the budget, which was put to the Presid ium, then sent to the Finance Minister for incorporat ion into the state budget. Last year, for the f i rst t ime, the

Government had reduced Par l iament’s budget. When the par l iamentary budget was being increased, th is could not be to a greater extent than any increase to the state budget. This could cause problems when the state of the par l iamentary bui ld ings required remedial work.

Mrs Jacqueline BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN expla ined that the Presid ium had accepted the Government ’s request to cut i ts budget by 6%, but had done so without reducing the pensions and al lowances for par l iamentarians nor the budget for the upkeep of bui ldings.

Ms Corinne LUQUIENS (France) expla ined that the Nat ional Assembly’s budget had been frozen since 2007, and reduced by 3% in 2012, an elect ion year. The normal staff complement of the Nat ional Assembly was 1,350 posts, but only 1,200 were current ly f i l led. Pr int ing costs had been reduced, and cuts had been made in every area. She had the impression that l imi ts were now start ing to be reached.

Ms Jul iet MUPURUA (Namibia; non-member) thought that i t was a medium-term chal lenge to reduce costs through the use of new technologies. In i t ial ly, i t was important to invest in infrastructure and in the train ing of parl iamentar ians, which was a signi f icant cost .

Mrs Jacquel ine BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN said that a l l in ter-cont inental t ravel by Dutch par l iamentar ians was in economy class. She agreed with Ms Mupurua, not ing that many technological innovat ions had been implemented in the Netherlands : these did indeed have a h igh star t-up cost and created needs on the part of par l iamentar ians.

Mr Manuel CAVERO GOMEZ (Spain) expla ined that the budget of the Spanish Senate had been cut by 12% in recent years. Pay for par l iamentar ians and c iv i l servants had been reduced. Publ ic opin ion had st i l l not been calmed by these steps and demanded more. He asked i f the cl imate was simi lar in the Nether lands.

Mrs Jacquel ine BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN thought that when ci t izens general ly were suf fer ing the consequences of budgetary cuts, i t was essent ia l to mainta in a strong Parl iament , which scrut in ised these cuts and the good use of publ ic money. This contradict ion was part of the interest of the Secretary General ’s job.

Mr Heiki SIBUL (Estonia) noted that three auster i ty p lans had been implemented, leading to a 30% reduct ion in expenses, through cuts in al lowances, an 8% cut in staff ing, salary cuts, cancel lat ion of subscr ipt ions to many magazines and newspapers, etc. At the end of 2011, fur ther st ructural reforms were nonetheless demanded, albei t of less signi f icant extent.

Mr Modibedi Eric PHINDELA (South Africa) said that he was st ruck to see how many Par l iaments were subject to budgetary constra ints, even though i t was their role to approve budgets.

Dr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI ( India) said that in India, in contrast , par l iamentar ians ’ pay had been increased on four occasions over recent years. Moreover, new people had been recrui ted, a res idence was being bui l t for par l iamentarians, they had been dis tr ibuted wi th iPads, a fund had been created al lowing them to fund certa in publ ic interest works in their const i tuencies, and f inal ly , a new par l iamentary annex had been bui l t and a new Department provid ing assis tance to parl iamentar ians had been created.

Mr Austin ZVOMA (Zimbabwe) judged that in his part of the wor ld, i t was very d if f icu l t to reduce expenses, as these were already very low. Salar ies were very s l ight , and therefore could not be reduced. This meant that the s i tuat ion was a l i t t le d if ferent. However, work ing methods could be improved in the search for greater ef f ic iency.

Mrs Jacqueline BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN thought that Par l iament, being f inanced by taxpayers, needed to manage i ts own budget in an exemplary manner. However, today i t was between a rock and a hard place, publ ic opin ion and the media on the one hand, and the essent ia l needs of the inst i tut ion on the other.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Ms BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN for her communicat ion, as wel l as a l l those members present who had put quest ions to her.

4. Concluding remarks

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked al l the part ic ipants and reminded members that the si t t ing on Monday morning would begin at 10 am.

The si t t ing rose at 5.20 pm

THIRD SITTINGMonday 2 April 2012 (Morning)

Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER, Vice-President, in the Chair (followed by Mr Marc BOSC, President, in the Chair)

The Sitting was opened at 10.00 am

1. Introductory remarks

Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER, Vice-President of the Association, welcomed members to the th i rd s i t t ing of the ASGP. He reminded members that the deadl ine for candidatures for the post of Vice-Pres ident was 11 am on Tuesday.

2. New member

Mr. Marc BOSC, President, said that the Secretar iat had received 1 request for membership, which had been put before the Execut ive Commit tee and agreed to. This was:

Mr. Mohammad RDAINI Secretary General of the House of Representat ives of Jordan(replac ing Mr. Fayez Al-Shawabkeh)

The new member was agreed to.

3. General debate: Things that can’t be said: limits on freedom of expression in parliamentary proceedings

Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER, Vice-President , invi ted Mr. Marc BOSC, President of the ASGP and Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons of Canada to open the debate.

Mr. Marc BOSC (Canada) spoke as fo l lows:

“Freedom of speech whi le engaged in the business of Par l iament is perhaps pre-eminent among the indiv idual pr iv i leges enjoyed by Members of Par l iament. Essent ial ly, th is pr iv i lege permits Members to del iberate f reely in the Chamber or in committee whi le enjoying complete immunity f rom civ i l or cr iminal prosecut ion for any comment which might be made. This pr iv i lege has important h is tor ical roots in Br i ta in, most notably in the Bi l l o f Rights of 1689, which saw f reedom of speech formal ly entrenched in i ts ful lest form in Engl ish const i tut ional law. The Bi l l o f Rights (ar t ic le IX) s tates that “ the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Par l iament ought not to be impeached or quest ioned in any court or p lace out of Par l iament. ” Thereafter , the only l imi tat ions of the f reedom of speech of Members of the Bri t ish Commons were those they imposed upon themselves.

In Canada, par l iamentary pr iv i lege in re lat ion to freedom of speech is enshrined in the Const i tut ion Act, 1867 and the Par l iament of Canada Act. Sect ion 4 of the Par l iament of Canada Act af f i rms that the House of Common has, essent ia l ly , a l l of the pr iv i leges enjoyed by the Br i t ish House of Commons. This includes the

par l iamentary f reedom of speech f i rst fu l ly guaranteed by Art ic le IX of the Bi l l o f Rights of 1689. Canadian jur isprudence has establ ished that th is f reedom of speech is enjoyed both by indiv idual Members and by the House col lect ively . I t is understood as a fundamental r ight wi thout which Members would be impeded in the performance of their dut ies. This r ight to speak dur ing proceedings of Parl iament is and must be exerc ised without hindrance or inhib i t ion.

I t is worthy of note that at the opening of each new Par l iament, when the Members are assembled in the Senate Chamber to hear the Speech f rom the Throne, the Speaker, on behal f of the House, addresses the Governor General to “humbly c la im[s] a l l their undoubted r ights and pr iv i leges, especia l ly that they may have freedom of speech in their debates. . . ” This r i tual serves as a powerfu l reminder that f reedom of speech and indeed other pr iv i leges enjoyed by Members of Parl iament , whi le now uncontested, were hard won.

How then can we speak in the par l iamentary context of th ings that cannot be said? What are the l imi tat ions which apply to the exercise of th is v i ta l f reedom of speech? In Canadian par l iamentary tradit ion, there are four pr imary l imi tat ions on the freedom of speech enjoyed by Members of Par l iament:

Firs t , the protect ion afforded by par l iamentary pr iv i lege does not extend to statements made outside of proceedings of Par l iament;

Second, Speakers have frequent ly caut ioned Members against the misuse of their f reedom of speech to at tack persons who lack the means to defend themselves against defamatory remarks made by Members in the House and in committee;

Third, i t is general ly accepted that Members wi l l refrain from comment on matters which are before the courts (sub judice ) ; and f inal ly,

The Standing Orders— the wr i t ten ru les for debate—confer upon the Speaker the author i ty to preserve order and decorum in the Chamber. Members are subject to th is author i ty and may be required by the Chair to l imi t their remarks in submiss ion to i t .

With respect to the f i rst l imitat ion, whi le Members may express themselves with relat ive impuni ty in the Chamber or in committee, they are subject to the same legal l imi tat ions on f reedom of speech which apply to other Canadians when they make statements or publ ish materia l in other contexts. These l imitat ions also apply to pr inted or e-mai led mater ia l publ ic ly dist r ibuted by a Member of Parl iament . I t does happen from t ime to t ime that Members forget th is and get themselves into legal d i f f icu l ty over th ings said outside the House. In the same vein, Members taking except ion to remarks made by other Members on “Twit ter”, and indeed, on other onl ine fora, have r isen on points of order, asking the Speaker to intervene on their behal f . The Chair has ru led that post ings to Twit ter are considered to be outside the House and not wi thin the jur isdic t ion of the Speaker.

The second category of l imitat ions are not a lways in the nature of binding obl igat ions. I f a Member of Par l iament chooses to make cr i t ica l comments about a member of the publ ic, for example, he or she may wel l be caut ioned by the Speaker, but i t is custom only that d ictates rest ra int in such mat ters.

This does not mean that such act ions are taken l ight ly . Successive Speakers of the House have made author i tat ive statements warning Members to refra in from remarks about persons who are not in a posi t ion to defend themselves. Noteworthy among these statements is that of Speaker Fraser, del ivered in 1987. Speaking to the

quest ion of f reedom of speech in general and of the harm which misuse of this pr iv i lege may occasion, Speaker Fraser to ld the House:

Such a pr iv i lege confers grave responsib i l i t ies on those who are protected by i t . By that I mean speci f ical ly the Hon. Members of th is p lace. The consequences of i ts abuse can be terr ible. Innocent people could be slandered wi th no redress avai lable to them. Reputat ions could be destroyed on the basis of fa lse rumour. Al l Hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in avai l ing themselves of their absolute pr iv i lege of f reedom of speech. That is why there are long -standing pract ices and tradi t ions observed in th is House to counter the potent ial for abuse.

The sub judice convent ion, the prohibi t ion against speaking of matters before the courts, is intended to ensure civ i l l i t igants and defendants in cr iminal proceedings get a fa i r t r ia l and to prevent any undue inf luence prejudic ing a judic ial decis ion or a report of a tr ibunal of inquiry. The purpose of the convent ion is actual ly twofold: to protect interested part ies and to maintain a separat ion and mutual respect between the legis lat ive and judic ia l branches of government . The convent ion appl ies only wi th respect to courts of record and to matters actual ly at t r ial . Speakers have tended to take a caut ious approach to the appl icat ion of th is convent ion, inter fer ing only in those c ircumstances in which there is a tendency to inf luence or prejudice. Members have general ly heeded warnings and respected ru l ings f rom the Chair wi th respect to matters sub judice.

Par l iaments in Austra l ia, New Zealand and elsewhere have adopted pract ices which speci f ical ly recognize the pr inc iples of natural just ice and apply these to legis lat ive and commit tee proceedings. Put s imply, natural just ice is fai rness of procedure – more speci f ical ly i t encompasses the ru le against b ias and the r ight to a fa i r hear ing. The New Zealand Bi l l o f Rights Act (1990), for example, prov ides for every person to have the r ight to the observance of the pr incip les of natural just ice by any publ ic author i ty. This is ref lected in the Standing Orders of the House of Representat ives where the pr incip les of natural just ice have been appl ied to select committee procedure by provid ing opportuni t ies for people to respond to al legat ions made about them at a committee and for a fa i r process to be fol lowed when evidence is given. Prov is ion has also been made for the disqual i f icat ion of a Member for a part icular i tem of business i f that Member has displayed clear b ias against a person in respect of cr iminal act iv i ty under invest igat ion by the committee. Canada’s House of Commons has not formal ly recognized the pr inc ip les of natural just ice as just i f icat ion for l imi tat ions on the freedom of speech of Members of Par l iament.

In the House of Commons, the l imitat ions on freedom of speech which ar ise from the author i ty granted to the Speaker by the Standing Orders are the most amenable to enforcement by the Chair. This is because the Standing Orders impose l imi tat ions agreed to by a major i ty of the Members themselves—the House has decided col lect ively to accept cer ta in l imi tat ions on the freedom of express ion of i ts Members. Thus indecorous, inappropriate or unpar l iamentary language can lead to d irect intervent ion from the Chair and to an order to wi thdraw the of fending remarks fo l lowed by speci f ic sanct ions i f the order is not compl ied wi th. The Chair can also intervene to prevent repet i t ion or ir re levance in the course of debate, a l though Speakers have tended to al low Members considerable lat i tude in th is regard.

I t is a basic pr inciple of par l iamentary procedure that proceedings in the House of Commons are conducted in terms of a free and civ i l discourse, a discourse that is pol i te, and not rude or of fensive, and Speakers work to ensure that reasonable

standards of c iv i l i ty are mainta ined. This framework is designed to ensure that debate conforms to the rules and pract ices that the House has adopted in order to protect i tsel f f rom excesses, vest ing in the Speaker the necessary author i ty to enforce those ru les and pract ices.

Having due regard to the importance of the Speaker ’s exerc ise of this authori ty , i t may be appropr iate to refer to certa in speci f ic categories of “ th ings that cannot be said” that have been establ ished by rule, custom and precedent .

At one end of the spectrum are tradi t ional rest r ic t ions obl ig ing Members not to refer to one another by name, but rather by t i t le , pos it ion or const i tuency name. This is intended to guard against the tendency to personal ize debate. For the same reason Members are not a l lowed to address one another d irect ly in the House, but must instead address al l of their remarks to the Speaker, and can refer to one another only through the Speaker in the th i rd person.

In addi t ion to these restr ict ions, the Standing Orders specify that : No Member shal l speak disrespect fu l ly of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family , nor of the Governor General or the person administer ing the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against e ither House, or against any Member thereof. No Member may ref lect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.

The prohib i t ion against d isrespectfu l ref lect ions on the persons, inst i tut ions or act ions l isted has t radi t ional ly been extended to members of the judic iary .

In i t ia l ly , i t may seem odd that the Standing Orders provide no fur ther restr ict ions of Members` language. This has in part to do wi th the importance and weight at tached to the var ious tradit ions and convent ions of the House in this regard. I t has as wel l to do wi th the fact that the determinat ion of what is and is not acceptable in debate must take place on a case-by-case basis and involve the exerc ise of the Speaker ’s d iscret ion.

By far the most frequent instance of th ings that cannot not be said is what fal ls under the general heading of “unparl iamentary language”. This includes personal at tacks, insul ts, and obscene, provocat ive or otherwise of fensive language. Speakers must judge on a case-by-case basis whether or not language is unpar l iamentary, governed by the general ru le that any language which may provoke disorder in the House is to be avoided. This is because the offensiveness of part icular express ions is c losely re lated to the context wi th in which they are used, to the tone, manner and intent ion of the Member who utters them and to the degree to which they provoke disorder. A word that in one context might be acceptable might wel l be deemed unpar l iamentary in another.

The Speaker must therefore subject ively decide what does and does not const i tute unpar l iamentary language in any given s i tuat ion. The Standing Orders give the Speaker indisputable jur isdic t ion over the proceedings of the House and most l imi ts on language are lef t to the Speaker’s d iscret ion, provid ing a f lexible procedural f ramework. Thus, whi le some procedural texts have attempted to l is t forb idden words and phrases, our pract ice in Canada has dr i f ted away from attempts at th is k ind of codi f icat ion.

Adjudicat ing language sometimes leads to a process of parsing. To give an example, on a number of occasions, former Speaker Peter Mi l l iken emphasized the important

dis t inct ion between accusing a Member of misleading the House and accusing him or her of doing so “del iberate ly” . Mis leading the House is something that any Member might do unintent ional ly, but to suggest that he or she has done so del iberate ly has consis tent ly been held to be unpar l iamentary.

Simi lar ly , Speakers have ruled that what would be held to be unparl iamentary i f at tr ibuted to a part icular Member, can, basical ly wi th impuni ty , be att r ibuted to the Government or to a pol i t ical party.

Should the Speaker f ind the ut terances of a part icular Member to be offensive or inappropr iate, he or she wi l l ask that the Member unequivocal ly wi thdraw the unpar l iamentary word(s) or phrase(s) . The Member’s apology is accepted in good fa i th and the matter is considered c losed. Fai lure to wi thdraw the offending word(s) may resul t in the Speaker ’s refus ing to “see” the of fending Member i f he or she r ises to be recognized unt i l the object ionable words have been wi thdrawn. In extreme cases, the Speaker may elect to “name” the Member, who is then required to wi thdraw f rom the Chamber for the remainder of the si t t ing.

The use of unparl iamentary language in the House of Commons tends most of ten to occur dur ing the dai ly Quest ion Per iod, a for ty-f ive minute exchange wherein opposi t ion Members may address quest ions to any Minister , the Prime Minister inc luded. Whi le the Speaker wi l l sometimes intervene on the spot , Members often r ise on points of order immediate ly af ter Quest ion Per iod to draw the attent ion of the Speaker to remarks which they found insult ing or otherwise offensive.

Our Standing Orders a lso make provis ion for a f i f teen-minute per iod each day during which Members of Parl iament who are not Ministers may make br ief statements (one minute or less) to the House. Since other Members have no r ight of reply to these statements, Speakers have intervened more readi ly on occasions in the past in which Members have used these statements as an opportuni ty to mount personal at tacks.

In this regard, former Speaker Mil l iken st ressed that , as with most r ights, the r ight to freedom of speech in the House was never intended to be an absolute r ight to unbr idled oratory. With f reedom of speech, he under l ined, comes a responsib i l i ty for a l l Members to respect the ru les that prevent abuses.

In summary, Members of Par l iament are free to speak on any subject in the Chamber and in committees of the House wi thout fear of any legal responsib i l i ty for what they say. Whi le th is freedom is in theory absolute, the House has, of i ts own accord, imposed certa in l imi tat ions on i t , endowing i ts Speaker wi th the author i ty and discret ion necessary to serve as arbi ter of those l imi tat ions. The resul t , i f a l l th ings funct ion as they should, is a c iv i l and substant ive d iscourse, enhanced and not l imited by the absence of the ‘ th ings that can’ t be said. ’”

Dr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI ( India) presented a wr i t ten contr ibut ion, as fol lows:

Introduction

1. Freedom of speech and expression const i tutes the breath of l i fe of democracy. In democrat ic const i tut ions, the freedom of speech and expression is the fundamental r ight of the ci t izens. This freedom, however, is not absolute and is governed by the norms of decent conduct in a c iv i l ised society. Members of Parl iament enjoy the freedom of speech whi le part ic ipat ing in the debates and discussions in the House

so that they can discharge their responsib i l i t ies wi thout any let or hindrance. Undoubtedly, the Members have to remain sensi t ive and responsive to the publ ic interests and opin ions. They are a lso expected to adhere to the par l iamentary et iquette and high standards of behaviour whi le conduct ing themselves inside as well as outside the legis lature. Consti tutional provisions and Rules of Procedure as l imits on freedom of expression

2. Art ic le 105 of the Const i tut ion of India inter al ia provides the powers, pr iv i leges, etc. including the f reedom of speech and vote of the Members inside the Par l iament wi thout subject ing them to the scrut iny of the courts. However, these are subject to the provis ions of the Const i tut ion, rules and standing orders regulat ing the procedure of Par l iament. The Const i tut ion, under Art ic le 121, has also placed restr ic t ions on del iberat ions in Parl iament by prohib i t ing discussions wi th respect to the conduct of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of h is dut ies, except upon a motion for present ing an address to the President pray ing for the removal of the Judge.

3. The business of the House is governed not only by the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Counci l of States (Rajya Sabha), but a lso the rul ings as well as the di rect ions from the Chair and convent ions of the House. The Presiding Of f icer , who is entrusted wi th the task of preserving order and enforc ing the ru les, has to s tr ike a del icate balance in protect ing the r ights of the Members and, at the same t ime, upholding the digni ty and decorum of the House. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Counci l of States provides for penal provis ions in case of disorder ly conduct by Members. For example, Rule 255 states:The Chairman may direct any member whose conduct in h is opin ion grossly d isorderly to wi thdraw immediate ly from the Counci l and any member so ordered to wi thdraw shal l do so for thwi th and shal l absent himsel f during the remainder of the day’s meet ing.

Rule 256 prov ides:(1) The Chairman may, i f he deems i t necessary, name a member who disregards the author i ty of the Chair or abuses the ru les of the Counci l by persistent ly and wi l fu l ly obstruct ing the business thereof. (2) I f a member is so named by the Chairman, he shal l for thwi th put the quest ion on a motion being made, no amendment, adjournment or debate being al lowed, that the member (naming him) be suspended from the service of the Counci l for a per iod not exceeding the remainder of the sess ion:Provided that the Counci l may, at any t ime, on a mot ion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated. (3) A member suspended under th is ru le shal l forthwi th qui t the precincts of the Counci l .

Rules to be observed while speaking

4. Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Counci l of States, contain speci f ic rules which govern the conduct of Members whi le speaking. Rule 238 states that a Member whi le speaking shal l not: ( i ) refer to any matter of fact on which a judic ia l decis ion is pending; ( i i ) make a personal charge against a Member; ( i i i ) use offensive expressions about the conduct or proceedings of the Houses or any State Legislature; ( iv) ref lect on any determinat ion of the Counci l except on a motion for rescinding i t ; (v) ref lect upon the conduct of persons in high author i ty unless the

discussion is based on a substant ive motion drawn in proper terms (The words “persons in h igh author i ty” mean persons whose conduct can only be discussed on a substant ive motion drawn in proper terms under the Const i tut ion or such other persons whose conduct, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be discussed on a substant ive motion drawn in terms to be approved by him); (v i ) use the Pres ident ’s name for the purpose of inf luencing the debate; (v i i ) ut ter t reasonable, sedi t ious or defamatory words; (v i i i ) use his r ight of speech for the purpose of obstruct ing the business of the Counci l .

Allegations against Members

5. Simi lar ly, Rule 238A of the Rules of Procedure lays down that no al legat ion of a defamatory or incr iminatory nature shal l be made by a Member unless the Member has given adequate advance not ice to the Chairman and also to the Minister concerned so that the Minis ter may be able to make an invest igat ion into the matter for the purpose of a reply . I t fur ther provides that a Member may be prohib ited from making any such al legat ion i f the Chairman is of opin ion that i t is derogatory to the digni ty of the House or that no publ ic interest is served by making such al legat ion.

Questions to be asked through Chairman

6. Rule 239 provides that i f a Member desires to make an observat ion on a matter before the House or to ask a quest ion of another Member, e i ther to obtain c lar i f icat ion or for the purpose of any eluc idat ion or explanat ion about a mat ter which is under considerat ion of the House, he has to do so through the Chair . As per the convent ion of the House, he must not address indiv idual Members of the House while speaking, but should always address the Chair and make al l remarks to other Members through the Chair . I t is des irable that , as far as pract icable, a Member should not be referred to by name but in some other sui table way e.g. ‘ the Member who has last spoken’ , ‘ the Member represent ing such and such State ’ , ‘ the Member from …’ etc. I f necessary, fu l l name may be used. Simi lar ly , Ministers should be referred to by their speci f ic des ignat ion and not by name.

Irrelevance or repetit ion

7. Under Rule 240, the Chairman has the power to d i rect a Member to d iscont inue his speech, af ter hav ing cal led the at tent ion of the Counci l to the conduct of the Member, who persists in i rre levance or in tedious repet i t ion ei ther of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate.

Order of speeches and r ight of reply

8. Under Rule 242, a Member has to fo l low the order of speeches and r ight of reply as fo l lows: (1) After the member who moves a motion has spoken, other members may speak in such order as the Chairman may cal l upon them. I f any member who is so cal led upon does not speak, he shal l not be ent i t led, except with the permiss ion of the Chairman, to speak to the motion at any later stage of the debate.(2) Except in the exerc ise of a r ight of reply or as otherwise prov ided by these ru les, no member shal l speak more than once to any mot ion, except wi th the permission of the Chairman.(3) A member who has moved a motion may speak again by way of reply, and i f the motion is moved by a pr ivate member, the Minister concerned may, wi th the

permission of the Chairman, speak (whether he has prev iously spoken in the debate or not) af ter the mover has repl ied:Provided that nothing in this sub-ru le shal l be deemed to g ive any r ight of reply to the mover of an amendment to a Bi l l or a resolut ion save with the permiss ion of the Chairman.

When Chairman rises

9. Rule 243(1) prov ides that whenever the Chairman r ises, he shal l be heard in s i lence and any Member who is then speaking or of fer ing to speak shal l immediately s i t down.

Expunction of words from proceedings

10. Rule 261 of the Rules of Procedure provides that i f the Chairman is of opin ion that a word or words has or have been used in debate which is or are defamatory or indecent or unpar l iamentary or undignif ied, he may in h is d iscret ion, order that such word or words be expunged from the proceedings of the Counci l . In pract ice, the scope of this power has been enlarged and in some cases, the Chairman has ordered, in his d iscret ion, the expunct ion of words which he considered: prejudic ial to nat ional interest or to the maintenance of f r iendly re lat ions wi th a foreign State; derogatory to h igh dignitary inc luding heads of f r iendly foreign States; of fending nat ional sent iments or the re l ig ious suscept ib i l i t ies of a sect ion of the community; l ikely to d iscredit the Army; not in good taste; or otherwise object ionable and l ikely to br ing the House into d isrepute.

11. An expunct ion f rom the proceedings may be ordered: ( i ) by the Chairman suo motu i f he holds certa in words as defamatory, indecent, unpar l iamentary or undigni f ied; ( i i ) when the Chairman's attent ion is drawn by a Member or a Minister to object ionable words at the t ime they are uttered or subsequent ly and i f the Chairman agrees; ( i i i ) when the Chairman's attent ion is drawn by an off icer of the Secretar iat or otherwise to the object ionable words and i f the Chairman agrees; ( iv) where a Member himsel f requests that words from his speech may be expunged and i f the Chairman agrees; and (v) i f derogatory remarks are used by Members against each other.

12. When a Member speaks without being cal led upon to speak, or despi te being asked to resume his seat cont inues to speak, or speaks wi thout the permission of the Chair , the Chair may direct that remarks of such a Member may not form part of the record. Likewise, i f a Member cont inues to interrupt the speech of another Member or Minis ter, the Chair may direct that interrupt ions be not recorded.

Declaration of Interests

13. The r ight to informat ion has enabled ci t izens to secure information under the control of the publ ic author i t ies and i t serves the larger cause of promoting transparency and accountabi l i ty in the funct ioning of publ ic author i t ies and inst i tut ions. In th is context , the issue of conf l ict of in terests has assumed greater s igni f icance as the percept ion that pr ivate interests can inf luence par l iamentary act iv i ty and part ic ipat ion of Members of Par l iament would be inf luenced by their pr ivate interests . Regulat ing conf l ict of in terests has, therefore, become a means to control misuse of publ ic of f ice for personal gains in many democracies. Rajya Sabha has also put in p lace a robust and pract ical regime for regulat ing the conf l ict of interests in a fa i r , reasonable and harmonious manner. Rule 294(1) states that

whenever a Member has a personal or speci f ic pecuniary interest (d irect or indirect) in a matter being considered by the Counci l or a Committee thereof, he shal l dec lare the nature of such interest notwithstanding any regist rat ion of his interest in the Register , and shal l not part ic ipate in any debate tak ing place in the Counci l or i ts Commit tees before making such a declarat ion. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 294 provides that on a d iv is ion in the Counci l , i f the vote of a Member is chal lenged on the ground of personal , pecuniary or d i rect interest in the mat ter to be decided, the Chairman may, i f he considers necessary, cal l upon the Member making the chal lenge to state precisely the grounds of h is object ion, and the Member whose vote has been chal lenged shal l state h is case, and the Chairman shal l then decide whether the vote of the Member should be disal lowed or not and his decis ion shal l be f inal .

Conclusion

14. The freedom of speech and expression enjoyed by the Members is l imi ted by certa in const i tut ional provis ions, ru les of procedures and establ ished Par l iamentary customs, convent ions and et iquette which they need to observe both ins ide the House as wel l as outside i t . The var ious customs and convent ions are l isted in the ‘Handbook for Members’ issued by the Secretar iat f rom t ime to t ime. These are more in the nature of Do’s and Don’ ts to guide the Members in their par l iamentary behaviour. There is also a Code of Conduct, which contains certa in do’s and don’ ts for Members, and inter a l ia states that Members must not do anything that br ings disrepute to the Parl iament and af fects i ts credib i l i ty . Today, when the par l iamentary inst i tut ions face a cr i t ica l chal lenge of dec l in ing publ ic t rust and conf idence, Members need to observe high standards of conduct whi le part ic ipat ing in the proceedings of the House. This a lso demands observance of rules and showing respect to the Chair , who is entrusted wi th the task of managing the t ime of the House in an eff ic ient and ef fect ive manner.”

Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER, Vice-President , thanked Mr Marc BOSC and opened the debate to the f loor .

Ms Corinne LUQUIENS (France) expla ined that the ru les in France were very s imi lar to those in Canada, the general ru le being f reedom of expression guaranteed by legal immunity. In counterbalance, there were a certa in number of ru les to respect , the breach of which could be sanct ioned. These sanct ions went f rom a simple cal l to order to expulsion from the prec incts of the Assembly. They could be accompanied by f inancial sanct ions, which seemed moreover the most ef fect ive. She asked what sanct ions were provided for in the Canadian Par l iament.

Mr Hans BRATTESTÅ (Norway) expla ined that the Norwegian const i tut ion was great ly inspired by the French, but that Norwegian pract ice was closer to the Br i t ish. A simi lar system of immunit ies ex is ted in Norway, wi th inappropr iate behaviour or of fensive language being forbidden. The Speaker could in such a case cut of f a speaker mid- f low, or even exclude him from the Chamber for the day. The ru les on speaking demanded that MPs addressed themselves to the Speaker. Discip l ine was very st rong, which could sometimes make the business rather bor ing. The rules were almost never broken.

Mr Alphonse K. NOMBRÉ (Burkina Faso) asked who i t was that c la imed that par l iamentar ians were abusing their f reedom of expression, and whether their immunit ies extended beyond the Chamber.

Mr Vladimir SVINAREV (Russian Federation) expla ined that the main l imi ts on freedom of expression for MPs in Russia consisted in not inc i t ing acts of v io lence and not making ungrounded accusat ions. In such cases, the Speaker could depr ive an MP of the f loor wi thout warning. Cr iminal sanct ions were also envisaged where fa lse informat ion was presented.

Mr Ibrahim MOHAMED IBRAHIM (Soudan) noted the existence of a Code of Conduct in Sudan. F irst of a l l , MPs could only read their speeches when they were quot ing another person. They could not ta lk about any matter being considered as part of an inquiry or before the courts . They could not make accusat ions against indiv iduals, or part icular fa i ths or organisat ions. They also could not speak in a d isrespectfu l manner to the Speaker or Deputy Speakers. I t was the Speaker who decided i f these l imi ts had been breached.

Mrs Doris Katai Katebe MWINGA (Zambia) expla ined that parl iamentar ians regular ly complained when they were cal led to order for having cr i t ic ised absent col leagues. Complaints from members that others had made defamatory remarks about them in publ ic sess ion were no less uncommon. As in Norway and India, there was a l i t t le book of ‘unpar l iamentary’ words. For example, rec it ing poetry was not a l lowed. Nor was point ing at someone wi th your f inger.

Mr Manuel CAVERO GOMEZ (Spain) asked i f i t was possib le in Canada to impose a f ine, and i f th is k ind of sanct ion was not more judic ious than expulsion, g iven that the r ight to s i t in Par l iament was fundamental to Members.

Mrs Jacqueline BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN (Netherlands) noted a great s imi lar i ty between the Canadian and Dutch systems. She thought that the hardest ru les to apply in the Netherlands concerned behaviour: gestures, tone of voice, intent ions, were sometimes complex to interpret. As par l iamentar ians were representat ives of the people, i t was sometimes impossib le to enforce a certa in register or to ins is t repeatedly that they address others in the thi rd person.

Ms Claressa SURTEES (Australia) also noted the many s imilar i t ies with the Canadian system. She explained that parl iamentary debates had evolved great ly s ince they had been broadcast on radio and te levis ion, as shocking soundbi tes could be repeated many t imes on the ai rwaves, an opportuni ty that MPs wel l knew how to exploi t . Outs ide elements could inf luence not only the content , but also the form of par l iamentary d iscourse. She noted that MPs used Twit ter a great deal : comments made on Twit ter were not covered by par l iamentary immunity.

Mr Henry H. NJOLOMOLE (Malawi) asked i f a Canadian MP who attacked another physical ly fo l lowing disobl ig ing remarks would be proceeded against in the courts, or i f th is mat ter would be deal t wi th internal ly by Par l iament.

Mr Edwin BELLEN (Phil ippines) expla ined that the ru les of the Phi l ippine Senate stated simply that words that could offend a senator or publ ic inst i tut ion should not be spoken, but there was no exhaust ive l ist of ‘unpar l iamentary’ remarks. Offending remarks could be struck from the record. The eth ics committee could determine sanct ions, the most severe of which was expulsion for a maximum of two months.

Mr Mohammad Kazim MALWAN (Afghanistan) asked i f the sanct ions imposed on MPs could be appealed against, and i f there was a system for making apologies.

Mrs Phi l ippa HELME (United Kingdom; substi tute member ) said that the Bri t ish system was also very s imilar to the Canadian one. She thought i t could be useful to th ink of a system incorporat ing a r ight of reply . Remarks about indiv idual c i t izens could have caused problems in recent years, but i t had not yet been thought appropr iate to regulate them.

Mr Modibedi Eric PHINDELA (South Afr ica) asked i f , as in South Afr ica, there existed in Canada a system of r ight of reply in the Journal . He also wanted to know i f the immunit ies and pr iv i leges extended to p laces outs ide the precincts where the House or some of i ts bodies might meet. Final ly, he asked i f parl iamentar ians were protected in respect of their remarks made at publ ic meetings or in their const i tuencies.

Mr Phil ippe SCHWAB (Switzerland) asked i f the measures taken by the Speaker could be contested in the Bureau or Chamber. Were ‘unpar l iamentary’ remarks nonetheless publ ished in the transcr ipt of debates? As Commonweal th systems seemed very str ict , was th is a result of abuses or excesses, or was i t a part of Canadian cul ture?

Mr Claes MARTENSSON (Sweden) said that he came from an extremely consensual country , so consensual in fact that people sometimes wondered i f there was real ly any debate to be had in Par l iament. I t was rare for remarks to be made that were judged inappropr iate, and Speakers were hesi tant to sanct ion them, as they were themselves l i t t le incl ined to conf l ict .

Mr. Marc BOSC (Canada) explained that Canada no longer had a l ist of ‘unparl iamentary’ remarks, and si tuat ions tended to be managed on a case by case basis . He expla ined that i t was ext remely rare for a Speaker to expel a Member, because this tended to create a media ci rcus that was more to h is advantage than the sanct ion was to his d isadvantage. Suspensions by the Speaker were for only a day. The Chamber could theoret ical ly decide on a longer term, fo l lowing a more complex procedure, with an accompanying f ine, but there were no precedents for th is. Immunity appl ied only to remarks made wi th in the precincts of Par l iament . Mr Bosc thought that the dist inct ion between cr i t ic ism and defamat ion was sometimes f ine. Remarks made outside Par l iament had to be taken up before the ordinary courts. The publ ic percept ion of MPs was of ten very negat ive, as attested to by the quant i ty of mai l received f rom those watching Par l iament on te levis ion or f rom class groups come to v is i t the Chamber. Cases of physical v io lence in the Chamber could be deal t wi th in the Chamber, however, i f this v io lence was serious, i t would be possible to cal l in the pol ice and immunity would not apply. The decis ions of the Speaker could not be chal lenged. Offensive words were reproduced in the off ic ial record, because in any case debates were recorded. A ru le a l lowed for words to be struck f rom the record, but this procedure had never been used because i t would be of very l i t t le ef fect . These st r ic t ru les were the product of a tradi t ion part icular to Canadian cul ture.

Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER, Vice-President thanked Mr BOSC, President, and other members who had contr ibuted to the debate.

4. Communication by Mrs Yardena MELER-HOROWITZ, Secretary General of the Israeli Knesset: “The Knesset Visitors Centre -- Transparency and Accessibility”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, invi ted Mrs Yardena MELER-HOROWITZ, Secretary General of the Israel i Knesset, to present her communicat ion, as fo l lows:

“Today I am going to ta lk to you about a new in i t ia t ive that we have undertaken at the Knesset . A Visi tors Center whose whole idea or aim is to open the Knesset or par l iament to the people.

The word Knesset in Hebrew means “gather” and as such i t is a gather ing of voices in order to voice the needs of the people. The Knesset has always been open to the publ ic to a certa in extent , wi th a publ ic gal lery and organized tours. However, in th is age of instantaneous information and media coverage, we saw the need to go one step far ther.

In the past we had three types of tours, which were mainly frontal lectures in the two off ic ia l languages of Israel , Hebrew and Arabic, and we of fered specia l tours in other European languages on demand.

In addi t ion, The Minist ry of Educat ion’s department for democracy brought h igh school students to the Knesset and Supreme Court , as part of the nat ional key stage 2 civ ics curr iculum, In order to g ive them the chance to see democracy in act ion.

However, this was also not enough. I t d idn’ t reach everyone. For i t was untenable that a h igh school student would have never v is i ted the Knesset dur ing his s tudiesNot only that, the exist ing Knesset TV channel and internet coverage, both of which broadcast real- t ime to the publ ic, was also not enough, we wanted to make the ent ire Knesset accessible to every sector of the community.

So th is is what we have done:

On inaugurat ing the new wings and adding archaeological parks, connected to the bui ld ing, we added an archaeological and archi tectural tour , but th is was st i l l not enough. We added hours and days for v is i ts.And you can now v is i t the Knesset every working day and as we doubled the size of the Knesset campus, we can tr iple the number of v is i tors.

But th is was st i l l not enough.

The tours used to be st i l ted and even esoteric – they did not reach out to the people and did not al low al l sect ions and levels of our society to re late to and understand the Knesset .

We wanted to ensure that the most important under ly ing theme of our new tours is to make certa in that v is i tors would come away from the Knesset wi th a working knowledge of the processes involved, that they would feel more conf ident in their e lected representat ives, that there would be more transparency and accessib i l i ty through which the publ ic bui lds i ts t rust and conf idence in their e lected representat ives and the electoral process.

Therefore, the next step was to update a l l of our tours to incorporate a l l ages f rom 3-93, a l l communit ies from al l walks of l i fe . With that in mind, we crafted ta i lor-made tours to sui t pensioners, k indergarten chi ldren, teenagers, tour ists , s tudents, and new immigrants.

Adul t tours are of course easier to bui ld, but the chal lenge was to make the Knesset and the ideas of democracy accessib le to l i t t le chi ldren, for our future is in their hands. The chal lenge was: How to teach democrat ic values and freedom of speech, express ion and thought to a four year o ld!

We devised a tour for k indergarten chi ldren, which includes a combinat ion of c lass ic chi ldren’s and wel l - loved l i terature, deal ing with democrat ic values and free speech.The chi ldren get to v is i t the plenum i tsel f where they vote, bang the gavel and ta lk about how they would run the country , at the same t ime discussing the story that they have read in the context of problem solv ing. ‘Who is going to be responsib le for the mess in the sandpi t ! ’ Br inging the values we mentioned before into a context that they can understand and take home wi th them.

For older school chi ldren who have studied the topic in advance just l ike the kindergarten chi ldren, we have devised a model par l iament where they have the chance to p ick pol i t ica l part ies, bui ld their own mani festo, convince their voters and hold an elect ion. (Purple Party, Red Party , etc .)

We work together wi th the Educat ion Minis try for a l l ages, and for h igh school students we deal wi th the actual legis lat ive process and how a law is formed, passed through the committee s tage, prel iminary readings and then is f inal ly voted upon. Students are g iven the opportuni ty to see th ings in act ion - i t becomes real to them and they can “ latch on”, they can “get i t ” .

We are a l l aware of comparat ive research which has shown that the publ ic ’s lack of conf idence and trust in their par l iaments is gaining momentum. The sad real i ty being that we chose our representat ives and the minute they cross the threshold of the bui ld ing, the very same publ ic who chose them now decides to cr i t ic ize them!

And so, th is type of act iv i ty where s tudents are actual ly involved in the process al lows them to ident i fy wi th the Knesset and everyth ing that goes on inside that “ ivory tower” , in real t ime. They get to s i t in the actual committee rooms, ta lk through the mikes, go and watch the Knesset channel in act ion and even get to ta lk to an actual l ive MP! I t ’s real , i t ’s accessib le and i t ’s tangib le.

The Knesset is brought to them and they understand that i t is their Knesset and their l ives which are being discussed in the plenum.

And we have devised a ser ies of special in terest groups for d i f ferent language populat ions who may have cultural or re l ig ious preferences. This way we have adjusted our tours to be cul tural ly d iverse and of interest to any vis i tor whatever h is community or bel ief system

And f inal ly, we have incorporated a vis i t to the Knesset as part of every sold ier ’s and secur i ty forces, educat ional f ield tr ip, ei ther dur ing his nat ional service, or as part of annual in-service train ing. Here not ions of democracy and problem solv ing are incorporated in the secur i ty forces ' br ief , in order to help c i t izens who are act ive in securi ty matters to reta in the importance of democrat ic values.

Just two months ago, we celebrated “Arbor Day” where we tradi t ional ly plant t rees and ta lk about ecological mat ters, but th is is also the Knesset ’s of f ic ial b i r thday. As such, th is year, for the f i rst t ime, the Visi tors Center took i t upon i tself to open the doors of the Knesset and organized an enormous publ ic event where everyone could

come to the Knesset and take part in a var iety of cultural and educat ional events. I t was a wonderfu l jamboree.

4000 chi ldren, s tudents, sold iers, and pensioners came to hear a variety of lectures by MPs and the Knesset Speaker and myself , and we gave a ser ies of lectures about democracy in act ion and how the plenum works.

There were MPs who read stor ies and gave craft workshops to l i t t le chi ldren. There were MPs who ta lked about their or ig inal professions or even gave a f lower arranging demonstrat ion. There were events to sui t a l l tastes and interests. And the whole day was inter laced wi th musical inter ludes in corr idors and a jazz band made up of music s tudents in the cafeter ia. Vis i tors were even welcomed in the forecourt by the pol ice marching brass band. I t was a party for democracy!

The Visi tors Center has been open since December and we are del ighted wi th the response we have had from the publ ic.

We feel that the act iv i t ies that we have developed in the Visi tors Center have not only given the publ ic the opportuni ty to interact favourably with the work ings of the Knesset , but they have become int imately involved wi th the Knesset. They have walked the same corr idors they see on TV. They can meet the MPs and they can tru ly understand that th is is their house, these are their representat ives

Transparency is not looking through, i t 's looking in – the publ ic can look in to the work ings of the Knesset , look in to debates not just look AT debates. We have created the opportuni ty for our community to feel connected to the Knesset and after a l l , we, at the Knesset are part of the community as wel l . ”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mrs Yardena MELER-HOROWITZ for her communicat ion and inv ited members present to put quest ions to her.

Mr Mohamed Kamal MANSURA (South Africa) congratulated Mrs MELER-HOROWITZ on her enthusiasm. He under l ined the importance of involv ing c it izens in Par l iament’s act iv i t ies, through vis i ts . Cape Town was si tuated at the southern t ip of South Afr ica, and was not easy for al l c i t izens to access. A vi r tual tour , leaf lets for chi ldren and many other in i t iat ives had therefore been designed to br ing Par l iament to the c it izen.

Mr David BEAMISH (United Kingdom) made clear that these issues were also a central subject for thought in the United Kingdom. A report had been publ ished some t ime before showing that Par l iament was in real i ty not very accessib le, especial ly for people l iv ing far f rom London. A programme had been put in p lace in the Lords cal led “Peers in schools” . Debat ing compet i t ions in the House of Lords Chamber had also been organised. As the par l iamentary bui ld ings were of the highest her i tage value, i t was also necessary to prevent an inf lux of too many tour ists .

Mr Johannes JACOBS (Namibia) explained that he had vis i ted the Knesset not long before, and part ic ipated in a seminar on th is issue.

Mr Emmanuel ANYIMADU (Ghana) thought that th is type of ini t ia t ive was a model and asked Mrs MELER-HOROWITZ to send him more informat ion about the content of the v is i ts.

Mrs Jacqueline BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN (Netherlands) ment ioned the House of Democracy, opened the previous year in the Netherlands. 182,000 people had vis i ted i t in a year. She hoped to v is i t the Knesset to see i ts Vis i tor Centre for hersel f .

Mrs Yardena MELER-HOROWITZ added that the Visi tor Centre had not been very expensive, wi th other savings having been made elsewhere as wel l . The vis i t programmes were devised in col laborat ion wi th s taff of the Minis try of Educat ion. The react ion f rom the publ ic had been very enthusiast ic, wi th around 16,000 v is i tors a month. Current ly, the Knesset was th inking of devis ing a programme for d isabled people.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mrs. MELER-HOROWITZ for her communicat ion, as wel l as a l l those members who had put quest ions to her.

The si t t ing rose at 12.45 pm

FOURTH SITTINGMonday 2 April 2012 (Afternoon)

Mr Marc BOSC, President, in the Chair

The Sitting was opened at 2.30 pm

1. Opening Remarks

Mr Marc BOSC, President, reminded members present that the deadl ine for nominat ions for the post of Vice-Pres ident was 4.00 pm that day.

2. General debate: Is it necessary to constrain debate in plenary sitting?

Mr Marc BOSC, President, invi ted Ms Cor inne LUQUIENS, Secretary General of the French Nat ional Assembly, to open the debate.

Ms LUQUIENS (France) spoke as fo l lows:

“ In representat ive democracies, c i t izens are represented in assembl ies. I t is thus perfect ly natural that the var ious opinions which coexist wi thin society should be expressed wi thin such assembl ies. I t is c learly preferable that such a confrontat ion between ideas should take place in Parl iament rather than in the s treets.

However Par l iament is also the place where laws are passed. In order for i t to be able to carry out th is task, there must be a governing major i ty which al lows the pol i t ica l pol ic ies which have obtained the largest number of votes to be implemented. I t is essent ia l that Parl iament not be reduced to impotence on account of the lack of a governing major i ty or of the excessive extension of debates.

The way debates in Par l iament are organized must lead to these two object ives being reconci led. The considerat ion of b i l ls must a l low al l the di f ferent pol i t ica l opin ions represented in the assembl ies to be expressed. However i f the debates are not kept wi thin cer ta in boundar ies, they can become bogged down through obstruct ion tact ics and i t can thus become impossib le, or at least excessively long, to have laws passed.

Faced wi th the increasingly imaginat ive development of such obstruct ion tact ics, the French Nat ional Assembly has, s ince the latest const i tut ional reform, inst i tuted a relat ively detai led procedure for constra in ing debates which, of course, has met wi th cr i t ic ism f rom the opposi t ion.

This paper wi l l f i rs t of al l look at the methods of obstruct ion which have been developed in the French Nat ional Assembly and wi l l then descr ibe the new procedure for constrain ing debates which has been implemented s ince 2009. The ensuing discussion should enable us to assess this new procedure in the context of the exper ience of other par l iamentary systems.

I – THE DEVELOPMENT OF OBSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

The term par l iamentary obstruct ion refers to the extensive use of al l the possib i l i t ies provided by the Const i tut ion and the Rules of Procedure of the assemblies to have a par l iamentary debate last longer and, i f poss ib le prevent, or at least considerably delay, the passing of a b i l l .

I t is a pract ice which is known, in one form or another, in many Par l iaments ( the term “ f i l ibuster” was invented in the Uni ted States and is t ranslated as “ f i l ibuste” in Belg ium) and which is, of course, used by the opposi t ion.

In concrete terms in France, dur ing the Fi f th Republ ic, obstruct ion, used by both the lef t and the r ight, is a set of tact ics designed to delay, as much as possible, the passing of a b i l l .

The term “obstruct ion” is, of course, not mentioned in e i ther the Const i tut ion or the Rules of Procedure of the Nat ional Assembly. However i t is h inted at in several art ic les of these documents which make provis ion for mechanisms to accelerate debate. The Rules of Procedure of the Nat ional Assembly even expl ic i t ly ment ion the case of an M.P. who “at tempts to obstruct f reedom of debate or of vot ing”.

Despite M.P.s having various l imi ts placed on their total f reedom of speech and act ion, they st i l l have many means of obstruct ion at their d isposal .

The cont inuing development of obstruct ion tact ics over the last thi r ty years has led to a search for new ways to deal with what is considered by some to be a deadly d isease and by others as a necessary evi l .

1. Despite the regulat ion of debates the possibil i t ies for obstruction remain

1.1 An organization of debates which places str ict l imits on init iat ives and on how M.P.s take the floor

This paper only deals wi th debates in p lenary s i t t ing as obstruct ion no longer takes place in s tanding commit tees. In the past, i t was possib le to use delaying tact ics in a standing commit tee, especial ly through the proposing of procedural mot ions, but th is is now impossible because such motions can no longer be proposed. I t was also possible to obstruct by means of the tabl ing of a very large number of amendments. The aim of such tact ics was to delay or s top the adopt ion of the report by the committee as th is was, according to the Rules of Procedure, the necessary condi t ion for the bi l l to be considered in p lenary s i t t ing. However, in 1984, the French Const i tut ional Counci l ruled that ignorance of the provis ions of the Rules of Procedure, which do not in themselves have a const i tut ional value, concerning the content and the form of the reports would not in i tsel f have the effect of rendering the legis lat ive procedure contrary to the Const i tut ion as the lat ter only requires a b i l l to be referred to one of the standing committees of the assembly before which said b i l l has been tabled. Since th is t ime, the pract ice of obstruct ing at a committee level has had much less impact and has pract ical ly d isappeared al together.

1.1.1 The Rules of Procedure of the Assemblies avoid anarchy

Unruly behaviour which goes against the Rules of Procedure is punished by discipl inary act ion:

The type of phys ical obstruct ion which occurs in certain Parl iaments has never happened in France and would be deal t wi th by the pol ice powers fa l l ing wi th in the remit of the chairman of the si t t ing who can actual ly have recourse to the use of force.

No one can take the f loor unless he/she has been permit ted to do so by the chairman of the si t t ing. Any M.P. who so speaks wi thout such permission is l iable to d iscip l inary act ion.

In a s imi lar way, al l forms of disturbance of the debates can be punished by discipl inary act ion which can lead as far as e ject ion from the ent i re Pala is Bourbon ( the Lower House of Par l iament) .

1.1.2 Freedom of speech has quite str ict rules

The main a im of obstruct ion is to extend the debates in p lenary s i t t ing. The means used to attempt to do this usual ly concern the lengthening of the t ime given over to speaking.

Procedural motions

The f irst weapon in the arsenal of obstruct ion is the proposing of procedural motions.Or ig inal ly there were three such motions: the ‘object ion of admissib i l i ty ’ whose goal is to prove that a bi l l would be contrary to the Const i tut ion, the ‘pre l iminary quest ion’ which is based on the fact that a b i l l would be useless or unt imely and the ‘motion of referra l back to committee’ which attempts to under l ine the insuff ic ient nature of the work of the committee. I f e i ther of the f i rst two motions were adopted then the bi l l was re jected whi lst the adopt ion of the thi rd led to the bi l l being re-examined in commit tee.

At the outset, the t ime given over to the proposing of such motions was not l imi ted. The absolute record was reached dur ing the proposal of an object ion of admiss ib i l i ty which was defended for 5 hours and 25 minutes. After th is ‘explo i t ’ , the Rules of Procedure were modi f ied for the f i rs t t ime in th is f ie ld and a t ime l imi t of one and a hal f hours was imposed. Since that t ime, th is l imi t has been reduced to 30 minutes dur ing f i rst reading and 15 minutes for subsequent readings.

In addi t ion, the f i rst two types of mot ion have been gathered together in a s ingle one now cal led a ‘pre l iminary re ject ion mot ion’ . Thus, a long with the motion of referra l back to committee, this is now only one of two possib le procedural mot ions which can be proposed on each bi l l . I t should be added that these mot ions, which are a lways proposed by the Opposi t ion, have no chance of being adopted, except by acc ident in the case of the ru l ing major i ty being temporar i ly outnumbered numerical ly. This case has only occurred twice in the history of the Fi f th Republ ic. I t is thus pr imar i ly a way for the Opposi t ion to gain extra speaking t ime at the beginning of a debate.

The General Discussion

At the French Nat ional Assembly, the speeches made dur ing the general d iscussion, which, af ter the procedural motions, const i tutes the f i rst phase in the considerat ion of a b i l l , have never been marked by obstruct ion tact ics.

The reason for th is is because these debates are organized by the ‘Conference of Pres idents’ which lays down an overal l t iming that is d is tr ibuted between the pol i t ica l groups and the non-enrol led M.P.s.

The discussion of ar t ic les

Al l of the speeches made by M.P.s dur ing the discussion of the ar t ic les phase have maximum t ime l imi ts imposed:

Speeches on art ic les were or ig inal ly l imi ted to 5 minutes but th is has been reduced to 2 minutes. Their number however is not l imi ted except through a closing procedure which al lows the chairman of the si t t ing to interrupt the discussion once two speakers of opposing opinions have taken the f loor .

For each amendment the fo l lowing make take the f loor : the author of the amendment , a speaker of an opposing opin ion, the commit tee and the Government as wel l as a speaker to reply to the commit tee and to the Government, i f the chairman of the si t t ing deems such speeches useful . In pract ice, the chairman systematical ly g ives the f loor to a speaker i f he/she requests i t and often al lows several speakers to take the f loor . These var ious speeches have also been reduced from 5 to 2 minutes.

Explanat ions of vote are of 2 minutes and have also been reduced f rom 5 minutes. These are a l lowed on the procedural mot ions and on the ar t ic les. However when they deal wi th an overal l text , they remain of a 5-minute durat ion.

1.2 These rules do not create an obstacle to the development of obstruction tactics

1.2.1 Procedural incidents can take many forms

Points of Order

M.P.s who feel that the ru les concerning the legis lat ive procedure have not been appl ied, have the r ight to cal l the at tent ion of the chairman of the si t t ing to what they bel ieve to be the non-respect of such ru les and may ask him to intervene. This not ion means that there is no restr ic t ion on the use of this r ight as long as the very legal i ty of the del iberat ions is chal lenged. Thus: “Points of order and requests re lat ing to the running of the si t t ing shal l a lways take precedence over the main quest ion; they suspend discussion of the quest ion. Leave to speak shal l be given to any M.P. seeking i t for th is purpose, ei ther immediate ly or , i f another M.P. has the f loor, when he has f inished speaking”.

The pr ior i ty which is given to points of order expla ins why they are of ten diver ted from their or ig inal purpose and are used to raise issues which have no real l ink wi th the agenda or wi th the Rules of Procedure.

A c lass ic theme of points of order concerns the absence of a minister considered essent ia l or the presence of a minis ter who is considered not to be ‘competent ’ to deal wi th the issue. M.P.s a lso sometimes request the committee to interview a part icular person whose v iew on the subject they

consider necessary in order for the Assembly to be properly informed. Such points of order are easi ly d ismissed by the chairman of the si t t ing who reminds the Assembly that, in the f i rs t case, i t is the prerogat ive of the Government to decide by whom i t is represented and in the second case, the committees are in contro l of their own proceedings. In addi t ion, i t is a lso qui te frequent that M.P.s make reference, for as long a t ime as the chairman of the s it t ing permits, to events external to the work of the Assembly. This might be the case, for example, dur ing the discussion of a b i l l deal ing wi th socia l issues, when M.P.s could refer to soc ia l conf l icts tak ing place in a company or demonstrat ions occurr ing in the country. Natural ly, these points of order have no other inf luence on the debate than to s low i t down, especia l ly when there are a great number of them.

Suspensions of s i t t ing

Such suspensions can be obtained automat ical ly when they are requested by the chair of a pol i t ical group or by the M.P. who has been appointed to represent the chairman of the group and their a im is to have the group meet. Nonetheless they are often requested wi th the goal , or on the pretext , of obtain ing the communicat ion of documents or of suggest ing a new meeting of the committee for example.

I f the suspension of s i t t ing is used in a systematic way, i t can represent an important factor in d isorganizing parl iamentary proceedings. I f the chairman of the s it t ing is faced wi th several successive such requests, he/she may be led to d isal low them by arguing in part icular that they do not have the goal of leading to a meeting of the group. In a l l cases, i t is accepted that i t is the prerogat ive of the chairman of the si t t ing to set the length of the suspension and this per iod is of ten shorter than that which is requested.

Request for the checking of the quorum

In the French Nat ional Assembly, the Rules of Procedure state that “ the House may del iberate and determine i ts agenda whatever the number of M.P.s present” and that “votes taken by the House shal l be val id whatever the number of M.P.s present” . Nonetheless, a chairman of a pol i t ical group may personal ly request the checking of the quorum before the beginning of a bal lot . The quorum refers to the presence, in the precincts of the Nat ional Assembly, of an absolute major i ty of M.P.s calculated according to the number of seats actual ly f i l led. When the quorum is not reached the si t t ing is suspended.

Or ig inal ly the bal lot could not take place less than three hours af terwards. This procedure was thus often used to delay debate because i t happens that in the Nat ional Assembly the quorum is never reached especial ly during si t t ings which take place in the evening. The length of the suspension was thus reduced to one hour and then, dur ing the last reform of the Rules of Procedure, to 15 minutes. In addi t ion, f rom now on, the majori ty of the pol i t ica l group which makes the request must be present in the Chamber. As, at the end of the suspension, the vote is val id whatever the number of M.P.s present, the request for the checking of the quorum has lost much of i ts interest as a means of obstruct ion and has thus ceased to be used.

Repeated requests for publ ic bal lots

Repeated requests for publ ic bal lots hold the debate up: when such a request is made to the chairman of the si t t ing, the lat ter announces i t in plenary s i t t ing and the vote may not take place in less than 5 minutes after such an announcement. The opposi t ion thus takes every advantage of us ing th is procedure. The record was broken in a debate which took place in July 2004 when 126 publ ic bal lots were requested during the 141 hours which the Assembly gave over to the considerat ion of a b i l l .

1.2.2 In order to maximize the speaking t ime in plenary sit t ing the main weapon is the tabling of a huge number of amendments

Since the speaking t ime on amendments is l imited yet guaranteed, a most ef f ic ient means of obstruct ion in the Nat ional Assembly was developed using the tabl ing and the stout defence of a huge number of amendments ( th is is cal led the ‘ f lood of amendments’ ) . Thus obstruct ion is fundamental ly l inked to the r ight to amendment .

To gain some idea of the extent of such a phenomenon one must look at some stat is t ics on the records which have been broken concerning certain b i l ls . The f ive b i l ls which have seen the greatest number of amendments tabled dur ing the Fi f th Republ ic are the fo l lowing:

03.10.2006 Bi l l concerning the energy sector 137 66520.01.2005 Bi l l on the regulat ion of postal act iv i t ies 14 88815.02.2003 Bi l l on the elect ion of regional counci l lors 12 80503.07.2003 Bi l l reforming the ret i rement regime 11 15320.07.2004 Bi l l concerning the health insurance scheme 8 495

If one observes the same stat ist ics for equal ly controversia l b i l ls in the 1980s, one may obtain some idea of the development of th is phenomenon:

13.02.1984 Bi l l on the f reedom of the press 2 59810.06.1983 Bi l l concerning the reform o f h igher

educat ion2 204

26.10.1981 Bi l l on nat ional iza t ion 143811.09.1981 Bi l l on decentra l izat ion 923

These f igures can, of course, be seen as qui te surpris ing and might even engender a certa in admirat ion for the imaginat ion of the authors of such amendments! However i t is necessary to provide certa in detai ls which can help to c lar i fy the or ig inal surpr ise. Fi rst of a l l , the r ight to table amendments is an indiv idual r ight and the tabl ing of ident ical amendments is not prohib i ted. Thus the f i rs t st rategy used to mult iply the number of amendments consisted in v is i t ing the photocopy machine! I t is not infrequent that a same amendment be tabled by al l the members of a pol i t ical group and th is , in the case of the main opposi t ion group could amount to more than 200 amendments. After the photocopy strategy came the data processing st rategy: i t has become fashionable in recent years to table “ser ial ” amendments. Such amendments have an ident ical main body but wi th a d if ferent date, or a modi f ied interest rate or threshold and th is means that the same amendment can be presented in a whole ser ies of di f ferent vers ions.

I t was prec isely by br inging these two methods together that the record of 137,000 amendments was reached. The bi l l in quest ion reduced the state share in the capi ta l of a publ ic company from 70 to 30 per cent. By modi fy ing th is percentage decimal by decimal and by tabl ing al l such mot ions in the name of each of the members of the opposi t ion, i t was not so di f f icu lt to reach such a f igure.

Consider that every one of the authors of such amendments has, in theory, the r ight to defend those he has personal ly tabled. On the basis of a d iscussion of 5 minutes per amendment, the calculat ion was made that i t would take 11,500 hours, i .e. 475 days of debate to consider them al l . In fact, af ter two weeks of s i t t ing, wi thout a l l the amendments being defended, there were st i l l 94,000 in d iscussion. Wear iness won the day and an agreement was reached between the ru l ing majori ty and the opposi t ion which led to the end of the discussion after 122 hours.

There are, of course, certa in weapons which can be used to reduce the number of amendments in d iscussion.

Firs t of a l l , the Const i tut ion al lows the Government to declare the inadmissib i l i ty of amendments which trespass into the regulatory f ield. Thus in the case of the bi l l on the regulat ion of postal act iv i t ies, 14,730 amendments were tabled which had exact ly the same text but which concerned, for each one, a di f ferent post of f ice. Upon the Government’s ini t ia t ive, they were al l declared inadmissib le by the President of the Nat ional Assembly and th is led to the discussion being completed in 23 hours.

Another provis ion al lows the Government to oppose the discussion of amendments which have not been tabled in commit tee beforehand. However th is is only useful in the case of late amendments and th is scenario is rarer and rarer as there is now a t ime l imi t for the tabl ing of amendments.

I t is a lso sometimes possib le to have a large number of amendments s truck off by tabl ing an amendment which prov ides an overal l wording for an ar t ic le. However, in th is case, the authors of amendments have the possib i l i ty of t ransforming their amendments into sub-amendments.

In addi t ion, the Const i tut ional Counci l has accepted, for qui te some t ime, that the assembl ies may use means which might normal ly be considered as excessive, in at tempting to f ight against obstruct ion tact ics. In a 1994 decis ion, i t judged that the restr ict ions on the r ight to table amendments had to be considered in the l ight of the content of the amendments and of the general condi t ions of the debate in quest ion.

2. The continuing development of obstruction tactics has led to a search for a radical remedy for what is considered by some to be a deadly disease and by others as a necessary evil .

1.3 Obstruction has been continuously developing since the beginning of the 1980s

The increase in the number of amendments has al ready been referred to but i t should be under l ined that th is phenomenon must be l inked to a change in i ts object ive. Al though i t is supposed to be a source for legis lat ion, i t has become a

simple means of obstruct ion. On account of this fact, the adopt ion rate for amendments has plummeted.

In 1970, for 2,260 amendments tabled, the adopt ion rate was 51%In 1994, for 11,569 amendments, the adopt ion rate was 21%In 2002-2003 for 32,475 amendments, the adopt ion rate was 10%.

Through these f igures we can see the clear evolut ion of the character of debates since the Nat ional Assembly now gives over more and more of i ts t ime to the considerat ion of amendments whose real purpose is not to modi fy the bi l l in d iscussion but to delay i ts being passed.

In any case, i t is cer ta in that the legis lat ive process is thus slowed down.

To i l lustrate th is, the fo l lowing table enumerates the t ime necessary for the considerat ion of the bi l ls at the Nat ional Assembly which have raised the most controversy.

THE LONGEST DEBATED BILLS

Name o f B i l l Da tes : beg inn ing /endNumber o f days

o f s i t t ingLength

Bi l l on the Freedom of the Press 15 December 1983 to 13 February 1984

20 166 hours 50

Ret i rement Refo rm B i l l 10 June to 3 Ju ly 2003 19 157 hours

B i l l on Heal th Insurance 29 June to 20 Ju ly 2004 17 142 hours 31

Bi l l on H igher Educa t ion 24 May to 10 June 1983 17 133 hours 15

Bi l l on the Energy Sec tor 7 Sep tember to 3 October 2006 16 121 hours 46

Bi l l on Na t iona l iza t ion 13 to 26 October 1981 13 118 hours 45

Bi l l on Aud iov isua l Commun ica t i on 26 Apr i l to 15 May 1982 14 101 hours 50

Bi l l on the Ent ry and Stays o f Fore igners 4 to 17 December 1997 9 90 hours

Bi l l on Decen t ra l i za t ion 27 Ju l y to 2 Augus t 1981 8 to 11 September 1981

10 86 hours *

I t must, of course, be stated that the above f igures only refer to the f i rst reading of each bi l l before the Nat ional Assembly and that, in the framework of the normal legis lat ive procedure, b i l ls must, in France, have two readings before each assembly before the holding of a jo int commit tee between the two assemblies. I f the jo int committee reaches agreement on a jo int text, then that text is put once more to the two assembl ies. I f the jo int committee fa i ls to reach agreement , then a new reading is required before the two assembl ies and only then may the Government ask the Nat ional Assembly to make a def in i t ive decis ion.

1.4 This si tuation has led to the search for a radical weapon against obstruction

Unti l the most recent const i tut ional reform, the only radical weapon that the Government possessed to deal wi th obstruct ion was the use of a procedure provided for by the Const i tut ion whose or iginal a im was completely d i f ferent .

Art ic le 49, paragraph 3, of the Const i tut ion in fact a l lows the Pr ime Minis ter, af ter del iberat ion of the Counci l of Ministers, to make the passing of a bi l l an issue of a vote of conf idence. In th is case, the debate is interrupted. A motion of no-conf idence may be tabled wi th in 24 hours. I f i t is adopted, the bi l l is re jected and the Government overturned. However, i f no vote of no-conf idence is tabled or i f one is re jected, then the bi l l is automat ical ly considered as passed.

This procedure was included in the Const i tut ion to a l low the Government to have a rebel l ious ru l ing majori ty face i ts responsib i l i t ies. The idea was that such a ru l ing major i ty, i f i t refused to grant the Government i ts support for the passing of the legis lat ion which the Government fe l t essent ia l to i ts pol ic ies, would have to draw the proper conclus ions by overturning the said Government. The procedure has, in fact, been used to these ends in c i rcumstances where the Government had only a narrow and heterogeneous major i ty.

However, as of the middle of the 1980s, the procedure was also used not just to re in in the rul ing majori ty but a lso to interrupt a debate when the opposi t ion was determined to have i t last as long as possible. This pract ice, which was certain ly not that imagined by the framers of the Const i tut ion, led to many cr i t ic isms based on the fact that i t represented a disproport ionate use of force by compar ison wi th the obstruct ive tact ic. Among other cases, this procedure was used to speed up the passing of a b i l l which introduced a type of unstable employment for young people and which f inal ly had to be wi thdrawn by the Government after demonstrat ions by h igh school and universi ty students.

Al l of th is led, through the last const i tut ional reform, to a str icter l imi t ing of the procedure. From now on, i t can no longer be used except in the case of f inance bi l ls and socia l secur i ty f inancing bi l ls and th is only once per session.

However, at the same t ime, a new weapon against obstruct ion tact ics was int roduced into the Nat ional Assembly. This is a tota l ly new procedure and is named the “set t ime l imi t debate procedure”.

I I – THE IMPEMENTATION OF THE “SET TIME LIMIT DEBATE PROCEDURE”

Art ic le 44 of the Const i tut ion, modi f ied by the const i tut ional reform of July 23, 2008, lays down that the r ight to amendment “may be used in p lenary s i t t ing or in committee under the condi t ions set down by the Rules of Procedure of the Houses, according to the framework determined by an Inst i tut ional Act”.

The Inst i tut ional Act of Apr i l 15, 2009, passed in appl icat ion of th is provis ion, permit ted the assembl ies to provide themselves “wi th a procedure which would lay down t ime l imi ts for the considerat ion of a bi l l in p lenary s i t t ing” .

The Nat ional Assembly made use of this prov is ion by int roducing the “set t ime l imi t debate procedure” (TLP in French). These terms do not actual ly f igure in the Rules of Procedure but have been commonly used ever s ince. This procedure is provided for in art ic les 49 and 55 of the new Rules of Procedure which were introduced on June 26, 2009.

The Conference of Presidents may now not only set the length of the general d iscussion but a lso that of the whole per iod of considerat ion of the bi l l , including the examinat ion of the ar t ic les.

Since the coming into force of th is reform, 32 legis lat ive debates have been carr ied out using the procedure.

1. The Rules of the “set t ime l imit debate procedure”

1.1 The rules laid down by the Rules of Procedure

1.1.1 The use of the “set t ime l imi t debate procedure” In compl iance wi th ar t ic le 49, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Procedure, the Conference of Presidents may set the maximum t ime l imi t for the considerat ion of a Government or Member ’s b i l l as a whole. However the “set t ime l imi t debate procedure” is not appl icable to f inance bi l ls or to social securi ty f inance bi l ls or to const i tut ional reform bi l ls .

In concrete terms, i t is upon a proposal by the President of the Nat ional Assembly that the Conference of Presidents, wi th in which one pol i t ical group (the UMP Group) has a major i ty, decides upon using th is procedure and sets the length, tak ing into account the r ights which the opposi t ion groups have to e ither oppose i ts use or to gain a d i f ferent length from that which was or ig inal ly proposed. In part icular , when the considerat ion of a b i l l on f i rst reading occurs less than six weeks after i ts tabl ing or less than four weeks after i ts t ransmission i f i t has been f i rs t examined by the Senate, the chairman of a pol i t ica l group may oppose the implementat ion of the “set t ime l imi t debate procedure”.

1.1.2 How the decis ion on the overal l t ime l imi t is reached

The Conference of Presidents sets the t ime al lot ted to pol i t ica l groups and to non-enrol led M.P.s. The speaking t ime for the commit tees and for Government is not l imi ted and wi l l thus be added to the t ime al lowed for the groups.

I f the speaking t ime al lot ted to groups is less than a l imit set by the Conference of Presidents, each chairman of a pol i t ical group may obtain the r ight to have i t increased to the level of th is l imi t ( “extended set t ime l imi t debate procedure”) .

Each chairman of a pol i t ica l group may, once per ordinary or extraordinary session, obtain an except ional extension of the al lot ted t ime (“ext raordinary set t ime l imi t debate procedure”) .

1.1.3 How the speaking t ime is shared out

Speaking t ime is shared out according to the fo l lowing ru les: Each group must be al lot ted a minimum t ime (this per iod is longer for the

groups which have declared that they belong to the opposi t ion than for the others) ;

60% of the extra t ime is al lot ted to the opposi t ion groups and is d iv ided amongst them proport ional ly according to the number of their members. The remaining 40% is d iv ided between the groups of the rul ing major i ty proport ional ly according to the number of their members.

The t ime al lot ted to non-enrol led M.P.s is f ixed.

1.1.4 How debates are organized dur ing set t ime l imi t procedure

The set t ime l imi t is overal l . Thus most speeches, wi th the notable except ions of explanat ions of vote, points of order and repl ies to personal at tacks, are not subject to any t ime l imi t .

1.1.5 How t ime is counted dur ing set t ime l imi t procedure

a) The count ing of t ime for speeches

Al l the speeches made by M.P.s are deducted f rom the overal l t ime of the group except:

those made by the chairman and the rapporteur of the lead commit tee and, i f the case appl ies, of the rapporteurs of the consul tat ive committees

those made by the chairman of pol i t ica l groups who have one hour per chairman when the overal l t ime l imi t set by the Conference of Pres idents is 40 hours or less and who have two hours beyond that l imi t .

b) The tabl ing of amendments outside the t ime l imits

When the Government or the lead committee table one or several amendments after the t ime l imi t for tabl ing appl icable to M.P.s has expired, an extra t ime period is a l lot ted to each group, upon the request of the chairman of the group or of h is delegate, for the discussion of the ar t ic le on which the amendment has been tabled or, i f the case appl ies, the addi t ional ar t ic le.

c) Suspensions of s i t t ings and points of order

The t ime given over to suspensions of s i t t ings requested by the chairman of the group or of h is delegate is deducted from the t ime granted to the group concerned wi thout i t being able to exceed the length of the suspension which was requested. In other words, i f a suspension of s i t t ing is requested for ten minutes and i t actual ly lasts f i f teen minutes, then ten minutes wi l l be deducted; i f the suspension is requested for ten minutes and only lasts f ive, then f ive minutes wi l l be deducted.

The t ime given over to points of order may be deducted when the chairman of the si t t ing considers that they clear ly have no connect ion wi th the Rules of Procedure or the running of the si t t ing.

d) Exceeding the set t ime l imi t

When a pol i t ica l group has used up the t ime which has been al lot ted to i t , i ts members wi l l be refused leave to speak. An amendment tabled by an M.P. f rom th is group is voted upon wi thout a debate. The chairman of the group may no longer request a publ ic bal lot , except on the overal l bi l l .

Nonetheless, the chairman of the si t t ing does ask the opin ion of the committee and of the Government on the amendments tabled by members of th is group so as to provide the Assembly wi th guidance for i ts vote.

e) Personal explanat ions of vote

Every M.P. may take the f loor at the end of the vote on the last ar t ic le of the bi l l under considerat ion or of the last amendment. He/she may provide a personal

explanat ion of vote for f ive minutes. The t ime given over to these explanat ions of vote is not deducted f rom the overal l t ime al lot ted between the groups.

The means of appl icat ion of the ru les set down by the Rules of Procedure were determined by the Conference of Presidents. They are “convent ions” which are l iable to be changed at any moment by the same Conference.

1.2 The conventions of the Conference of Presidents

1.2.1 How overal l t ime is determined and shared out

a) The t ime l imi ts

The Conference of Presidents set the length of the “extended set t ime l imi t debate procedure” at 30 hours and that of the “ext raordinary set t ime l imi t debate procedure” at 50 hours, in accordance with the discussions held dur ing the preparatory work for the reform of the Rules of Procedure.

b) The scale

The same Conference decided on the general scale for the “set t ime l imit debate procedure” and the t ime for non-enrol led M.P.s. In part icular , the f ixed part of the t ime for each group was set at 2 hours for each opposi t ion group and 1 hour for each group belonging to the ru l ing major i ty when the overal l t ime is between 6 and 10 hours and at 3 hours and 2 hours respect ively when the overal l t ime is between 10 and 20 hours etc.

As for the t ime al lot ted to non-enrol led M.P.s, which must according to the Rules of Procedure, be proport ional to their number, i t was set in a pragmatic way at 30 minutes ( for an overal l t ime of 15 hours). At that t ime there were 8 non-enrol led members out of a tota l of 577 in the Nat ional Assembly. The Conference, in addi t ion, set at ten minutes per group the addi t ional t ime in the case of late tabl ing of amendments.

1.2.2 How debates are organized during set t ime l imit procedure

a) Detai ls concerning the general d iscussion

So as to mainta in a certa in order in the di f ferent stages of the discussion, the Conference of Presidents took the fol lowing decis ions concerning the general d iscussion:

On the eve of the discussion at 5pm, the pol i t ica l groups must transmit to the Table Of f ice, an approximate l ist of their speakers and the length of t ime they wi l l speak, inc luding for motions. This information al lows the Table Off ice to draw up a document set t ing out the approximate running order of the s i t t ing;

The order of speech of the speakers is dec ided by the chair in such a way as to ensure the al ternat ion of pol i t ical groups ( later changes between members of the same group wil l be a l lowed as wel l as new enrolments to speak).

An M.P. may only enrol to speak once in the general debate and may not re-enrol to speak i f he/she does not answer the cal l to speak of the chairman of the si t t ing;

A non-enrol led M.P. may not speak for more than 10 minutes in order to mainta in the r ights of the other non-enrol led M.P.s

b) Detai ls concerning the discussion of ar t ic les and amendments

The speaking t ime for M.P.s who wish to take the f loor on an ar t ic le is not l imi ted, except in the case of non-enrol led M.P.s whose speeches cannot exceed 10 minutes. The closing procedure, which prov ides for the possib i l i ty of no longer accept ing enrolments for speeches when two speakers of opposi te opin ions have spoken, is not appl icable.

The length of speeches on amendments is not l imi ted. Only one speech in defence of the amendment and one against i t are al lowed. However, af ter the opinions of the committee and of the Government have been expressed on each amendment , the number and the length of speeches are no longer l imi ted.

When amendments have been tabled after the t ime l imit by the Government or by the commit tee, the ext ra t ime al lot ted to pol i t ica l groups, upon the request of the chairman of a group or of h is delegate, is set at 10 minutes per amendment and per pol i t ica l group. This extra t ime may only be used for the discussion of the amendment concerned.

c) Detai ls concerning personal explanat ions of votes

M.P.s who wish to avai l of this possibi l i ty must enrol with the Table Off ice before the end of the discussion of the ar t ic les, at the latest .1.3 Taking into account the reservat ions expressed by the Const i tut ional Counci l

In i ts dec is ion of June 25, 2009, the Const i tut ional Counci l stated that “even i f the sett ing of t ime l imi ts for the considerat ion of a b i l l in p lenary s i t t ing enable the deduct ion of the t ime given over, in part icular, to requests for the suspension of the si t t ing and to points of order, M.P.s must not be depr ived of the possib i l i ty of cal l ing on the provis ions of the Rules of Procedure so as to request the appl icat ion of const i tut ional provis ions”.

As a consequence, when a group’s speaking t ime has been exhausted, i t is s t i l l possible for one of i ts members to make a point of order for two minutes as long as he makes i t c lear which ar t ic le, in h is opinion, has been inf r inged. I f the point has no l ink with the Rules of Procedure, the chairman of the si t t ing can order the speaker to stop talk ing. No other point of order on the same subject can be made by another member of th is group.

2. Observations on the practical aspects of the set t ime l imit procedure: the choice of actors

2.1 The choices of the Conference of Presidents: frequent use is made of the “set t ime l imit procedure”

Use of the “set t ime l imi t procedure” is a choice of the Conference of Presidents and i t has had recourse to i t qui te often. Out of around one hundred Government b i l ls considered by the Nat ional Assembly s ince July 1, 2009, 26 have used the “set t ime l imi t procedure” as wel l as one Member’s bi l l on the quest ion of Sunday work.

With very few except ions, a l l important b i l ls and, in any case, al l non-consensual ones have been discussed using th is procedure.

The “set t ime l imit procedure” is mainly used dur ing f i rst reading but i t is more and more often employed dur ing second reading since the Conference of Pres idents decided that the t ime al lot ted to pol i t ical groups would be div ided in two by compar ison wi th during f i rst reading.

2.2 The choices of pol it ical groups and of M.P.s

One of the basic pr incip les of the “set t ime l imi t procedure” is that the t ime al lot ted to a group can be f reely ass igned between i ts members. In real i ty the groups cannot or do not wish to carry out an authori tar ian and a detai led dist r ibut ion of the t ime credi ts which they have avai lable. The M.P.s who are members of groups thus have relat ively f ree use of the t ime avai lable. The secretar iats of each group communicate the names of their speakers for the motions and the general d iscussion but every speaker can comfortably exceed the t ime suggested by the group. In the discussion on ar t ic les, M.P.s express themselves freely and are not inf luenced by any intervent ion f rom the group.

2.2.1 The use f the r ight to request extraordinary or extended t ime

During the debate of the f i rst b i l l which was considered us ing the “set t ime l imi t procedure” (a Member ’s b i l l on Sunday work which gave r ise to sturdy opposi t ion) the chairman of the main opposi t ion group obtained the r ight to an extraordinary extension of the maximum t ime set by the Conference of Presidents ( from 30 hours to 50 hours) .

Since the implementat ion of th is procedure, extraordinary t ime extensions have been requested three t imes.

13 bi l ls have been debated for a per iod of 30 hours ( “extended set t ime l imi t procedure”) , upon the request of a pol i t ica l group chairman. This is the most frequent overal l t ime per iod.

However th is overal l per iod, which is granted automatical ly, is not systematical ly requested and several bi l ls have been considered, by consensus, in a shorter per iod.

2.2.2 The use of the t ime requested

I t must, f i rst of a l l , be under l ined that for the discussion of b i l ls which have used the “set t ime l imi t procedure”, the overal l tota l of the debate, including Government and committee speaking t ime, has never reached the length of t ime set for the groups. This apparent paradox can be expla ined by the fact that only the opposi t ion groups use a substant ia l , sometimes complete, share of the t ime they have avai lable.

a) The behaviour of opposi t ion groups

I t is , of course, the opposi t ion groups which use the largest amount of the t ime which is a l lot ted to them. This is hardly surpr is ing, f i rst ly because i t is they who table the largest number of amendments and secondly because the opposi t ion wishes to use the t ime i t has avai lable to display i ts host i l i ty to the bi l l in d iscussion and, in certain cases, present counter proposals.

Nonetheless, the opposi t ion groups, or at least one of them, have only used al l of the t ime at their d isposal in e ight cases. On each of these occasions, they

expressed strong protest concerning the impossib i l i ty for them to express their opin ions fur ther. However i t does appear that i t was precisely to reach such a result that they used al l of their t ime wi th the object ive of showing that they had been “gagged”. In fact , i t does seem that the implementat ion of the “set t ime l imi t procedure” has the effect of tak ing away some of the interest in extending debates since the end of the discussion is, in any case, set. I t could be said that t ime no longer becomes an issue.

b) The behaviour of the rul ing major i ty groups

The major i ty group (UMP) never uses more than 50% of i ts a l lot ted t ime and of ten less than 30%. This is the same for the minor i ty group wi th in the rul ing major i ty (NC). This could appear surpr is ing since the dist r ibut ion of speaking t ime in the “set t ime l imi t procedure” favours the opposit ion. However i t must , f i rst of a l l , be observed that s ince the last const i tut ional revis ion, i t is the bi l l coming f rom committee which serves as the basis for the discussion in p lenary s i t t ing. Thus a number of amendments tabled by the ru l ing major i ty (or at least by the rapporteur) are a lready included in the bi l l . In addi t ion, the ru l ing major i ty, support ing, as i t does, the Government c learly wants the bi l ls to be passed as quick ly as possib le. I t therefore does nothing which could s low down their examinat ion.

2.2.3 The use of speci f ic procedures

a) The personal r ight to speak for group chairmen

The extra speaking t ime which may be granted to group chairmen has only rarely been used and always for less t ime than that avai lable.

b) Personal explanat ions of vote

This procedure has also been l i t t le used, a lthough this is not surpr is ing s ince indiv idual explanat ions of vote take place at the end of a long debate and of ten at a late hour and at the end of the week. I t has been used in the rare cases where a group has exhausted i ts speaking t ime.

I t should, in addi t ion, be stated that the procedure has been str ict ly overseen by the President of the Nat ional Assembly fo l lowing two incidents in the Chamber, one of which was quite v io lent.

The f irst incident took place when M.P.s requested to speak not at the end of the discussion stage on ar t ic les which had f inished on a Thursday evening, but on the fo l lowing Tuesday before the Nat ional Assembly moved to group explanat ions of vote and the vote on the overal l bi l l ( the pract ice at the Assembly being that the Conference of Presidents usual ly t imes th is f inal stage in the discussion of a bi l l for a moment when the largest number of M.P.s are present). The President of the Nat ional Assembly considered that th is request was contrary to the decis ion of the Conference of Presidents and thus opposed i t . The Const i tut ional Counci l , upon a referra l of the Opposi t ion, judged that th is decis ion was not contrary to the Const i tut ion based on the pr inc iple often invoked according to which the Rules of Procedure of the assemblies do not have, in themselves, a const i tut ional value.

The second incident brought about a much st ronger react ion from the Opposi t ion. In th is case, the debate, which dealt with the very controversia l issue of ret i rement pensions, had cont inued al l n ight long pr ior to the moment set for the explanat ions

of vote and the vote on the overal l b i l l which were due to take place at 4pm. Af ter the end of the discussion on the ar t ic les around 7am, several dozen opposi t ion M.P.s requested to be enrol led for an indiv idual explanat ion of vote. The Pres ident accepted more than twenty such speeches and then, as the t ime set for the end of the si t t ing, f ixed at 9.30 am, had come, he indicated that he would accept no more and cal led an end to the si t t ing. This decis ion led to an incident which almost turned vio lent as the President was pursued through the corr idors of the Palais Bourbon by the M.P.s of the Opposit ion. In addi t ion, for several weeks af terwards, the lat ter refused to stand when the Pres ident entered the Chamber and they boycotted the meet ings of the Bureau and of the Conference of Pres idents. Nonetheless, in th is case also, the Const i tut ional Counci l val idated the decis ion of the Pres ident.

Since these two incidents, which introduced a precedent prohib i t ing the use of explanat ions of vote when they would lead to the postponement of the vote on the overal l bi l l set by the Conference of Presidents, th is procedure has lost much of i ts interest for the M.P.s of the Opposi t ion.

2.3 The Impact on Parliamentary Debate

2.3.3 The impact on the st ructure of debates

a) Procedural motions

During the “set t ime l imi t procedure”, the tabl ing of procedural motions (prel iminary reject ion motions and mot ions of referra l back to a committee) remains one of the most important moments in the debates even though the record-breaking speeches of cer ta in past orators are no longer common.

The length of prel iminary re ject ion motions remains, in most cases, approximately the same (around 30 minutes) as before the implementat ion of the “set t ime l imi t procedure”. In two cases however, the length of the defence of such motions neared or went s l ight ly beyond the one-hour mark. This a lso holds for the length of motions of referra l back to committee which are usual ly around th i r ty minutes long, except in very rare cases.

b) The dist r ibut ion of t ime between the general discussion and the discussion of art ic les

The dis tr ibut ion of the length of debates between the general d iscussion and the discussion of ar t ic les has changed. The main factor is the s igni f icant increase in the length of the general discussion in compar ison wi th the length of the discussion of the art ic les. Thus, the length of the discussion on art ic les represented, before the implementat ion of the “set t ime l imi t procedure”, systematical ly 70% of the tota l length of debates. Now wi th the “set t ime l imit procedure”, the general discussion has expanded and may even take up more than hal f the tota l length of the debates. I t even went as far as represent ing 89% of one debate.

There is now, on th is part icular point , a c lear di f ference between a bi l l which uses the “set t ime l imi t procedure” and one which does not. Since the pol i t ica l groups can no longer carry out obstruct ion by drawing the debate out endlessly wi th amendments, they now tend to st ress th is f i rs t s tage by increasing the number of speakers enrol led and leaving more speaking t ime to their speakers. The general d iscussion is now “unrestra ined”.

2.3.4 The impact on the character of the debates

The aim of the “set t ime l imit procedure” was to render obstruct ion useless whether i t be in i ts form of massive tabl ing of amendments or in the shape of repeated procedural incidents.

a) The “set t ime l imi t procedure” and amendments

General ly speaking, the number of amendments tabled and then discussed is qui te moderate ( for example 343 amendments on the very controversia l Member ’s b i l l on Sunday work) . The sett ing of a maximum length for debate and then of a deadl ine for the end of the examinat ion of a b i l l means that obstruct ion can no longer have as i ts a im the delaying of a vote through the use of a massive tabl ing of amendments. One of the goals of the reform, i .e. putt ing an end to the f loods of amendments on controversia l b i l ls , thus seems to be in the process of being reached. Two bi l ls however d id wi tness a large number of amendments (1,500 for the f i rst and 5,000 for the second) but i t must be said that they concerned the drawing-up of e lectoral boundar ies which clearly interests many M.P.s. In addi t ion, in these two cases, the amendments were tabled in the framework of the old, c lassic procedure before the Conference of Presidents decided to switch to the “set t ime l imi t procedure”.

b) The “set t ime l imi t procedure” and procedural inc idents

The appl icat ion of the “set t ime l imit procedure” has not only substant ial ly reduced the number of incidents (points of order and suspensions of s i t t ings) but a lso their length. Thus suspensions rarely exceed two hours whatever the bi l l concerned is. In addi t ion, inc idents are now usual ly deal t wi th dur ing the general d iscussion and no longer dur ing the discussion of ar t ic les.

* * *To conclude, i t must be under l ined that the quest ion of constra in ing legis lat ive d iscussions cont inues to be at the centre of a st rong debate in France. The legi t imacy of obstruct ion has always ra ised quest ions but has never been tota l ly condemned by publ ic opin ion.

There is no systematic assessment avai lable to measure the impact of obstruct ion on publ ic opin ion. However, parl iamentar ians are at pains to just i fy their obstruct ion tact ics in the press by underl in ing the importance and the harm caused by the bi l ls they oppose as wel l as the imbalance between the means avai lable for the Government and the ru l ing major i ty and those the Opposi t ion can cal l upon. On the other hand, the ru l ing majori ty never misses an opportuni ty to denounce such obstruct ion tact ics by the Opposit ion, highl ight ing i ts refusal to calmly part ic ipate in par l iamentary debate, i ts inabi l i ty to make true proposi t ions and i ts recourse to the use of procedural t r icks.

Since i ts appearance at the beginning of the 1980s, obstruct ion has always been used, at one t ime or another, by the Opposi t ion at a part icular moment, to d isplay i ts refusal of a speci f ic bi l l which i t considers symbol ic of governmental pol icy. However, these par l iamentary “bat t les” have never led to the complete block ing of the legis lat ive process nor have they led to a real cal l ing into quest ion of the democrat ic legi t imacy of the ru l ing major i ty .

One of the arguments developed by the M.P.s of the Opposi t ion to just i fy their use of obstruct ion tact ics is based on the fact that by lengthening the debate, they can cal l on publ ic opin ion and mobi l ize i t against a b i l l proposed by the Government , wi th the aim of forc ing the lat ter to abandon or modi fy i t .

However, the fact of considering that the Nat ional Assembly should be a sounding board which al lows the not ions of pol i t ica l confrontat ion and decis ion-making to be decided by forces outside of i ts wal ls is contrary to the pr inciple of representat ion declared in the Const i tut ion of 1791: “Sovereignty…belongs to the Nat ion, f rom which alone come al l Powers. I t may only exerc ise them through delegat ion. The French Const i tut ion is representat ive: the representat ives are the legis lature” . This pr incip le is taken up and completed by ar t ic le 3 of the 1958 Const i tut ion: “Nat ional sovereignty shal l vest in the people, who shal l exercise i t through their representat ives and by means of referendum.”

Mr Francesco POSTERARO (I taly) presented a wr i t ten contr ibut ion, as fol lows:

[Mr Posteraro’s contr ibut ion is not avai lable in Engl ish.]

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Ms LUQUIENS for her contr ibut ion, and opened the debate to the f loor.

Dr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI ( India) congratulated Ms LUQUIENS for her presentat ion. He expla ined that , in India, a consul tat ive committee, on which al l of the pol i t ica l part ies are represented, determined the t ime that should be devoted to each debate. This procedure has ex isted for a very long t ime, but many par l iamentar ians refused to stop ta lk ing at the end of their speaking t ime. An electronic s ign showing the t ime had therefore been insta l led in the Chamber, showing the amount of t ime used by each pol i t ical party. When a party exceeded i ts a l locat ion, the sign showed a negat ive number. The Speaker could then cut the microphones and interrupt whoever had the f loor. The tabl ing of a large number of amendments was a t rend that had developed only recent ly. Amendments had to be tabled before the beginning of the debate. Recal l ing the number of 138,000 mentioned by Ms Luquiens, he asked her how i t was possib le to have such a large number of amendments.

Mr David BEAMISH (United Kingdom) said that this was a very sensi t ive subject in the House of Lords, which tended to th ink that the House should regulate i tsel f . Time l imi ts had been used, but not for debates on legis lat ion. However, in recent years, i t had been provided for that s i t t ings would f in ish around 10 pm every day, and some parts of Bi l ls were now debated only in Committee. He thought that the bi l l that would short ly be debated on reform of the House of Lords would raise these quest ions again, and lead to cal ls for new forms of rest r ict ion.

Mr Mohamed Kamal MANSURA (South Africa) noted that s ince 1994, a l l debates had been t ime-l imi ted in the South Afr ican Par l iament . That had been l inked especia l ly to the increase in the number of female par l iamentar ians who did not want debates to last late into the night , an opin ion that was of course shared by many men, and by al l of the par l iamentary staf f . These l imi ts had never posed any problems. On the other hand, b i l ls could take hours, weeks or months in commit tee. In the plenary, only amendments that had not a l ready been rejected in commit tee could be examined. Some Members therefore held back their amendments for this last s tage, but for now that had not led to any major d if f icu l t ies.

Mr Emmanuel ANYIMADU (Ghana) said that debates were not a l l t ime- l imi ted in Ghana. When a debate was important and the Speaker thought that i t would take some t ime, a st ructure was organised, meeting the needs of indiv idual Members as much as pol i t ica l part ies. L is ts of those wishing to speak were given in advance to the Speaker, and the Speaker would not cal l to speak anyone who was not on the l is t before the si t t ing.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, asked how the very large number of amendments had been put to a vote and how they had been able to be deal t wi th by the administrat ion.

Mr Geert HAMILTON (Netherlands) said that he came from a very p lural ist country where chaos would re ign wi thout s tr ict l imits. The col lege br inging together the heads of the twelve pol i t ica l groups met each week and decided on the ru les that would apply to each debate. The l is ts of speakers wi th their exact speaking t imes needed to be provided to the adminis trat ion before the debates. In the Lower House the si tuat ion was more complex because there was also a large number of pol i t ical groups and perhaps less d iscip l ine, meaning that regulat ion was equal ly necessary. The Speaker always asked at the end of a debate i f anyone else wanted to speak, but no-one ever dared take th is opportuni ty . He asked why the div is ion of speaking t ime in the new framework in France described by Ms Luquiens was 60% for the Opposi t ion and 40% for the major i ty.

Ms Claressa SURTEES (Austral ia) noted that in Austra l ia, the Minister spoke for 30 minutes at the beginning of a debate, fol lowed by the Opposi t ion for 30 minutes as wel l . Other members could then speak for 15 minutes. For debates on amendments, there was no t ime l imit : each intervent ion should in pr inc ip le not exceed f ive minutes, but one could make as many intervent ions as one l iked. Bi l ls were also read more than once. As the Government in Austra l ia was in a minor i ty, i t could not rely on the majori ty to achieve a closure of a debate. Motions could be adopted in the Chamber l imi t ing the t ime for a debate, but that required a major i ty , and so i t was that s i t t ings lasted into the ear ly hours of the morning.

Mr Claes MARTENSSON (Sweden) said that there were no t ime l imi ts in the Swedish Par l iament, and MPs could indicate at any moment even up to the eve of a debate that they wished to talk and for how long. After this point, they could speak for no more than four minutes. He was astonished that debates could last 70 hours, and said that no debate in Sweden could exceed three or four hours.

Mr Claus DETHLEFSEN (Denmark) thought that i f debates were te lev ised, they would probably be shorter , because no-one watching would be able to bear debates that long.

Mrs Corinne LUQUIENS said that she was reassured to see that other countr ies had seen debates obstructed. She clar i f ied that the texts of b i l ls in France could be very long and provided mater ial for debate, and that on some texts, to have 100 or even several hundred amendments was not necessar i ly excessive. She expla ined how par l iamentar ians tabled lots of d i f ferent vers ions of amendments, to reach these large numbers, and noted that lucki ly not every one of these amendments was pressed, and rather went to show a very strong level of opposit ion to the text in quest ion.

She expla ined that the Speaker could a lso cut of f the microphone of a par l iamentar ian who was speaking, but that more often than not led to incidents in

the plenary that served to lose rather than to gain t ime. She noted that the French Const i tut ion did not al low amendments that had been rejected in Committee to be refused in the plenary. So far , there had been very st rong host i l i ty , as much f rom the major i ty as the Opposi t ion, to l imit ing debate on amendments being examined in Commit tee. The Speaker could in theory refuse to let Members speak, for example by closing debate after two Members had spoken, one in favour and one against, but th is led to incidents that meant that the procedure was rarely used. She noted that in other Par l iaments, sel f-disc ipl ine played an important ro le, but she thought that th is was not a French qual i ty.

Before the procedure for programmed legis lat ive t ime had been implemented, there had already been informal d iscussions wi th the Opposi t ion to know at what point the group or groups expected to f inish speaking, but at the same t ime this remained a great d iary constra int for those deput ies working on the fo l lowing text, and for the Government, and i t could lead to serious delays in the bi l l becoming law. A law on press ownership, judged to be damaging to l iber t ies by the Opposi t ion, had thus been debated for 167 hours in the Chamber. Televis ing proceedings would change nothing and had changed nothing, because the Opposi t ion was not seeking to interest v iewers but to show that i t was f ight ing to safeguard ci t izens’ r ights and l iber t ies on symbol ic issues such as ret i rement. I t was v ita l to g ive the Opposi t ion more t ime than the major i ty, otherwise this measure would have been judged unacceptable. I t was normal for the Opposi t ion to table more amendments and to speak for longer, especia l ly now that the discussion in p lenary was focussed on the text as amended in Commit tee.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Ms LUQUIENS and other members who had contr ibuted to th is interest ing debate.

3. Election of a Vice-President of the ASGP

The Pres ident noted that the deadl ine for candidacies for the post of Vice-President had recent ly passed. One candidacy had been received – that of Mrs Dor is MWINGA (Zambia). The President declared that she was therefore e lected by acc lamation.

4. Presentation by Mr Greg POWER, lead author of the Global Parliamentary Report 2012 and by Mr Martin CHUNGONG on recent developments in the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Mr Greg POWER explained that h is report a imed, in 50,000 words, to describe the state of par l iaments across the wor ld. 63 Par l iaments had prov ided wri t ten contr ibut ions. In addi t ion, there had been oral interv iews. The purpose was to evaluate the evolut ion of re lat ions between par l iaments and people. There were increasing numbers of Par l iaments today: 190, in 193 countr ies. I t therefore seemed indispensable to states to have a Par l iament, and yet these and the extent of their real power were of ten subject to some scept ic ism. Parl iaments responded by seeking to involve the publ ic more broadly , by provid ing more informat ion, te levis ing debates, hav ing extensive websi tes, etc.

Consul t ing the general publ ic through communicat ions, quest ionnaires and new technologies – especial ly in Lat in America – was increasingly used. But these consultat ions of ten resul ted in a certain d isappointment , and pessimism as to their usefulness. Very few Par l iaments had a sense of the real impact of these strategies. Increased pressure from the publ ic pushed Members to act in a more t ransparent and responsib le way, but that l imited at the same t ime their room for manoeuvre. This pressure seemed to apply equal ly to Members e lected on a l is t basis. The very nature of their mandate was changed by th is to some extent . The report looked also at the act ions of Members at a local level : in some cases, voters expected somehow, in exchange for what they saw as sponsorship, to receive services in return, for example assis tance in accessing state serv ices; and th is could create an excess of work. At the same t ime, Members looked at th is as an interest and of course an electoral advantage.

Today, in some countr ies, Members even came together to provide local services, l ike hospi ta ls, rather than lending indiv idual support to projects; others created local micro- f inance schemes. Members needed also to learn f rom these exper iences in the f ield of teaching for their legis lat ive act iv i ty, and th is l ink was not always easi ly made. Many Par l iaments had in p lace mul t i -year s trategies for inf luence: launching consultat ions was often an administ rat ive task, but def in ing st rategies and using resul ts was often very pol i t ical . Final ly, despi te the apparent ly growing scept ic ism of the people, Parl iaments were paradoxical ly more act ive, more transparent and more eff ic ient than they had been 50 years before. This progress had even been spectacular in many countr ies. The conclusion from th is was that i t was the nature of publ ic demands and of the parl iamentary mandate that had changed.

Mr Mohamad Kamal MANSURA (South Africa) noted that South Afr ica had put such a consul tat ion in p lace. He explained that i t had targeted young people, including those under vot ing age. He asked i f the report took into account th is k ind of consultat ion. He also asked i f the study had revealed much dupl icat ion of work between the act iv i t ies of Par l iaments and those of other publ ic f igures at nat ional , regional or local level , i f some powerfu l interest groups intervening aggressively in

these consul tat ions could have been able to fa ls i fy the results intent ional ly , and i f some of the recommendations in the report could be appl ied to a l l countr ies.

Mr David BEAMISH (United Kingdom) asked i f soc ia l networks were not in a certa in way also r ivals to Parl iament , which could f ind i tsel f marginal ised in nat ional debate.

Ms Jul iet MUPURUA (Namibia) asked how Par l iament and the Execut ive could manage the demands expressed by voters af ter hav ing col lected them.

Mr Austin ZVOMA (Zimbabwe) thought that the percept ion of Parl iaments and par l iamentar ians was always subject ive. However, he judged i t essent ial that bodies of this k ind could carry out evaluat ions, and asked how these could be made more object ive.

Mr Greg POWER said that only nat ional par l iaments had been studies, not local bodies. There had been no notable mal ic ious part ic ipat ion. The report showed that Par l iament or representat ive mechanisms could not be replaced, but provided channels or introducing forms of part ic ipat ion, for example through socia l media. Par l iaments had, however, as inst i tut ions, d i f f icul ty in introducing these forms of part ic ipat ion, a l though for example, the House of Commons in the Uni ted Kingdom had put in p lace very interest ing mechanisms in th is area. I t was certa in ly necessary to avoid over-consul tat ion, or launching a consultat ion i f there was no real intent ion to fol low i t up.

Mrs Doris Katai Katebe MWINGA (Zambia) thought that parl iamentary monitor ing organisat ions were often considered as r ivals by parl iamentar ians, and sometimes r ight ly so, because some members of these organisat ions had stood for e lect ion and been successful . There was therefore a problem of credib i l i ty, and sometimes of object iv i ty, of these organisat ions, which sometimes targeted a party or Member. Internat ional organisat ions seemed to emerge wi th more credit . Final ly, she asked i f i t had been proved that greater publ ic part ic ipat ion ensured bet ter legis lat ive work, or higher qual i ty in the laws that were passed.

Dr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI ( India) thanked Mr Power for th is report and for the opt imism of h is conclusions. He noted that Indian par l iamentarians could now launch local development projects in their const i tuencies, at a value of up to 1 mi l l ion dol lars each year. He asked i f there were other examples of th is k ind.

Ms Claressa SURTEES (Austral ia) asked i f and how i t was possib le to measure and evaluate the successes or fai lures of d i f ferent impact and communicat ion s trategies, judging that i f th is evaluat ion was carr ied out by par l iamentar ians themselves, i t r isked not being very object ive.

Mrs Phi l ippa HELME (United Kingdom; substitute member) asked i f i t was a good idea to involve pol i t ica l part ies and/or the Execut ive in the resul ts of these consultat ions, as Members were of ten interested in consul t ing, but rarely in the consequences of consul t ing.

Mr Greg POWER thought that some organisat ions moni tor ing par l iamentary work d id posit ive things, a l though some tended to fa l l back on a certain popul ism. In i t ia t ives at a const i tuency level were an increasing occurrence in many countr ies. They could however introduce a certain confusion between Execut ive and legis lat ive responsib i l i ty . As for managing local development funds, i t was essent ia l to provide

for safeguards in their management . There was a tension between the legis lat ive funct ion and represent ing voters. Some parl iaments had put in p lace precise indicators for evaluat ing the effect iveness of consul tat ions. I t was important to inv ite par l iamentar ians genuinely to take on board the resul ts of consul tat ions.

Mr Mart in CHUNGONG thanked Mr Power and indicated that this report had been at the heart of the IPU’s work dur ing the previous year. He congratulated Marc BOSC for h is e lect ion as the ASGP’s Pres ident. He noted that the IPU had been extremely act ive dur ing recent months in those countr ies affected by the “Arab Spring”, especia l ly Tunis ia and Egypt , so as to be able to give bi r th to sol id Par l iaments as key pi l lars of democracy. The IPU had worked part icular ly extensively wi th const i tuent assembl ies. In L ibya, the IPU had also been consul ted on the creat ion of a new Par l iament. Work would also no doubt be carr ied out when the si tuat ion had stabi l ised in Yemen and Syr ia. The IPU had also been involved in the cr is is that had recent ly shaken the Maldives. He thanked al l Secretar ies General for their support and for the substant ial resource they provided to the IPU.

5. Communication by Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER, Vice-President of the ASGP, Deputy Secretary General of the German Bundestag: "Who decides which Members get to speak in the plenary - the President of the Bundestag or the political groups?"

Mr Marc BOSC, President, invi ted Dr Ulr ich SCHÖLER, Vice-President of the ASGP, Deputy Secretary General of the German Bundestag, to present h is communicat ion, as fo l lows:

“Fol lowing the debate on the euro rescue package in the plenary chamber of the German Bundestag in September 2011, the President of the Bundestag, Professor Norbert Lammert , came in for f ierce cr i t ic ism from al l of the par l iamentary groups represented in the Bundestag. There was ta lk of an “a larming development in par l iamentary rout ine” , a breach of “democrat ic custom” and an “autocrat ic dec is ion”; the President of the Bundestag was even accused of h igh-handedness.

What had happened?

In the debate on the euro rescue package, the President of the Bundestag, invoking the const i tut ional ly guaranteed r ight to address Par l iament, had cal led two Members from the parl iamentary groups of the governing coal i t ion, the CDU/CSU and the FDP, to speak for f ive minutes each. These two speakers, however, had not been al located any speaking t ime by their groups because of their d issent ing posi t ions. They were therefore addi t ional speakers. Their speaking t imes were not inc luded in their groups’ respect ive quotas. Their speeches were not deferred unt i l the end of the scheduled two-hour debate; instead, they were integrated into the sequence of the nominated group speakers.

Outs ide Par l iament , that is to say among the general publ ic and much of the media, the decis ion was well received. The Pres ident of the Bundestag was dubbed the “watchman of democracy” who had acted “ for the good of democracy” and strengthened the r ights of indiv idual Members by fo i l ing a “censorship bid” .

The debate took place in Germany in a pol i t ica l c l imate which may be descr ibed as extremely stormy and which was marked by a sharp polar isat ion: in Par l iament, there was broad approval wi th in almost every group for reform of the EFSF – the

European Financia l Stabi l i ty Faci l i ty. The general publ ic , by contrast, were showing deep concern at the development of the euro. Many people had ser ious doubts about the sui tabi l i ty of the planned measures for the stabi l isat ion of the common currency. Opinion pol ls were showing that some two th i rds of respondents opposed an extension of the rescue package. In short , denying the two Members the r ight to speak would have created a cur ious si tuat ion in which the major i ty of the interested publ ic d id not have their reservat ions and doubts represented in the debate.

Before deal ing any fur ther wi th th is speci f ic case and out l in ing the const i tut ional provis ions that prompted the Pres ident of the Bundestag to take his decis ion, I would l ike to describe the normal course of events, in other words the standard Bundestag procedure for p lanning and st ructur ing plenary debates and speakers’ intervent ions.

The f irst important point to note is that the Bundestag alone, act ing independent ly, determines i ts agenda, which means that the Government cannot d ictate to Par l iament when and wi th in what per iod i t must d iscuss part icular proposals. In Par l iament i tsel f , responsibi l i ty for preparing plenary sessions l ies almost exclusively wi th the par l iamentary groups. These groups are al l iances of at least 5% of the Members, a l l of whom must belong to the same pol i t ical party. The Federal Const i tut ional Court , to which a powerfu l ro le is assigned in our const i tut ional structure, has always emphasised the eminent importance of these groups in our par l iamentary democracy. In the eyes of the Court , the foremost tasks of the par l iamentary groups are to guide and faci l i tate the technical execut ion of the par l iamentary process.

The Rules of Procedure provide for a Counci l of Elders to guide the work of the Bundestag. Besides the President of the Bundestag and his deput ies, the Counci l of Elders comprises the Parl iamentary Secretar ies of the groups plus a quota of addi t ional group representat ives proport ionate to the relat ive strength of the groups. A representat ive of the Federal Government a lso takes part in meet ings of the Counci l of Elders.

In the Counci l of Elders, the parl iamentary groups reach agreement on the bi l ls , mot ions and other business to be discussed in p lenary in the course of a s i t t ing week and on the order in which these del iberat ions are to take place. The Counci l a lso determines whether part icular agenda i tems are to involve a debate, how long the debate is to last and how i t is to be conducted. The consensus pr inc ip le appl ies; in other words, a proposal cannot be adopted unless i t is approved by al l par l iamentary groups. This means that the Counci l of Elders never decides on agenda issues by majori ty vote.

In formal terms, agreements reached by the Counci l of Elders are only proposals to be put to the House. Because of the pr ior consensus that has been reached by the Counci l of Elders, however, the House wi l l , as a ru le, accept i ts proposals. In the event of the Counci l of Elders being div ided on an agenda matter , the f inal decis ion is not taken by the Counci l but by the House, and in th is case the issue may be decided by a majori ty vote. These, then, are the only cases – and they are ext remely rare in pract ice – in which debates on points of order and votes on the agenda occur at p lenary s i t t ings.

The dis tr ibut ion of the agreed speaking t ime on a part icular agenda i tem is determined by means of an establ ished formula, which is essent ia l ly determined by the re lat ive strengths of the par l iamentary groups. The t ime al locat ions are s imply

based on the minutes in an hour. The hour is current ly div ided into 23 minutes’ speaking t ime for the CDU/CSU group, 14 minutes for the SPD, n ine minutes for the FDP and seven minutes each for the groups of The Left Party and Al l iance 90/The Greens. Where debates are shorter or longer than an hour, the tota l speaking t ime is d is tr ibuted in the same proport ions. With in their a l lot ted t ime frame, the groups themselves determine which speakers are to present their posi t ion in the chamber and for how long each speaker may address the House. The names of indiv idual speakers and their al lot ted speaking t imes are f i rst communicated to the President or h is presid ing deputy dur ing the plenary s i t t ing.

The Pres ident a lone is empowered to cal l indiv idual speakers. Under the Rules of Procedure, the sequence of speakers in a debate is a lso his decis ion. Such decis ions are not ent ire ly at the President ’s d iscret ion, however. On the one hand, the Rules of Procedure require the President to conduct par l iamentary proceedings fa i r ly and impart ial ly. On the other hand, in determining the order of speakers he must adhere to cer ta in cr i ter ia. For example, the Pres ident must endeavour to ensure that debates are conducted proper ly and ef f ic ient ly. He must also have due regard for the var ious views of the pol i t ical part ies, give a hear ing to the arguments for and against the tabled proposal in turn and take account of the re lat ive st rengths of the par l iamentary groups.

At f i rst , this sounds as i f the groups played no part in determining the actual sequence of speakers. In fact , for a long t ime, general inter-group agreements determining the order of speakers were not standard parl iamentary pract ice, unl ike agreements on the distr ibut ion of speaking t ime. This changed in 2005, at the star t of the previous 16th electoral term of the Bundestag.

Since then the par l iamentary groups, taking care to observe the aforementioned requirements prescr ibed by the Rules of Procedure, such as considerat ion of relat ive group strengths and the pr inciple of al ternat ing speeches for and against the tabled proposal , have reached agreement at the star t of the electoral term on a detai led framework from which the sequence of speakers can be abstracted for a lmost every form of debate. I t contains d iverse sequence models for normal debates, for government pol icy statements fo l lowed by debates and for other special forms of debate. Among the factors i t uses to determine the order of speakers is the ident i ty of the in i t ia tor of the tabled proposal . Another factor is whether the House is deal ing with the matter for the f i rs t t ime or whether i t is due to make i ts f inal dec is ion.

Str ic t ly speaking, as an inter-group agreement , th is framework is not legal ly b inding on the President or h is presid ing deputy but rather serves to support the President and guide him in exercis ing his d iscret ion. Nevertheless, in pract ice the presid ing off icer wi l l adhere to the framework as a mat ter of pr incip le, not least for the purpose of guaranteeing uni formity and cont inui ty in the conduct of proceedings by al l members of the Presid ium. In the rare cases in which a President intends to deviate from the framework, he normal ly consul ts the par l iamentary secretar ies of the groups beforehand.

Before moving on, I would l ike to refer to one specia l case in th is context, namely Members who do not belong to a par l iamentary group. Certa in guidel ines apply to them too. For example, they are normal ly g iven leave to speak towards the end of a debate. Their speaking t ime is measured against the total agreed durat ion of the debate on the agenda i tem in quest ion. In concrete terms, they receive three

minutes in debates last ing up to one hour, f ive minutes in debates last ing more than one but not more than three hours, and so on.

Admittedly, the whole th ing sounds complex and impenetrable, not to ment ion bureaucrat ic. The descr ibed pract ice does, however, foster the substant ive work of the Bundestag, in which f ive parl iamentary groups are current ly represented. I t spares the plenary chamber f rom debates on points of order, helps to ensure that the abundance of proposals and issues on the agenda receive due at tent ion and general ly guarantees that Members of a l l pol i t ica l persuasions – including those from the opposi t ion side – are able to speak.

Let me now return to the controversy I described at the s tar t .

From what I have expla ined, you wil l see that points of pr inc iple were involved last September when two Members f rom the government groups sought leave to speak in the debate on the euro rescue package in order to ai r their d ivergent v iews in the publ ic forum. The two Members invoked their const i tut ional ly guaranteed r ight to speak. The parl iamentary groups, on the other hand, fe l t that i t would undermine their own effect iveness and eff ic iency and impair the funct ioning of Par l iament as a whole i f the groups were denied an exclus ive r ight to nominate p lenary speakers.

The legi t imate interests of the group leaders are p lain to see:

The groups regard themselves as the pr imary coordinators of technical processes in the Bundestag, a par l iament in which the div is ion of labour is wr i t large. The chronological sequence of proceedings at p lenary s i t t ings must not, in their v iew, become incalculable.

The groups want to decide how and by whom the already t ight rat ion of speaking t ime can be used to best ef fect to set out and just i fy the groups’ pos it ions publ ic ly. This includes the decis ion as to whether only the v iew of the majori ty wi th in the group should be voiced in order to convey the impression of pol i t ical unity to the outside wor ld or whether ‘group dissenters’ should be given the opportunity to present their d ivergent pos i t ions, albei t wi th in a duly smal l proport ion of the speaking t ime al lot ted to the proponents of the majori ty v iew, in order to avoid an imbalanced publ ic port rayal of the group’s stance.

Last ly, the groups were concerned that a precedent would be created which other Members might invoke in future.

So what about the indiv idual r ights of Members, part icular ly their speaking r ights?

At a very ear ly stage, back in 1959, the Federal Const i tut ional Court ru led that the r ight of a Member to speak in the Bundestag was consistent wi th the const i tut ional status of Members of the Bundestag guaranteed by the second sentence of Art ic le 38(1) of the Basic Law. At the same t ime, i t s tressed that this r ight was not unl imi ted. Since the groups guide and organise par l iamentary proceedings, indiv idual Members necessar i ly owe a certa in a l legiance to their par l iamentary group. Members benef i t f rom their group af f i l iat ion but must also accept restr ict ions on their Members ’ r ights in return. These restr ict ions are const i tut ional ly permissib le, prov ided that they

1. do not go beyond what is needed to safeguard the conduct of par l iamentary proceedings, and

2. ensure that Members remain able to exercise the necessary degree of autonomy in their decis ion-making and personal responsibi l i ty.

Against th is backdrop i t is general ly recognised that measures which are designed to guarantee the effect iveness of Par l iament and which af fect al l Members equal ly in pr incip le are just i f ied by Par l iament’s r ight to adopt i ts own rules of procedure, as enshr ined in Art ic le 40(1) , second sentence, of the Basic Law. Measures of th is k ind inc lude the closure of a debate, the speci f icat ion of the length of a debate, the al locat ion of f ixed quotas of speaking t ime to the par l iamentary groups on the basis of their numerical st rength and rest r ict ions on the speaking t ime of indiv idual Members, as wel l as measures which serve to ensure adherence to the ru les governing plenary speeches and observance of par l iamentary order. I t is therefore essent ial ly a matter for the Bundestag to determine precisely how i ts Members part ic ipate in the par l iamentary decis ion-making process and what powers are to be accorded to the parl iamentary groups to help shape that process. The Bundestag has wide discret ion in these mat ters, which the Federal Const i tut ional Court is required to respect.

I t is a lso clearly enunciated by the case law of the Federal Const i tut ional Court , however, that th is important and necessary inf luence of par l iamentary groups on the conduct of par l iamentary business does not make the groups themselves holders of the r ight to speak. The r ight to speak is not at the unrestr icted disposal of the groups, let alone their execut ives. On the contrary, the Basic Law formulates the r ight to speak as an indiv idual r ight of each Member and as part of h is or her autonomous status in Par l iament . Accordingly, in the words of the Federal Const i tut ional Court , i t “ is a lso possib le that an indiv idual Member may, i f necessary, request and be granted leave to speak against the wi l l of h is par l iamentary group in order to express what h is conscience dictates” .

Such a si tuat ion certain ly obtains when a Member holds an opin ion diverging from that of the majori ty of his or her par l iamentary group and wishes to present that opin ion to the publ ic in a debate. In such a scenar io – which certa in ly exis ted in the debate on the euro rescue package – the group’s nominated speakers s imply do not represent the dissident . The dissent ing Member is then in the same posi t ion as a non-attached Member. In the case in point , therefore, the President of the Bundestag was not only ent i t led, by vi r tue of h is president ia l powers, to let the two Members speak but a lso had a duty to do so and to assign them speaking t ime based on the agreed al locat ion for non-at tached Members.

In these c ircumstances i t would not have been appropriate to refer the dissent ing Members to other permiss ib le inst ruments under the Rules of Procedure ei ther, such as an explanat ion of vote, a quest ion to the speaker in the course of a speech, remarks on the subject under d iscussion or a br ief in tervent ion after a speech. These opt ions di f fer sharply in essence f rom a dist inct contr ibut ion to a debate and are consequent ly not an adequate subst i tute for which a Member should have to sett le.

However unequivocal the f inal verdic t might sound, uncerta int ies remain wi th regard to both fundamentals and detai ls .

How far , for example, does the indiv idual Member’s independent speaking r ight go? Does i t only come into p lay i f he or she seeks to present an opin ion that d iverges from the view of the group? Does this mean that Members cannot assert their r ight

to speak i f their purpose is ‘only ’ to repeat the posi t ion of their group which has already been presented by other speakers?

In the re levant l i terature we f ind commentators who see no const i tut ional ly tenable grounds for such a rest r ict ion of speaking r ights and who ci te the ent i rely pract ical problem that i t is scarcely poss ib le to ant ic ipate re l iably the probable content of a speaker ’s contr ibut ion. On the other hand, the danger that debates might then get out of contro l cannot be dismissed.

What is to be done i f several ‘d issidents ’ f rom a par l iamentary group wish to speak? Can they reasonably be represented by a single speaker from their ranks? One argument for th is solut ion might be that, at least when they hold paral lel pol i t ical v iews, such ‘consol idat ion’ ensures that they are not subject to any restr ict ions other than those which apply to their col leagues who agree wi th the major i ty of their group and who must therefore accept that part icular speakers from the group address the House on their behal f .

As you can see, some matters cer ta in ly st i l l need c lar i f icat ion. For th is reason the Commit tee on the Scrut iny of Elect ions, Immunity and the Rules of Procedure, which is responsib le for interpret ing and amending the Rules of Procedure and devises solut ions to any conf l ic ts that ar ise in the chamber and in the committees, is current ly deal ing wi th th is case. We st i l l await the f inal outcome, but i t can at least be said that the in i t ia l f ierce cr i t ic ism level led by the groups has tended to g ive way to a more object ive, construct ive and indeed even sel f-cr i t ica l at t i tude.

Conclusion

The Pres ident of the Bundestag acted proper ly by grant ing the two Members leave to speak. The President is duty-bound to ensure that each indiv idual Member reta ins the necessary personal responsib i l i ty and autonomy in their decis ion-making, part icular ly i f the parl iamentary groups are unwil l ing to grant their members th is lat i tude. Their at tempt to s t i f le d ivergent opinions has tended to re inforce rather than dispel doubts about the ro le of Parl iament as the forum of the nat ion. Since the pr imary purpose of contr ibut ions to debates by the representat ives of the people is not to convince each other but to enable the people to assure themselves that their Members of Par l iament represent them in a l l their d iversi ty, p lural ism is imperat ive.

Ms Corinne LUQUIENS (France) noted that in France, Members d id not have to belong to a party group, and that when Members no longer shared the majori ty pos it ion of their group, i t was up to them to leave this group.

Mr Geert HAMILTON (Netherlands) thought that i t was logical that each group should be able to ident i fy a spokesperson, as groups were meant to be based on a certa in uni ty. However, the Speaker, at the end of a debate, a lways asked i f someone else wished to speak. That would certa in ly be the appropriate moment for a d issident Member to speak in the Dutch Senate.

Ms Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE (Uganda) indicated that in Uganda, speaking was free. Every par l iamentar ian wishing to speak could do so, for three minutes.

Mr Ulrich SCHÖLER thanked his col leagues, not ing that he had learnt dur ing the afternoon’s debates, that the way of managing the conduct and organisat ion of debates was very di f ferent f rom one country to another, depending on the cul ture of the country concerned, the number of pol i t ica l groups, the Members, etc.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Dr SCHÖLER for his communicat ion, as wel l as col leagues for hav ing shared their exper iences. , The si t t ing rose at 5.30 pm

FIFTH SITTINGWednesday 4 April 2012 (Morning)

Mr Marc BOSC, President, in the Chair

The Sitting was opened at 10 am

1. Opening Remarks

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked the Ugandan hosts for the excursion organised for the prev ious day, and reminded members that the deadl ine for candidacies for the post of ordinary member of the Execut ive Commit tee was 2.30 pm that day. He announced that Gherardo Casin i f rom the Global Centre for ICT in Par l iaments would make a short presentat ion on the Centre’s recent act iv i t ies before the debate on deal ing wi th urgent s i tuat ions in nat ional parl iaments.

2. Communication by Mr Ibrahim Mohamed IBRAHIM, Secretary General of the National Assembly of Sudan: “Parliamentary modalities for managing a post-war situation – The case of Sudan”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, inv ited Mr Ibrahim Mohamed IBRAHIM, Secretary General of the Nat ional Assembly of Sudan , to present h is communicat ion, as fo l lows:

“ Introduction

The aim of th is communicat ion is to def ine the role p layed by Par l iament as a legis lat ive inst i tut ion to promote and enforce peace agreements achieved through dia logue and negot iat ion between conf l ict ing part ies. The idea of th is paper emanates from the importance of def ining the ro le p layed by the Sudanese par l iament in the implementat ion of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), s igned by the conf l ict ing part ies: the government of Sudan, and the Sudan People’s L iberat ion Movement/Army (SPLM/A), the then the rebel movement . This ro le of Par l iament has ef fect ively contr ibuted to conf idence-bui ld ing between the part ies.

The parl iament carr ied out th is role by transforming the text of the CPA into a number of const i tut ional and legis lat ive provis ions to ensure the fu l l implementat ion of the Agreement. This int roduct ion is necessary as the many aspects of fa i lure in conf idence-bui ld ing effor ts are att r ibuted ei ther to the lack of pol i t ica l wi l l f rom either s ide in the process of implementat ion of agreements, which increases the gap between the part ies, or to def ic iencies in the work that must be played by Parl iament as a legis lat ive body responsible for enact ing const i tut ional and legal provis ions to ensure for the proper implementat ion.

History of the war and peace in Sudan:

Sudan was the largest country in the Afr ican Cont inent before the south has chosen to secede and to create an independent state. I ts geographic locat ion is in the heart

of the Cont inent and the Arab world. I t is one of the most d iverse countr ies in the Cont inent d iverse wi th regard to geographic , populat ion, socia l and cul tural structure. This diversi ty , which has character ized every region and al l par ts of Sudan, is not l imi ted to South Sudan alone. I t hence made Sudan north and south a microcosm of the Afr ican cont inent , in the diversi ty of i ts populat ions, their cul tures and their in teract ing re lat ions between the Arab and Afr ican worlds.

The f i rst movement of rebel l ion in southern Sudan began just days before the Declarat ion of Independence in 1st January 1956. The war cont inued unt i l 1972, when a peace agreement cal led the "The Addis Ababa Agreement" was signed. This agreement st ipulated that South Sudan enjoys sel f -autonomous ru le and that the Agreement be ent i re ly enshrined in the Const i tut ion as an integral part of i t wi th the intent ion of ensur ing legal izat ion of the accord and to guarantee proper implementat ion. Sudan did not enjoy s tabi l i ty except for a per iod of e leven years where the war broke again in 1983 to extend unt i l 2005 due to lack of conf idence between the two part ies and to the incomplet ion of the const i tut ional and legal arrangements necessary to enforce the agreement. The second war came to an end wi th the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), concluded on 9th January 2005 in Nairobi – Kenya, thanks to the wil l and determinat ion of the part ies and to regional and internat ional ef for ts. These wars resul ted in heavy human losses and a s igni f icant change in the socia l , economic, pol i t ica l and environmental areas, leaving negat ive impacts on al l aspects of l i fe , where i t damaged the economy, pol i t ica l l i fe and the overal l sector development and services, in addi t ion to the socia l and psychological impacts resul t ing in d isplacement of c i t izens and refugees who migrated from their p laces of or ig in.

The most important root causes of the civ i l war that lasted for a number of years in the Sudan were as fo l lows:

The fa i lure of newly independent state in Sudan in const i tut ing a nat ion wi th a uni ted fabr ic and the l imi ted capacity of the s tate to achieve nat ional uni ty, economic and socia l development, l ike a number of Afr ican countr ies who gained pol i t ica l independence before having the concept of the nat ion deeply rooted,

Immature pol ic ies, and the poor performance of nat ional governments, which resul ted in the administrat ive and pol i t ical errors, whether in the decis ion-making or in poor part ic ipat ion in the government to br ing about fa irness and just ice,

Failure to adopt object ive and scient i f ic approaches to address conf l icts through clear and comprehensive methodologies to deal with var ious issues such as issues of ident i ty, fai r d is tr ibut ion of power and weal th and the achievement of equi table development in a l l parts of the country,

Lack of communicat ion between the Northern and Southern parts of Sudan to which the accumulat ion of the legacy of the colonia l per iod in the South has contr ibuted, as wel l as the colonial pol icy which tr ied to d iv ide the country by creat ing dis t inct ion between the two parts b locking the south from the north for more than f i f ty years. This pol icy has lef t the South in a s tate of pr imi t iveness as the colonia l power d id neither d isseminate educat ion nor provide services or construct few development projects,

external pressures and foreign intervent ions in d i f ferent forms.

General features of the CPA

The CPA is considered as an important nat ional achievement which put an end to the longest war in Afr ica. I t was essent ia l ly based on the concepts of power and weal th shar ing in, resolv ing the Abyei d ispute and conf l ict in South Kordofan and Blue Ni le States, laying down securi ty arrangements and means of implementat ion. The CPA emphasized the r ight to sel f-determinat ion to the South af ter s ix years, g iv ing the South the choice between staying wi th in the framework of one country wi th the North or separat ion to create an independent state. The Par l iament passed the Southern Sudan Referendum Law for the year 2009.

Power-shar ing agreement is located in the heart of other prov is ions contained in the CPA, as i t contained the detai ls of the powers granted to the terr i tory of the South, where the southern region reta ined exclusive powers in the pol i t ical , economic, and secur i ty areas in addit ion to a valuable share of power in the nat ional government and in the three regions, namely Southern Kordofan and Blue Ni le and Abyei. The power-shar ing agreement reshaped the form of the State of Sudan and the nature of the re lat ionships between the di f ferent organs of the s tate and between the leaders of the t ransi t ional period which precedes the referendum. I t a lso redef ined the nature of the relat ionship between the two main ent i t ies, the North and the South.

Without going into detai ls and focusing on important aspects, i t was under the CPA that the general pr incip les deal ing wi th the s tructures of the author i t ies and inst i tut ions at the nat ional level , human r ights and fundamental f reedoms, comprehensive nat ional reconci l ia t ion as part of peace-bui ld ing process, the census, e lect ions and representat ion was agreed.

Authorit ies and insti tutions at the national level

Legislat ive Power : the CPA st ipulated that the Par l iament be composed of two chambers. Membership in each shal l be by appointment compris ing al l pol i t ica l part ies. The f i rst chamber is cal led the Nat ional Assembly and the second is cal led the Counci l of States together const i tut ing “The Nat ional Legislature” (Par l iament) . The task of the Parl iament is to involve i tsel f in enact ing legis lat ions unt i l the t ime of e lect ions and the establ ishment of an elected par l iament.

The National Assembly : Seats in the Nat ional Assembly wi l l be al located as fo l lows:

1. The Nat ional Congress Party ( the ru l ing party) 52%2. The Sudan People 's L iberat ion Movement (SPLM) 28%3. Other pol i t ica l part ies from the north 24%4. Other pol i t ica l part ies from the south 6%

The Council of States : The Counci l of States, which was speci f ical ly created under the CPA to care for the interests of the States and to protect these interests against the predominance of the centre, was decided to consist of f i f ty members e lected by the States’ Legis lat ive Counci ls in the twenty f ive States. i .e. two members from each State e lected by the State ’s Legis lat ive Counci l , in addi t ion to two members represent ing the north-and-south- d isputed area of Abyei , as observers and are selected by the Pres idency of the Republ ic (The Pres ident and the two Vic-Presidents) . The pr ime task of the Counci l of States is to guard the r ights of the States and to avoid any prejudice from the centre. The Counci l of States part ic ipates

with the Nat ional Assembly in mat ters re lat ing to issues of sovereignty and passes laws that d i rect ly af fect the States, l ike the law of a l locat ion of resources between the States and the centre.

The Counci l of States has also the powers to review laws passed by the Nat ional Assembly to make sure that the interests of the States are intact.

The Executive : The CPA st ipulated that the execut ive power comprises the Presidency and the Counci l of Ministers. The Pres idency is to be composed of the President and his two deput ies. Decis ion-making shal l be made in the spir i t of partnership and fe l lowship unt i l the date of e lect ions. The current President is the Head of State and Supreme Commander of the armed forces. The current chairman of the SPLM wi l l be the Firs t Vice-President of the Republ ic, the President of the Government of Southern Sudan and the Supreme Commander of the SPLA. The CPA st ipulated speci f ic cases where the Pres ident shal l make decis ions wi th the consent of the First Vice-President , those are: the declarat ion and ending the state of emergency, dec larat ion of war, appointments to be made by the President in accordance wi th the peace agreement , cal l ing the legis lature to convene, adjourn or indef in i te ly postpone i ts sessions. The CPA also st ipulated that i f the post of President fa l ls vacant, the funct ions of the Pres idency shal l be vested in a President ia l Counci l compris ing the Speaker of the Nat ional Assembly, the Firs t Vice-President and the Vice-President . The Pres ident ia l Counci l shal l be presided by the First Vice-Pres ident, who shal l be the Supreme Commander of the Sudanese Armed Forces. The Counci l takes decis ions by consensus.

The Judiciary : In accordance wi th the CPA, the Judic iary consis ts of four levels , namely the Const i tut ional Court , the Supreme Court and the Nat ional Court of Appeal and any other courts to be establ ished. In South Sudan, the CPA indicated, in the sect ion re lat ing to th is subject, the establ ishment of a Supreme Court in South Sudan, courts of appeal and any other courts to be establ ished in accordance wi th the Const i tut ion of South Sudan. This part included detai led i tems on the competence of these courts , as wel l as on the Nat ional Commiss ion on Judicia l Service.

National Commissions : In spi te of the fact that the CPA st ipulated that the author i t ies at the nat ional level are the three powers known, namely: Legislat ive, Execut ive and Judicia l , yet i t added a for th form of inst i tut ions cal led the "Nat ional Commissions". This is in order to br idge the conf idence gap between the part ies s ignator ies to the CPA, and to ensure i ts implementat ion in a serious and a profess ional manner. These Commissions, competent and independent, special ize in d if ferent areas so as to carry out di f ferent tasks and funct ions. One can say that, according to the powers of the Nat ional Commissions, they represent organs above the execut ive branch, which means that they have overr id ing powers than those of the competent minis tr ies. The Nat ional Commiss ions decide on standards and princip les according to which ministr ies act on issues that fal l under the competence of these Nat ional Commissions. The National Assembly passed all the laws pertaining to the establishment of the National Commissions , as i t was decided that the establ ishment of these independent commissions is important to tackle quest ions of paramount importance. The National Assembly succeeded in the diff icult task of approving the appointment of the persons nominated by the Presidency as presidents and members of the National Commissions .

Details of National Commissions:

These Commissions are as fo l lows:

1. The Constitut ional Commission : specia l izes in leading and sponsor ing nat ion-wide pol i t ical d ialogue on the new const i tut ion that governs the trans it ional per iod. The draft const i tut ion shal l be endorsed by the Nat ional Assembly without amendment .

2. The Electoral Commission : is concerned wi th the task of conduct ing elect ions in d if ferent levels, as wel l as conduct ing the referendums, wi th the except ion of the Southern Sudan referendum for sel f -determinat ion which is scheduled to be carr ied out by a specia l commission which has i ts own law.

3. The Judiciary National Commission : is concerned wi th the affa i rs of the judic iary wi th regard to appointment, promotion and al lowances of personnel .

4. The Commission on Human Rights : deals wi th a l l matters re lat ing to human r ights.

5. The Commission on al location of resources : concerned with the distr ibut ion of nat ional revenue between the Centre and the States as wel l as the Government of Southern Sudan in accordance wi th agreed standards.

6. The Commission on Civil Service : pr imari ly concerned with br inging about just ice in appointment of qual i f ied persons in the civ i l service from di f ferent parts of Sudan as wel l as ensuring that the people of South Sudan take the 30% percentage speci f ied in the agreement al located to the South in d i f ferent grades of the civ i l service.

7. The Counci l of Pol it ical Part ies : is entrusted to tack le issues relat ing to pol i t ica l part ies with regard to formation, regist rat ion, conduct and pract ice in accordance wi th the legal provis ions.

8. Southern Sudan Referendum Commission : th is Commission is especial ly created to carry out the task of conduct ing the referendum of Southern Sudan, according to the resul t of which the Southern Sudan shal l cont inue to be part of Sudan or chooses to establ ish an independent state. The wil l of the people of the south whether in the north or I the south or outside Sudan shal l determine the future of the south as stated in the agreement . This Commiss ion accompl ished i ts mission which resul ted in the choice of the people of south Sudan the opt ion of establ ishing their independent state, the Republ ic of South Sudan, of f ic ia l ly dec lared on 9th July 2011.

National Reconcil iat ion : the part ies agreed to star t a process of nat ional reconci l ia t ion as part of a comprehensive peace-bui ld ing course of act ion.

Jobs allocation and languages : I t was agreed that between 20% to 30% of the publ ic service jobs be al located to qual i f ied people of South Sudan. I t was also agreed that the languages used in the Sudan shal l be Arabic as the main language, and Engl ish as off ic ial language in the bureaucracy. In addi t ion, a l l local languages are considered nat ional languages that should be respected, fur ther developed and promoted.

In the beginning, the Parliament passed the CPA without introducing amendments thereto , so as to move to the other mult iple implementat ion stages of

the CPA. The f i rs t stage is the implementat ion of the secur i ty arrangements by passing the Law on the Joint and Combined Forces for the year 2005. A pol i t ica l agreement was reached to dissolve the Par l iament and to form a new Par l iament whose membership is appointed compris ing al l the part ies s ignator ies of the CPA in addi t ion to other part ies, in accordance wi th the percentages of representat ion, in order to ensure the widest nat ional part ic ipat ion possib le in the framework of the legis lature, so as to transform the CPA into const i tut ional and legal provis ions.

In the Const i tut ional f ramework, the Par l iament passed the Law establ ishing the Nat ional Commission on the Const i tut ion entrusted with draft ing the new const i tut ion to guide the transi t ional per iod taking into account at the same t ime the texts that agreed upon in the CPA. A polit ical agreement between all parties involved was reached with a view to authorizing the Parliament to endorse the draft consti tut ion drafted by the National Commission on the Constitut ion without introducing amendments thereon. This pol i t ica l deal embarked from commitment to seek consensus on the draft const i tut ion, which is considered a cornerstone and a main p i l lar to take off towards the enactment of laws that establ ish other commissions and def ine their terms of reference, powers and composit ion, as wel l as the enactment of other laws capable of implementing the CPA. The part ies concerned committed themselves to seek consensus in Parl iament , in accordance wi th the spir i t of the CPA and to the benef i t of i ts implementat ion, expressing the desire to promote peace and nat ional uni ty to atta in peace, in spi te of the fact that the CPA provis ions did not state that decis ions must be taken unanimously. Legislat ive Business related to the CPA

The Par l iament passed legis lat ions, whether new laws or amended exist ing laws, in those areas re lat ing to the implementat ion of the CPA.

During the year 2005, the year in which the CPA was signed, the Par l iament passed the Inter im Const i tut ion, the Const i tut ional Court Act, the Judicia l Service Commission Act , the Bank of Sudan Act, the Al locat ion of Resources Act, the Joint and Combined Forces Act .

During Year 2006 the Par l iament passed the Work of Voluntary and Humanitar ian Act ion Act, and during Year 2007, i t passed the Armed Forces Act, the Nat ional Civ i l Service Act , the Off ice of the Nat ional Civ i l Service Act , the pol i t ica l part ies Act, the Repeal of the Development Fund for the South Act , the Mineral Resources Development and Mining Act , the Nat ional General Audi t Bureau Act, the Financia l Procedures and Account ing Act .

During the year 2008, the Parl iament passed the Nat ional Elect ions Act, the Pol ice of Sudan Act, the Universi ty for Peace Act , the Counci l for Promotion and Development of Nat ional Languages Act , the Tour ism Act, the Foreign Trade Regulat ion Act, and dur ing the year 2009, the Par l iament passed the Southern Sudan Referendum Act, the Nat ional Commission on Human Rights Act . The Par l iament has also amended laws re lat ing to the Code of Civi l Procedure, Cr iminal Procedure, Cr iminal Law, Press and Press Publ icat ions, the Nat ional Secur i ty, the Trade Unions, and the law of popular consul tat ions for Southern Kordofan and Blue Ni le. Dur ing the year 2011, Parl iament passed the Law establ ishing the Univers i ty of John Garang, the Sudanese Nat ional i ty Act and the Civ i l Regist ry Act.

Control by the Parl iament in the implementation of the CPA

The Parl iament fo l lowed c losely the work of the Execut ive to fo l low up the implementat ion of legis lat ions enacted perta in ing to the implementat ion of the CPA through speeches, statements and reports made by the Pres idency of the Republ ic on the status of the implementat ion of the CPA, and al l i ts components. These reports were the subject of in-depth studies and evaluat ion by the Par l iament. Seminars and workshops on the peacekeeping ro le of the Uni ted Nat ions in Sudan, on disarmament, demobi l izat ion and re integrat ion and on the s tatus of humani tar ian affa i rs in the country were also held in the framework of par l iamentary act iv i t ies. Train ing course for members of parl iament on human r ights and peace-bui ld ing measure were also organized. Field v is i ts to South Sudan were conducted by both Houses of Parl iament , where MP's met wi th several members of the Southern Sudan Government and members of the Legislat ive Counci ls in the South to d iscuss and evaluate effor ts re lat ing to the status of implementat ion of the CPA.

Conclusion

This communicat ion reveals that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement brought about tremendous pol i t ica l change in the pol i t ica l and economic structure of Sudan and produced many developments in the performance of the nat ional Parl iament , put t ing on his shoulders enormous amounts of responsib i l i t ies to p lay i ts ro le in transforming the provis ions of the CPA into const i tut ional and legal prov is ions. This is in addi t ion to the responsib i l i ty establ ished by the CPA on the shoulders of the two legis latures in each of the States of Southern Kordofan and Blue Ni le for the implementat ion of the popular consultat ion included in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr Ibrahim Mohamed IBRAHIM for his communicat ion and inv ited members present to put quest ions to him.

Mr Alphonse K. NOMBRÉ (Burkina Faso) asked how th is agreement and i ts implementat ion had worked out fo l lowing the independence of South Sudan.

Mr Mahamat HASSAN BRÉMÉ (Chad) thanked and congratulated Mr IBRAHIM. He asked about the si tuat ion in South Sudan at the moment the agreement had been signed. He thought that some bodies had been point lessly dupl icated and that the separat ion of powers appeared biased, and he asked for c lar i f icat ion on these subjects.

Mr Shah Sultan AKIFI (Afghanistan) asked Mr IBRAHIM about the const i tut ional court and i ts competences.

Mr Socrates SOCRATOUS (Cyprus) recal led the management of the cr is is in Cyprus after the Turk ish invasion in 1984, and asked i f Par l iament had been involved in the management of humani tar ian si tuat ions.

Mrs Jacqueline BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN (Netherlands) asked what the relat ions were between the Counci l of States and the dif ferent nat ional commissions and who took the f inal decis ions.

Mr Md. Mahfuzur RAHMAN (Bangladesh) asked how the competences of the Supreme Court and Const i tut ional Court were def ined.

Mr Manuel CAVERO GOMEZ (Spain) asked about the way in which the nat ional commissions had been establ ished and tasks had been al located to them.

Mr Habtamu NINI ABINO (Ethiopia) asked i f the Counci l of States had a genuine legis lat ive competence.

Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER (Germany) asked about current re lat ions between the author i t ies in Sudan and South Sudan.

Mr Said MOKADEM (Mahgreb Consultat ive Council ; Associate Member) noted that the Par l iaments were current ly nominated “unt i l the establ ishment of an elected Par l iament” , and asked i f a date had been determined for legis lat ive e lect ions.

Mr Ibrahim Mohamed IBRAHIM repl ied that the ini t ia l agreement prov ided for a future referendum on the sel f -determinat ion of South Sudan, but th is country had wished to have i ts independence immediate ly. The two countr ies were current ly d is t inct, wi th normal ised dip lomatic re lat ions. The President of Sudan was st i l l in p lace and the former Vice-Pres ident was current ly President of South Sudan. The Supreme Court was at the head of the t radi t ional judic ia l system, whi le the const i tut ional court determined the const i tut ional i ty of cer ta in decis ions, and managed re lat ions between Par l iament and Government. The Counci l of States was the guardian of the interests of the States in order to ensure that equi table treatment . I t carr ied out other tasks jo int ly wi th the Nat ional Assembly, notably to reject texts judged by a major i ty of members to be unconst i tut ional. I ts powers were al l the same l imi ted in pract ice. Elect ions had already taken place, and the current Par l iament was elected.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr Ibrahim Mohamed IBRAHIM for h is communicat ion, as wel l as a l l those members who had put quest ions to h im.

3. Presentation by Mr Gherardo CASINI on recent activities of the Global Centre for ICT in Parliament

Mr Casini reminded the Associat ion of the role and princip les of act iv i ty of the Global Centre, created in 2005, and expla ined that, of the 267 nat ional Chambers in the wor ld, 244 had part ic ipated since in one or more act iv i t ies of the Centre, as had internat ional par l iamentary assemblies. These act iv i t ies ranged f rom advice and the provis ion of expert ise, to the implementat ion of projects and ass is tance in the use of new technologies. Mr Casin i drew members’ at tent ion to the need to complete the quest ionnaires sent to Par l iaments, so that the 2012 World e-Parl iament report would be representat ive and of h igh qual i ty.

4. General debate: Raising matters of urgency or emergency in the Chamber

Mr Marc BOSC, President, invi ted Ms Claressa SURTEES, Clerk Assistant (Table) of the Austra l ian House of Representat ives, to open the debate.

Ms SURTEES (Austral ia) spoke as fo l lows:

Introduction

Ministers who are Members of the Austra l ian House of Representat ives have priv i leged access to in i t ia te and conduct business in the Chamber. Al though leave of the House is required, a Minis ter may make a s tatement to the House at any t ime

that other formal business in not being considered. The procedure is used to announce government pol icy or other act ions or dec is ions of the Government, or to inform the House of other urgent matters. Leave is rarely refused to a Minis ter seeking to make a statement, however the same level of accommodation would be unl ikely to be extended to a pr ivate, or backbench Member.

There are several opportunit ies avai lable to pr ivate Members to enable them to raise a topical or urgent matter in the Chamber. The standing orders of the House provide two measures which would enable a Member to subject a wide range of execut ive government act iv i ty to scrut iny or cr i t ica l analys is during speci f ic per iods in the order of business. A Member may ask a Minis ter a quest ion wi thout not ice, or a Member may propose the discussion of a def in i te matter of publ ic importance. The standing orders also prov ide for two fur ther measures to enable a Member to move and debate motions which could re late to urgent mat ters – one is for censure of or want of conf idence in the Government , and the other is for a suspension of standing orders wi thout not ice to ra ise a matter.

Which measure a Member chooses might depend on the level of urgency wi th which he or she views a part icular matter . Each of these four d ist inct measures is d iscussed below, and the re levant standing orders are s tated.

Question Time

Standing orders prov ide that for each si t t ing there is a per iod, f rom 2 to 3.10 pm, dur ing which a Member may ask the Pr ime Minister , or any Minis ter who is a Member of the House, a quest ion wi thout not ice about a matter wi th in the Minis ter ’s of f ic ia l responsibi l i t ies. The Minister ’s answer is required to be di rect ly relevant to the quest ion.

The part icular advantage th is measure has is cer ta inty, as Quest ion Time occurs every s i t t ing at the same t ime. The l imitat ions of this measure are that there is not enough t ime for each Member to ask a quest ion every day, there are a maximum of 20 quest ions, and usual ly ‘ tact ics’ groups wi thin the part ies determine the terms of the quest ions and how the quest ions are shared amongst the Members with in the respect ive party groupings.

The standing orders (so 1) provide maximum speaking t imes for quest ions and answers, and the Speaker has used his d iscret ion to permit up to f ive supplementary quest ions with shorter speaking t imes:[extract f rom Standing Order 1 as at 8 February 2012]Quest ion 30 secondsAnswer 3 minutes

[Speaker ’s determinat ion wi th effect f rom 8 February 2012]supplementary quest ion 20 secondsanswer 1½ minutes_________________

[extract f rom Standing Orders as at 8 February 2012]

Chapter 9. Quest ions seeking information

Oral and wri t ten quest ions

97 Dai ly Question Time (a) Quest ion Time shal l begin at 2 pm on each si t t ing day, at which t ime the Speaker shal l in terrupt any business before the House and cal l on quest ions wi thout not ice. (b) The business interrupted shal l be deal t wi th in the fo l lowing manner:

( i ) i f a div is ion is in progress at the t ime, the div is ion shal l be completed and the result announced; or ( i i ) the Speaker shal l set the t ime for resumption of debate.

98 Questions to Ministers (a) A Member may ask a quest ion in wr i t ing of a Minister (but not a Par l iamentary Secretary) , to be placed on the Not ice Paper for wr i t ten reply. (b) Dur ing Quest ion Time, a Member may oral ly ask a quest ion of a Minister (but not a Par l iamentary Secretary) , wi thout not ice and for immediate response. (c) A Minis ter can only be quest ioned on the fo l lowing mat ters, for which he or she is responsib le or of f ic ia l ly connected:

( i) publ ic af fa i rs; ( i i ) administ rat ion; or ( i i i ) proceedings pending in the House.

(d) Quest ioners must not ask Minis ters: ( i ) for an expression of opinion, including a legal opin ion; or( i i ) to announce government pol icy, but may seek an explanat ion about the pol icy and i ts appl icat ion, and may ask the Pr ime Minister whether a Minis ter ’s statement in the House represents government pol icy.

100 Rules for questions The fo l lowing general ru les apply to a l l quest ions: (a) Quest ions must not be debated. (b) A quest ion fu l ly answered must not be asked again. (c) For quest ions regarding persons:

( i) quest ions must not ref lect on or be cr i t ica l of the character or conduct of a Member, a Senator , the Queen, the Governor-General, a State Governor, or a member of the judic iary: their conduct may only be chal lenged on a substant ive motion; and ( i i ) quest ions cr i t ica l of the character or conduct of other persons must be in wri t ing.

(d) Quest ions must not contain: ( i ) s tatements of facts or names of persons, unless they can be authent icated and are str ict ly necessary to make the quest ion intel l ig ible; ( i i ) arguments; ( i i i ) in ferences; ( iv ) imputat ions; (v) insul ts; (v i ) i ronical express ions; or (v i i ) hypothet ical matter .

(e) Quest ions must not refer to debates in the current session, or to proceedings of a committee not reported to the House. ( f ) The durat ion of each quest ion is l imi ted to 30 seconds.

101 Speaker’s discretion about questionsThe Speaker may:

(a) d i rect a Member to change the language of a quest ion asked during Quest ion Time i f the language is inappropriate or does not otherwise conform wi th the standing orders;(b) a l low supplementary quest ions to be asked to c lar i fy an answer to a quest ion asked dur ing Quest ion Time; and (c) change the language of a quest ion in wri t ing i f the language is inappropr iate or does not otherwise conform wi th the s tanding orders.

103 Questions to Speaker At the conclusion of Quest ion Time, Members may ask quest ions oral ly of the Speaker about any mat ter of administ rat ion for which he or she is responsib le.

Repl ies to quest ions 104 Answers (a) An answer must be di rect ly re levant to the quest ion. (b) A point of order regarding relevance may be taken only once in respect of each answer. (c) The durat ion of each answer is l imi ted to 3 minutes.

_____________________________

Procedures for the other three measures that provide a pr ivate Member wi th an opportuni ty to ra ise mat ters at short not ice, a l l appear in the same sect ion of the standing orders, namely ‘Other business’.

Discussion of a defini te matter of public importanceShort ly af ter Quest ion Time on each Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, a def in i te matter of publ ic importance proposed by a Member, may be discussed in the House. Typical ly , a matter proposed for d iscussion would be topical or urgent , ref lect ing contemporary events or concerns. Should more than one Member propose a matter for d iscussion, the Speaker has discret ion to select the preferred matter for that day. The terms of the discussion are in the form of a s tatement rather than proposed as a quest ion, and the statement does not have to be expressed as di rect ly re lat ing to the Government, but i t f requent ly is. Some recent examples are:

The urgent need for the Government to abandon the carbon tax.

The threat to Austra l ia posed by the Government ’s budget cuts to Customs and Border Protect ion.

Motion of censure of or no confidence in the Government

A motion, or an amendment of a motion, which expresses censure of or no conf idence in the Government is considered to be a very ser ious matter and would not occur very often. A not ice may be proposed at any t ime the House si ts or a Member may ask a Minister to accept such a mot ion at any t ime, and once proposed i t would have pr ior i ty of al l other business unt i l the motion was conclusively deal t wi th by the House. The ser iousness wi th which such a debate is v iewed is ref lected in the speaking t imes stated in the s tanding orders:

[extract f rom Standing Order 1 as at 8 February 2012]

Whole debate no l imi tMover 30 minutes

Prime Minister or Minister f i rst speaking 30 minutesAny other Member 20 minutes

Suspension of standing or other orders without noticeA motion to suspend orders may be moved wi th or wi thout not ice and, wi th l imi tat ions, such a motion may be moved at any t ime. The l imi tat ion is that , i f a motion to suspend orders is moved when business is under d iscussion, then the motion must re late to that speci f ic business. Otherwise, a mot ion to suspend orders may be moved at any t ime between i tems of bus iness. This is qui te a versat i le measure and permits of a wide range of matters potent ia l ly being introduced for debate. At the very least, in moving a suspension of s tanding orders, a Member is able to state, in broad terms, the concerns that have led to the Member attempt ing to in i t ia te a speci f ic debate.

[extract f rom Standing Order 1 as at 8 February 2012]

Whole debate 25 minutesMover 10 minutesSeconder, i f any 5 minutesFirs t Member against the mot ion 10 minutesAny other Member 5 minutes____________________

[extract f rom Standing Orders as at 8 February 2012]

Other business

46 Discussion of definite matter of public importance (a) On Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays a Member may propose a def in i te mat ter of publ ic importance be put to the House for d iscussion. (b) The Member must g ive a wr i t ten s tatement of the mat ter to be discussed to the Speaker by 12 noon. I f the Speaker decides that i t is in order, the Speaker shal l read the statement to the House at the t ime provided in standing order 34 (order of business). (c) The proposed discussion must be supported by eight Members, including the proposer, standing in their p laces. The Speaker shal l then cal l on the Member who proposed the matter to speak f i rst . (d) I f more than one mat ter is received for the same day, the Speaker shal l select the mat ter to be read to the House that day. (e) At any t ime during the discussion, any Member may move— That the business of the day be cal led on. This quest ion shal l be put immediately and decided wi thout amendment or debate. I f agreed to, the business of the day shal l be proceeded wi th immediate ly. ( f ) A motion to adjourn the discussion or to move a closure of the quest ion is not in order.

47 Motions for suspension of orders (a) A Member may move, wi th or wi thout not ice, the suspension of any standing or other order of the House. (b) I f a suspension motion is moved on not ice, i t shal l appear on the Not ice Paper and may be carr ied by a major i ty of votes. (c) I f a suspension motion is moved wi thout not ice i t :

( i ) must be relevant to any business under d iscussion and seconded; and ( i i ) can be carr ied only by an absolute major i ty of Members.

(d) Any suspension of orders shal l be l imi ted to the part icular purpose of the suspension.

48 Censure of or no confidence in the Government A motion on not ice or an amendment of a motion which expresses censure of or no conf idence in the Government shal l have pr ior i ty of al l other business unt i l i t is d isposed of by the House, i f i t is accepted by a Minister as a mot ion or amendment of censure or no conf idence.

_____________________________

Observations

Histor ical ly, i t was considered that oral quest ions wi thout not ice to Minis ters should be on important or urgent matters that required immediate at tent ion. The al ternat ive form of quest ions being placed on the not ice paper was, and st i l l is , regarded as sui table for more rout ine queries. The character isat ion of matters as urgent or important is subject to indiv idual interpretat ion.

In the past, the suspension of standing and other orders was used pr inc ipal ly by the Government to fac i l i ta te the progress of business through the House. Since the 1960s, the procedure has been used increasingly by the Opposi t ion as a tact ical measure to propose matters i t considers to be deserving of immediate debate. During th is current Parl iament there have been very frequent mot ions to suspend standing orders proposed by opposi t ion Members.

In re lat ion to ongoing or longer term issues, as compared wi th mat ters of urgency or ones ar is ing at short not ice, speci f ic procedures for pr ivate Members to propose motions and bi l ls to be considered by the House were introduced in the 1980s. Since then, opportunit ies for pr ivate Members have been extended, most not iceably dur ing the current term of minori ty government.

Dr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI ( India) presented a wr i t ten contr ibut ion, as fol lows:

INTRODUCTION

The vibrancy of democracy l ies in how wel l i t vent i lates voice of the people in i ts legis lature. Accountabi l i ty of the execut ive to the legis lature, which is central to good governance, cal ls for t imely attent ion being paid to the urgent needs of the society. As representat ives of the people, Members of Parl iament and State Legislatures are duty bound to raise matters of publ ic importance in the House; vent i late people’s gr ievances and seek their redressal ; e l ic i t in formation from the Government and enforce the execut ive accountabi l i ty to the legis lature. In a large country l ike India, which faces the formidable chal lenges of development and governance, issues of ser ious and emergent nature ar ise a lmost dai ly and need to be immediate ly taken up in the House. When such mat ters ar ise and agi tate the minds of the Members, they feel that they must ra ise those matters, at the f i rs t avai lable opportuni ty , in the House.

2. The Counci l of States (Rajya Sabha), the upper House of Indian Parl iament , has provided in i ts rule book several procedural devices for ra is ing and discussing

issues of publ ic importance, inc luding mat ters of urgency or emergency. Besides the procedural devices such as the Cal l ing Attent ion and Short Durat ion Discussion for rais ing mat ters of urgency in the House in a st ructured way, ‘Zero Hour ’ submiss ions (Mat ters ra ised wi th permission of the Chair) are a lso made by the Members, which do not f ind p lace in the ru le book but are regulated by the Chairman so that the Members may ra ise matters which agi tate their minds, without detai led procedural requirements.

CALLING ATTENTION

3. One of the procedures avai lable to the Members to ra ise matters of urgency or emergency in the Chamber is Cal l ing At tent ion. Rule 180 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Counci l of States enables a Member to cal l the attent ion of a Minister to any mat ter of urgent publ ic importance wi th the previous permission of the Chairman. The Minister may respond to i t by making a br ief statement or may ask for t ime to do so at a later date or t ime. No debate takes place on such a statement when i t is made. As per the l imi t set by the Rule, not more than one such mat ter is ra ised at the same s i t t ing. In case there are more than one matter for the same day, the Chairman decides pr ior i ty on the basis of the urgency and importance of the matter . Normally, Cal l ing Attent ion is taken up af ter the complet ion of the Quest ion Hour and laying of papers on the Table of the House and before any other i tem in the List of Business is taken up. No other t ime dur ing the si t t ing of the Counci l is preferred for taking up Cal l ing Attent ion.

4. The Chairman alone decides the admissibi l i ty of Cal l ing Attent ion not ices, which are subject to the ru les and his judgment about whether the matter sought to be raised cal ls for an ear ly statement from the Minis ter . Urgency and publ ic importance of the subject matter are, therefore, two basic cr i ter ia for admiss ion of not ices of cal l ing at tent ion. The Chairman decides on mer i t depending on these two cr i ter ia and selects for admiss ion one subject f rom amongst several ones, not ices of which are g iven by Members for every s i t t ing of the House. There is no requirement under the rules to consul t the Leader of the House or the Minister concerned in th is regard. Normal ly, a Cal l ing Attent ion is admit ted two or three days before the day on which the attent ion of the concerned Minister is to be cal led, so that the Minister may prepare himsel f for making a statement.

5. With a v iew to s treaml in ing the procedure in regard to Cal l ing Attent ion, the Chairman has issued direct ions f rom t ime to t ime which inter a l ia state that a Member may give a maximum number of two not ices for Cal l ing Attent ion for any one si t t ing. A member who ini t ia tes a Cal l ing Attent ion should not take more than 7 minutes. Other members who are cal led by the Chairman should not take more than 5 minutes each and should rest r ic t themselves str ict ly to seeking clar i f icat ions on the Cal l ing Attent ion and avoid making long speeches. Not more than one hour should be spent on a Cal l ing Attent ion and when there is Quest ion Hour, the Cal l ing At tent ion should conclude sharply at 1.00 p.m. Where a Cal l ing At tent ion Not ice stands in the name of a number of Members, in choosing members who desire to seek clar i f icat ions, the f i rst pr inc ip le wi l l be party/group. After exhaust ing the part ies/groups whose members have given the not ice by cal l ing one Member from each party/group, the Chairman may cal l Members belonging to part ies/groups not in the l ist .

6. In a number of ru l ings f rom the Chair , i t has been made clear that to admit or reject a Cal l ing Attent ion not ice is the discret ion of the Chair . Admiss ion or non-admiss ion of a Cal l ing Attent ion not ice is not to be quest ioned and the Chairman is

also not bound to g ive any reasons for h is decis ion in the matter . I f a Cal l ing At tent ion not ice is disal lowed, Members cannot ra ise the quest ion in the House but can discuss i t wi th the Chairman in h is Chamber.

STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

7. Rule 251 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Counci l of States prescr ibes that ‘A statement may be made by a Minister on a matter of publ ic importance wi th the consent of the Chairman but no quest ion shal l be asked at the t ime the statement is made’ . In fact, the statements made by the Ministers on the f loor of the House enable the Government of the day to share information wi th Par l iament on major pol icy issues or on important developments and incidents. I t a lso prov ides an opportuni ty to the Members to appreciate the stand of the Government on issues of urgent publ ic importance. As per the Rules of Procedure, a Minister may make a statement suo motu on a matter of publ ic importance, and, in response to a Cal l ing At tent ion, on mat ters of urgent importance. For example, the Pr ime Minister made a statement regarding set t ing up of Joint Parl iamentary Commit tee on 2G spectrum al locat ion on 22 February 2011. Again on 27th August , 2011, the Minister of Finance made a statement on the issues re lat ing to sett ing up of a Lokpal, which was discussed at length in the House and the House unanimously adopted a resolut ion for a strong Lokpal Bi l l . When a suo motu s tatement is made by a Minis ter, no quest ions are asked at the t ime the s tatement is made. However, as per the current pract ice in Rajya Sabha, Members can seek c lar i f icat ions to which the Minis ter responds.

8. I f the Chairman admits a Cal l ing Attent ion on a subject matter in response of which the Minis ter has already made a statement suo motu, general ly the Minister concerned does not make a statement again. However, there have been occasions when despi te a previous suo motu statement on a subject mat ter , the Minister made a statement again in response to a Cal l ing Attent ion on that subject .

SHORT DURATION DISCUSSION

9. Another important par l iamentary device avai lable to Members to draw the attent ion of the Government to matters of urgent publ ic importance is to ra ise a d iscussion of short durat ion wi thout a formal motion or vote thereon. Rule 176 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Counci l of States empowers a Member to give not ice of Short Durat ion Discussion for ra is ing discussion on a matter of urgent publ ic importance. The not ice may be given to the Secretary-General speci fy ing c lear ly and precisely the mat ter to be ra ised. Not ice may be given at any t ime after the issuance of summons to Members and should be supported by the s ignatures of at least two other members. The Not ice is required to be accompanied by an explanatory note stat ing reasons for rais ing discussion on the matter in quest ion.

10. The Chairman decides the admissib i l i ty of the not ice. I f an early opportuni ty is otherwise avai lable for d iscussion of the matter , the Chairman may refuse to admit the not ice. Under Rule 177, the Chairman sat is f ies h imsel f that the matter is urgent and is of suff ic ient publ ic importance af ter obtain ing such information f rom both the Members, who have given the not ice, and the Minister , who is concerned wi th that issue. He then takes the decis ion to admit the not ice and, in consul tat ion wi th the Leader of the Counci l , f ixes the date on which that matter may be taken up for d iscussion wi th in a t ime frame not exceeding two and a hal f hours. After a not ice is

admitted and a date f ixed for i ts d iscussion, the i tem is included in the List of Business for that date.

11. As per Rule 178, the discussion takes place wi thout any formal motion and is not subjected to vot ing. The Member, who has given not ice, may make a short statement and, thereafter , any Member who has previously int imated to the Chairman may be permit ted to take part in the discussion. At the end, the Minister g ives a short reply . The Member who ini t ia tes the discussion has no r ight of reply. Under Rule 179, the Chairman may, i f he th inks f i t , prescr ibes t ime l imi t for the speeches of the part ic ipants in the Short Durat ion Discussion. As per pract ice and precedents, ordinar i ly in the meet ing of the Business Advisory Committee, the Chairman ident i f ies the subject to be taken up for Short Durat ion Discussion and the date on which i t is to be scheduled. The concerned Minister /Ministry and the Ministry of Par l iamentary Af fa i rs are also informed about the admission and the scheduled date for d iscussion in the House.

12. The tota l t ime of two and a hal f hours is a l located among var ious pol i t ica l part ies, nominated/ independent Members in proport ion to their s trength/numbers in the Counci l . There have been numerous instances when the discussion has far exceeded the t ime of two and a hal f hours a l lot ted for the purpose in v iew of the importance of the subject , duly author ised by the Business Advisory Committee and/or the Chairman. The names of Members are arranged in the Lis t of Business according to the point of t ime of receipt of their not ices. The names also include those of support ing Members. General ly , the Member, whose name appears f i rs t in the List of Business, in i t iates the discussion. Somet imes, the party to which such Member belongs gives the name of another Member to in i t ia te the discussion, i rrespect ive of the fact whether or not that Member had given a not ice on the subject under d iscussion.

13. There have been instances when not ices of motions given by Members under Rule 168 read wi th ru le 167, to d iscuss a mat ter of general publ ic interest, were converted into Short Durat ion Discussion (Rule 176) on the basis of a decis ion taken either in leaders’ meet ing or in the meeting of Business Advisory Committee. Thereafter , the Mot ion was dispensed wi th and the subject was discussed in the form of a Short Durat ion Discussion.

14. Whether a matter should be discussed by way of a motion under rule 167 or a short durat ion discussion under ru le 176, sometimes becomes crucia l and controversia l . The Rajya Sabha does not have a procedure for moving of an adjournment motion, censure motion or no-conf idence motion against the Government. Apart f rom a pr ivate member 's resolut ion, moving of a mot ion under rule 167 is the only procedure where the House can record i ts opinion and members can move amendments to such a motion, which may be put to the vote of the House and even adopted. Whi le the opposi t ion may have i ts own reasons to employ the device under rule 167 ( to embarrass or cr i t ic ise the Government) , the Government may view i t as a sort of adverse vote. Notwi thstanding the controvers ies, there is a growing trend to d iscuss important matters by way of short durat ion discussion. For example, Dur ing the Monsoon Session in 2011 (223rd Session of Rajya Sabha), four issues were discussed at length in the form of Short Durat ion Discussion, namely, Growing incidents of terror ism in the country with special reference to recent b lasts in Mumbai on the 13th July 2011; Commonweal th Games, 2010 and the developments that have taken place thereaf ter; Growing inc idents of corrupt ion in the country; and Problems being faced by Sr i Lankan Tami ls. Again, during the Winter Session (224th Session), two issues were discussed at length in the form of

Short Durat ion Discussion namely, ‘s i tuat ion ar is ing out of unprecedented r ise in pr ices of food and other essent ia l commodit ies and i ts ef fect on common man’ and ‘s i tuat ion ar is ing out of the present agrar ian cr is is result ing in suic ides by the farmers of the country ’ .

SUSPENSION OF THE QUESTION HOUR TO RAISE URGENT MATTERS

15. Though there is no specif ic provis ion in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Counci l of States for the suspension of the Quest ion Hour, i t may, however, be dispensed wi th to take up some other urgent mat ter. Member may give not ice under Rule 267 for the suspension of the Quest ion Hour. Under th is ru le, appl icat ion of any ru le may be suspended, provided there is no specif ic provis ion to do away wi th that part icular ru le. The not ice shal l contain the text of the mot ion to be moved for suspension of the quest ion hour wi th speci f ic reference to rule 267 and rule 38.

16. The Chairman has absolute d iscret ion in decid ing whether a not ice for suspension of the quest ion hour should be admit ted or not. The pr imacy of the Quest ion Hour as an instrument of enforc ing the accountabi l i ty of the execut ive has to be taken into considerat ion in deciding the issue. The Member whose mot ion has been admit ted by the Chairman, when cal led upon, shal l move the motion. Whi le moving the mot ion, he may be al lowed to speak br ief ly in favour of the mot ion. The motion shal l thereaf ter be put to vote of the House. The House may re ject or adopt the motion by voice vote or by d iv is ion.

17. There are several instances when the Chairman has given consent to move a motion to suspend the Quest ion Hour and the motion was adopted. There have been also several occasions when there was consensus in the House to dispense wi th the Quest ion Hour for making avai lable more t ime to other business or to take up an urgent issue of publ ic importance. For instance, on 11 December 2008, the Quest ion Hour was dispensed wi th to take up the issue of terror is t at tacks in Mumbai in v iew of the gravi ty of the mat ter . Again on 25th February 2010, the Quest ion Hour was dispensed wi th to take up Short Durat ion Discussion on the pr ice r ise si tuat ion in v iew of the consensus arr ived at in the House on th is mat ter. On 17 August 2011, the Quest ion Hour could not be held as the Prime Minister made a statement on the si tuat ion ar is ing out of the agi tat ion launched by Shr i Anna Hazare.

18.There are also numerous instances when the Chairman disagreed wi th the Members to suspend the Quest ion Hour or refuse to g ive his consent for moving a motion for th is purpose. There have been qui te a few occasions when no quest ion could be taken up for oral answer even though the Quest ion Hour was not formal ly suspended. Members, agitated over some issue and r ig id in their demand to d ispense wi th the Quest ion Hour, f requent ly d isturbed the proceedings and created uproarious scenes. In such si tuat ions, the Chairman had no opt ion but to adjourn the House dur ing the Quest ion Hour. On many occasions, the House wi tnessed f requent adjournments going beyond the Quest ion Hour.

ZERO HOUR SUBMISSIONS (MATTERS RAISED WITH PERMISSION OF THE CHAIRMAN)

19. Though not provided in the Rules of Procedure, ra is ing of these matters has gained much popular i ty over a per iod of t ime. These matters are a l lowed to be raised by the Chairman immediate ly af ter Quest ion Hour and should normal ly conclude by 12.30 p.m. Members may give not ices by 10.00 a.m. on the day when

they wish to raise a mat ter and these not ices remain val id for that day only. Not more than one submission per member per week is al lowed and normal ly a maximum of ten such matters are a l lowed by the Chairman on a day. Mat ter sought to be raised should be of suff ic ient publ ic importance, which needs to be ra ised urgent ly. The pr ior i ty of the not ices is decided according to the t ime of the receipt . Member, whose not ice is admit ted, is given three minutes to speak, whi le others intending to raise the same matter may only associate wi th i t .

Mr Claes MÅRTENSSON (Sweden) presented a wr i t ten contr ibut ion, as fo l lows:

Opportunit ies to introduce init iat ives and matters in the Chamber of an urgent or important nature

Introduction

There are a number of opportuni t ies at the Swedish Parl iament avai lable for a member, a group or a party to ra ise an issue or a mat ter of an urgent or important nature in the Chamber.

Some of these are part of the Riksdag's supervisory ro le, a lso known as par l iamentary control over the Government and ministers, which is exerc ised by indiv idual members. A group of members or a party can also in i t ia te a debate on a topical or urgent subject or have a certa in mat ter ra ised for which a rapid decis ion by the Riksdag is required.

Supervision of the Government and ministers in accordance with the Instrument of Government

Interpellat ions

A member may submit an interpel lat ion to a minister regarding the performance of h is or her dut ies. In other words, the interpel lat ion must not refer to measures of other author i t ies and their decis ions on speci f ic matters.

The minister in quest ion then answers the interpel lat ion at a debate in the Chamber wi th in 14 days. However, there is no obl igat ion for a minis ter to answer an interpel lat ion. The Committee on the Const i tut ion has however stated as i ts f i rm opin ion that a minister should only be able to ref rain f rom answer ing an interpel lat ion in except ional c ircumstances and when except ional grounds exis t .

I f the answer is delayed or i f there is no answer, the minister in quest ion must inform the Chamber of the reasons for th is.

Members other than the member put t ing the interpel lat ion may also sign up to part ic ipate in the interpel lat ion debate. There are special ru les for speaking t ime for contr ibut ions to the debate. The debate does not resul t in any decis ion by the Chamber, but the indiv idual contr ibut ions are reported in the record of meet ings in the Chamber.

Interpel lat ion debates are qui te common in Sweden and amount to approximately 500 per year.

Questions

There are two types of quest ions that a member may put to a minis ter.

Fi rs t ly, a member may submit a quest ion for a wr i t ten reply. The quest ion has to be submit ted wi thin f ive days. Quest ions and answers are reported every week in an annex to the record of meet ings in the Chamber.

However, there is no obl igat ion for a minis ter to answer a wr i t ten quest ion. I f the answer is delayed or i f there is no answer, the minister in quest ion must inform the Chamber of the reasons for this.

Quest ions for a wri t ten reply may be submitted 365 days a year. During per iods when there are no regular meetings of the Chamber, they are answered wi th in 14 days. The number of quest ions amounts to a lmost 1,000 every year.

The other possib i l i ty is to put an oral quest ion to a minister dur ing quest ion t ime in the Chamber every Thursday. Five ministers come to the Chamber to answer quest ions from the members for one hour. Both the quest ions and the answers must be short .

Every fourth quest ion t ime is the Pr ime Minis ter 's quest ion t ime. This is when the Pr ime Minister a lone has to answer oral quest ions f rom the members. Party leaders or other prominent representat ives of the opposi t ion part ies have prior i ty when i t comes to asking quest ions.

Quest ion t ime does not lead to any decis ion by the Chamber, but the contr ibut ions from minis ters and members are reported in the record of meet ings in the Chamber.

Both quest ions for wri t ten answers and quest ions asked dur ing quest ion t ime should concern the performance of the dut ies of a minister or of the Pr ime Minister .

Current affairs debate

A party may submit a request v ia i ts party leader or group leader to the Speaker that a debate on a topical subject be held. The Speaker decides whether the debate may be held fo l lowing consul tat ions wi th the party group leaders.

There are a number of cr i ter ia determining whether a current af fa i rs debate is to be held. I t should deal wi th an important recent issue that has suddenly been brought to the fore, concern an issue of nat ional or internat ional character and there must be no plans for i t to be considered in any other way by the Riksdag in the near future.

The re levant minister takes part in the debate together with one representat ive from each of the other part ies that wish to part ic ipate. The debate fo l lows special ru les as regards speaking t ime. No decis ion is taken by the Chamber as a resul t of the debate. The indiv idual contr ibut ions are reported in the record of meet ings in the Chamber.

Private member's motion result ing from an event of major importance

A member of parl iament has the r ight to present a l ternat ive proposals to, for example, a proposal f rom the Government . Such a proposal f rom a member is known as a pr ivate member 's motion. There is a lso a general pr ivate members’ motions per iod in the autumn when the members have the opportuni ty to submit motions on any subject prov ided they concern an issue that the Riksdag may decide on.

There is another opportuni ty for the submiss ion of mot ions, and that is as a resul t of an event of major importance.

Such a mot ion may be submitted jo int ly by at least ten members provided the event in quest ion could not be foreseen or considered during the general pr ivate members’ motions per iod or a pr ivate members’ motions per iod resul t ing from, for example, a proposal f rom the Government . The purpose of th is is to enable the parl iamentary opposi t ion to put forward proposals as a resul t of events that are of major s igni f icance and that could not reasonably be foreseen or considered ear l ier .

The Speaker examines whether the mot ion in quest ion may be inst i tuted. There are substant ia l pract ical rout ines for assessing whether the pre-condi t ions for inst i tut ing a motion resul t ing from an event of major s ignif icance are met. I f the Speaker f inds that the pre-condi t ions have been met , the mot ion is c i rculated for comment to the relevant committee for preparat ion of the proposals contained in the motion. The committee’s considerat ion results in a committee report , which is then debated and decided on in the Chamber.

An example from recent years of a motion resul t ing f rom an event of major s igni f icance that could be inst i tuted is a motion by the Green Party on advance safety levels at Swedish nuclear reactors as a result of the events caused by the natural d isaster in Japan at the nuclear power stat ion Fukushima Dai ichi .

Committee init iat ives

A committee also has the opportuni ty to take the in i t ia t ive to raise a mat ter . This may for example concern proposed legis lat ion which is urgent and for which there is no t ime to awai t a proposal f rom the Government. The committee’s considerat ion resul ts in a committee report , which is then debated and decided on in the Chamber.

However, i t should be noted that th is poss ib i l i ty is only open to a major i ty in the committee. A minor i ty cannot in th is way bring about considerat ion of a matter in the Chamber.

Mr Vladimir SVINAREV (Russian Federation) presented a wr i t ten contr ibut ion, as fo l lows:

1. In the Counci l of the Federat ion the procedure for raising matters of urgency or emergency is regulated by the provisions of the Chamber Regulation.

Certain non-scheduled issues may be discussed by the Chamber Counci l that is a permanent body of the Counci l of the Federat ion. I ts main task is preparat ion and considerat ion of issues related to act iv i ty of the Counci l of the Federat ion inc luding urgent and operat ional ones. In accordance wi th the Counci l of the Federat ion Regulat ion the Chamber Counci l , in part icular, d iscusses the extent of readiness of issues submit ted for considerat ion of the session of the Counci l of the Federat ion, makes statements and appeals re lated to general pol i t ical and socia l -economic matters. 2. Another important form of considerat ion by the Counci l of the Federat ion of procedure for ra is ing matters of urgency or emergency is extraordinary sessions of the Chamber . Dur ing i ts par l iamentary h istory the Counci l of the Federat ion repeatedly convened such sessions for urgent considerat ion of important issues of the state pol icy of the country and their implementat ion. On the one hand, for the

Counci l of the Federat ion as a chamber of Russian par l iament, th is demonstrates prompt and t imely inf luence on the federal legis lat ive process. On the other hand, as for a chamber that represents the interests of the Russian Federat ion subjects, th is provides wi th the r ight to decide on issues that af fect var ious aspects of publ ic l i fe : socia l-economic sphere, major socia l -pol i t ica l events.

In accordance with the Counci l of the Federat ion Regulat ion an extraordinary session of our Chamber may be convened at the suggest ion of the Pres ident of the Russian Federat ion, the Chairman of the Counci l of the Federat ion, the Chamber Counci l , the Counci l of the Federat ion Commit tee on issues wi th in i ts competence, or at the suggest ion of at least one thi rd of tota l members of the Counci l of the Federat ion. At this the Chamber Committee proposal shal l be supported by at least one f i f th of the tota l number of the Counci l of the Federat ion members.

An extraordinary Counci l of the Federat ion sess ion may also be convened i f i t is necessary to urgent ly dec ide on the possib i l i ty of us ing the Armed Forces of the Russian Federat ion outs ide the terr i tory of our country.

Besides that the Chamber Regulat ion st ipulates the possib i l i ty of extraordinary session of the Counci l of the Federat ion for considerat ion of a federal law that the Counci l of the Federat ion committees have comments on. In that case the Chamber Counci l may request the Chairman of the Counci l of the Federat ion to convene such a session.

An extraordinary Chamber session may also be convened for considerat ion of cer ta in personnel issues. 1

3. Analyzing the dynamics of extraordinary session i t can be noted that they were usual ly held dur ing the di f f icu l t periods in l i fe of our country . For example, in 2008, in condi t ions of compl icated domest ic and foreign si tuat ion, 3 sessions were convened. In tota l , f rom 2008 t i l l present 8 extraordinary sessions of the Counci l of the Federat ion were held.

Whi le consider ing an issue at such sessions the Counci l of the Federat ion adopted resolut ions, appeals, including those to the President of the Russian Federat ion, in which i t stated i ts pr incipal posi t ion on important publ ic issues and suggested the most appropr iate ways to address them. Representat ives of state power bodies and key ministers were frequent ly invi ted to such sess ions to d i rect ly deal with issues.

For example, in August of 2008 the Counci l of the Federat ion adopted an appeal to the President of the Russian Federat ion on recogni t ion of independence of the South Osset ia and Abkhazia. 2 In 2009 the Deputy Pr ime Minister of the Russian Federat ion, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Minister of Finance of the Russian Federat ion were invi ted to d iscuss an issue on introduct ion of necessary amendments to the budget.

The Counci l of the Federat ion has made a great contr ibut ion to solv ing of problems on mit igat ing the consequences of the global f inancia l cr is is. In October 2008 the Chamber gathered for an extraordinary session to promptly approve of very important ant i -cr is is measures to support domest ic f inancial markets and banking system of the Russian Federat ion. 3 These measures al lowed increasing Russian ci t izens’ t rust in banks and protect ing interests of socia l ly vulnerable populat ion as much as possib le.

During extraordinary Chamber sessions a whole range of important laws was adopted, the delay of which could adversely inf luence economic and socia l s i tuat ion as wel l as other important aspects of publ ic l i fe .

For example, last March the Counci l of the Federat ion members gathered for an extraordinary Chamber session to prompt ly adopt a v i ta l ly important law on indexat ion of soc ia l benef i ts. 4

Thus, the pract ice of convening extraordinary sessions of the Counci l of the Federat ion shows their importance in achieving goals of state pol icy and provid ing of prompt response to ar is ing pol i t ica l ly and socia l ly s igni f icant events.

Thank you for your attent ion.”References

1. For example, i f necessary, the Chairman of the Counci l of the Federat ion convenes an ext raordinary sess ion to consider assignment of judges of the Const i tut ion Court of the Russian Federat ion, the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federat ion or the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federat ion, the Chairman of the Supreme Arbi t rat ion Court of the Russian Federat ion or the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Arbi trat ion Court of the Russian Federat ion.2. This issue was considered dur ing the 228th session of the Counci l of the Federat ion. 3. The Federal Law of October 13, 2008, No. 173-FZ “On Addi t ional Measures to Support Financia l System of the Russian Federat ion”, the Federal Law of October 13, 2008, No. 174-FZ “On Amendments to Art ic le 11 of the Federal Law “On Insurance of Deposi ts of Physical Persons wi th Banks of the Russian Federat ion” and some other legis lat ive acts of the Russian Federat ion”. These laws were adopted at the 231st session of the Counci l of the Federat ion. 4. The Federal Law of March 28, 2011, No. 43-FZ “On Amendments to Art ic le 25 of the Federal Law “On State Pension Provis ion in the Russian Federat ion” was adopted at the 292nd session of the Counci l of the Federat ion.

Mr Hans BRATTESTÅ (Norway) thought that parl iamentary minor i t ies needed, in accordance with recommendations from the Counci l of Europe, to have an abi l i ty to inf luence the par l iamentary agenda. He noted that in Norway, par l iamentarians could not be ministers, and were replaced by the next person on the electoral l is t i f appointed to government of f ice. He described the di f ferent ways of scrut inis ing the Government, especial ly through quest ions, wi th one si t t ing dedicated to spontaneous current quest ions, and another dedicated to quest ions submit ted several days in advance. Par l iamentar ians could a lso table wr i t ten quest ions to the Government. Debates and votes on urgent issues could be organised f lexib ly. When the agenda for a day was exhausted, and quest ion was very urgent, i t was also possible to ask a minister to come at the end of the day to reply to parl iamentary quest ions. Final ly , the permanent committee on the Const i tut ion had extraordinary powers, and could decide, by a major i ty of a th ird of i ts members, to place a text on the agenda. The Opposi t ion and minor i ty groups thus had numerous levers for hold ing the Government to account and place mat ters on the agenda. He even wondered i f Norway had not gone too far in i ts provis ions for Par l iament holding the Government to account.

Mrs Phil ippa HELME (United Kingdom ; substi tute member ) Noted that in the Br i t ish House of Commons, the last f i f teen minutes of Quest ion Time, which

occupied the f i rs t hour of a lmost every s i t t ing, were dedicated to topical quest ions to Government Ministers, asked wi thout not ice. There was also a procedure for asking urgent quest ions, which could be put to any Government Department , wi th the Speaker’s permission, at any si t t ing.

Mr Hossein SHEIKHOLESLAM (Iran) noted that the Iranian system was rather d if ferent to the Austral ian system, as there was a str ict separat ion of powers in I ran. On one occasion in th i r ty years, an urgent quest ion had led to the censuring of a Minister. But scrut iny act iv i ty did sometimes lead to Ministers being cross-quest ioned. Bi l ls were div ided into three categor ies depending on whether or not they were urgent, and the quorum required to adopt them var ied according to the greater or lesser degree of urgency that had been accorded to them. The most urgent quest ions needed to be debated less than 72 hours after their entry onto the agenda, and for b i l ls , debate could begin at once. For these s it t ings, members of the Counci l of Elders were invi ted to ver i fy immediate ly that there were no problems of unconst i tut ional i ty or incompat ibi l i ty wi th the pr inc ip les of Is lam in respect of the provis ion. The minutes of the si t t ing were not d istr ibuted unt i l af ter the urgent s i tuat ion had been resolved.

Mr Mohamed Kamal MANSURA (South Africa) expla ined that in h is country, an urgent quest ion could not be added to the agenda wi thout the agreement of the Speaker, who examined i f the quest ion real ly was urgent and speci f ic, and appropr iate to be asked. I f the quest ion was extremely urgent , i t could be entered on the agenda for the same day.

Mrs Jacqueline BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN (Netherlands) noted that urgent quest ions could be asked in di f ferent ways in the Netherlands: quest ioning of a Minister, i f at least th i r ty Members cal led for i t (no more than f ive t imes a year), wr i t ten quest ions, the number of which cont inued to increase, quest ions to the Government, for which the Speaker selected the quest ions to be asked and the order in which they were to be taken (s ix quest ions being taken in an hour) , and genuinely urgent debates, which could only be added to the agenda wi th the support of thi r ty Members.

Mrs Doris Katai Katebe MWINGA (Zambia) noted the points of s imi lar i ty between the di f ferent Par l iaments of the Commonweal th. Var ious possib i l i t ies exis ted in Zambia: urgent quest ions wi th the possibi l i ty of postponing other work for 45 minutes on a Thursday, a procedure l i t t le appreciated by Members, quest ions to the Government for 30 minutes a week, and f inal ly the put t ing together of re lated quest ions, which often became a debate.

Mr Phil ippe SCHWAB (Switzerland) ment ioned the l inks between urgency procedures and the media, especial ly te lev ised broadcast ing. The media tended very much to echo these urgent debates, probably in a more l ively manner, something that pushed certain Members to choose subjects wi th the simple goal of obtain ing media coverage. He asked Ms SURTEES i f she had encountered si tuat ions of th is k ind.

Ms Claressa SURTEES noted that indeed, there was no str ic t separat ion of powers in Austra l ia, and almost a l l Minis ters a lso sat in the nat ional Par l iament. She noted that there was a televis ion channel which transmit ted al l of the debates in the Chamber, whether urgent or not , but that th is did not seem to date to have af fected the work of the Chamber. I t could happen that some Ministers refused to reply to quest ions that they thought to be unjust i f ied. The Speaker then had the role of

arbi trator , and i f he judged the quest ion to be legi t imate, the Minis ter was ordered to reply. She said that the Standing Orders d id not provide any specif ic procedure for br ing charges against or censur ing a Minister , as the usual procedures could a lso be used in th is k ind of s i tuat ion. No more than twenty quest ions, dist r ibuted between the par l iamentary part ies, could be asked during a parl iamentary day.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Ms SURTEES and other members who had contr ibuted to the debate.

The si t t ing rose at 12.25 pm

SIXTH SITTINGWednesday 4 April 2012 (Afternoon)

Mr Marc BOSC, President, in the Chair

The Sitting was opened at 2.30 pm

1. Election of a member of the Executive Committee

Mr Marc BOSC, President, welcomed members to the sixth s i t t ing of the ASGP and noted that the deadl ine for candidacies for the post of ordinary member of the Execut ive Committee had recent ly passed. One candidacy had been received: that of Phi l ippe SCHWAB (Switzer land). The Pres ident dec lared that Mr SCHWAB was therefore e lected by acclamation.

2. Communication by Mr Eric PHINDELA, Secretary to the National Council of Provinces of South Africa: “The South African System of co-operative government and intergovernmental relations: an analysis”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, invi ted Mr Eric PHINDELA, Secretary General to the Nat ional Counci l of Provinces of South Afr ica, to present h is communicat ion, as fo l lows:

“The nature of the spheres of government

Sect ion 40 of the Const i tut ion const i tutes government in the Republic as nat ional , provincia l and local spheres. These spheres, a l though dist inct, are interdependent and interrelated. The Const i tut ion does not speci f ical ly def ine these phrases. Their meaning may however be gleaned from the const i tut ional scheme.

The spheres are d is t inct in the sense that they are assigned di f ferent powers, interdependent because, nat ional sphere is required to assist the prov incia l sphere in the event that the lat ter , due to lack of capaci ty and resources, is unable to carry out i ts own obl igat ion. The provincial sphere is in the same manner required to assist the local sphere. Last ly, they are interrelated in the sense that they must co-exist .

To re inforce the dis t inct nature of the three spheres, the Const i tut ion ass igns to them (spheres) funct ions pecul iar to each. These are referred to in Schedule 5 as funct ional areas of exclusive legis lat ive competence. On the other hand, to ensure the interdependence of the spheres, the Const i tut ion in Schedule 4 prov ides for what is referred to as funct ional areas of concurrent legis lat ive competence. Co-operat ion rather than competi t ion is a golden thread that runs through the const i tut ional scheme that under l ies the spheres of government.

The Const i tut ional Court had an opportuni ty to def ine the dist inct ive nature of the spheres of government in The Ci ty of Johannesburg Metropol i tan Munic ipal i ty v Gauteng Development Tr ibunal and Others . There Jafta J said at para 55:

“ I t is , however, t rue that the funct ional areas al located to the var ious spheres of government are not contained in hermet ical ly sealed compartments. But that notwithstanding, they remain d is t inct f rom one another. This is the posi t ion even in respect of funct ional areas that share the same wording l ike roads, planning, sport and others. Dis t inct iveness l ies in the level at which a part icular power is exerc ised. For example, the provinces exerc ise powers re lat ing to “provincial roads” whereas municipal i t ies have author i ty over “municipal roads”. The pref ix at tached to each funct ional area ident i f ies the sphere to which i t belongs and dist inguishes i t f rom the funct ional areas al located to the other sphere. [T]he funct ional area of “provincial roads” does not include “municipal roads”. “ [P]rovincial p lanning” and “regional planning” do not inc lude “municipal p lanning”.”

The difference between co-operative government and intergovernmental relat ions (the principles)

To give effect to the provis ions of sect ion 40, the Const i tut ion in sect ion 41 out l ines the pr incip les of co-operat ive government and intergovernmental re lat ions.

Whereas the Const i tut ion compels the spheres of government to mainta in their d is t inct ive nature in the exerc ise of their powers, i t at the same t ime enjo ins them to co-operate (rather than to compete) in their operat ions.

Al though the Const i tut ion does not def ine these concepts i t is c lear that i t is wi th in the dist inct , in terdependent and interre lated nature of the spheres of government that the pr inciples of co-operat ive government and intergovernmental relat ions f ind express ion.

The fact that these two di f ferent concepts are used in a s ingle sentence resul ts in them, in most instances, being conf lated and sometimes used interchangeably as i f one means the other.

That the two are d i f ferent appears clear ly from the wording of the Const i tut ion. A simple reading of sect ion 41(1) t ransports one to the dest inat ion that pr inciples (a) – (d) re-emphasise the indiv is ibi l i ty of the Republ ic; pr inciples (e) – (g) apply to intergovernmental relat ions; and (h) to co-operat ive government.

Dispute resolution between the spheres

An intergovernmental dispute ar ises where an organ in one sphere al leges that the other has usurped the powers of the other in a di f ferent sphere, e.g. where an organ in a nat ional sphere al leges that an organ in a provincia l sphere has legis lated on a matter of nat ional competence. The case of City of Johannesburg Metropol i tan Municipal i ty referred to above clearly demonstrates th is point. Sect ion 41(3) d iscourages the organs to approach the courts before at tempting to resolve the dispute f i rs t . I t compels organs of s tate to take al l reasonable steps and to exhaust a l l other remedies before approaching a court to resolve the dispute. Fai lure to do so wi l l resul t in a court referr ing the dispute back to the organs concerned .

Application of the principles

The case of City of Johannesburg Metropol i tan Municipal i ty c learly demonstrates the appl icat ion of the pr incip les of co-operat ive government and intergovernmental relat ions. The facts were br ief ly as fol lows. The Ci ty of Johannesburg Metropol i tan

Municipal i ty ( the Municipal i ty) chal lenged the const i tut ional val idi ty of sect ion 33 of the Development Faci l i ta t ion Act 67 of 1995 (the Act) . The Act author ised the Gauteng Development Tr ibunal ( the Tr ibunal) , establ ished in terms of the Act, to determine appl icat ions for the rezoning of land and establ ishment of townships. The Tr ibunals is an organ of provincia l government .

The Municipal i ty ’s case was that the power to approve the rezoning of land and establ ishment of townships const i tutes local government af fa i rs over which municipal i t ies have exclusive author i ty. Al ternat ively, that the said powers fe l l wi th in the funct ional area of “munic ipal planning” which is the competence of local government wi thin the meaning of sect ion 156(1) of the Const i tut ion read wi th Part B of Schedule 4. [at para.14] This content ion is predicated on the pr incip les of intergovernmental relat ions.

The Municipal i ty fur ther sought to have the decis ion of the Tr ibunal to rezone certa in propert ies and establ ish townships reviewed. According to the Municipal i ty the Tribunal had no power to determine the appl icat ions for rezoning and establ ishment of the townships. The Tr ibunal argued that whereas i t had powers to rezone land and to establ ish townships arrogated to i t by the Act, in doing so, i t was not bound to consider the integrated plan and associated planning inst ruments of the Munic ipal i ty.

Having fa i led to resolve the dispute, pursuant to sect ion 41(3) of the Const i tut ion the part ies approached the High Court .

Proceedings in the High Court

In the High Court the Munic ipal i ty ’s chal lenge fa i led. The High Court held that the powers to rezone land and to approve the establ ishment of townships fel l outside the funct ional area of municipal p lanning. Further, that those powers formed part of “urban and rural development”, which fe l l outs ide the funct ional area of municipal i t ies ’ execut ive author i ty. Consequent ly these powers could not be exerc ised by the Munic ipal i ty.

The High Court fur ther found that the Tr ibunal might have erred in hold ing that in determining the appl icat ions for rezoning and establ ishing the townships i t was not bound by the Municipal i ty ’s integrated plan and associated planning inst ruments.

Proceedings in the Supreme Court of Appeal

Aggr ieved by the f inding of the High Court , the Municipal i ty appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Appeal overturned the decis ion of the High Court . I t held that “municipal p lanning” fa l ls wi th in the funct ional area of competence of the local sphere of government and may not be assigned by an Act of Par l iament to another sphere of government . To the extent that i t conferred this competence on the Tribunal , a provincia l organ, the Act was inconsistent wi th the pr incip les of intergovernmental relat ions and therefore Const i tut ion. Simply put, the provincia l sphere had usurped the powers of the local sphere of government .

Because the Supreme Court of Appeal had declared the provis ions of the prov incia l Act const i tut ional ly inval id, i t referred i ts order to the Const i tut ional Court ( the Court) for conf i rmation. In terms of sect ion 172(2)(a) of the Const i tut ion an order of const i tut ional inval id i ty has no force and effect unless i t is conf i rmed by the Const i tut ional Court .

Proceeding in the Consti tut ional Court

Jafta J, wr i t ing for a unanimous Court , couched the quest ion to be decided in the fo l lowing terms:

“The quest ion that needs considerat ion is whether, by conferr ing powers concerned on development t r ibunals, these chapters [V and VI of the Act] are consistent wi th the provis ions of the Const i tut ion regulat ing the al locat ion of powers and funct ions to municipal i t ies. ”

Contextual is ing the ci rcumstance under which one sphere of government may exerc ise powers arrogated to another, Jafta J said at para 44:

“The scope of intervent ion by one sphere in the af fa irs of another is h ighly c i rcumscr ibed. The nat ional and prov inc ia l spheres are permit ted by sect ions 100 and 139 [respect ively ] of the Const i tut ion to undertake intervent ions to assume control over the af fa i rs of another sphere or to perform the funct ions of another sphere under cer ta in wel l -def ined ci rcumstances, . . . Suf f ice i t now to say that the nat ional and provincia l spheres are not ent i t led to usurp the funct ions of municipal sphere except in except ional c i rcumstances, but only temporar i ly and in compl iance wi th str ict procedures. This is the const i tut ional scheme in the context of which powers conferred on each sphere must be construed.”

According to Jaf ta J the fact that the Const i tut ion al locates to municipal i t ies or ig inal powers c lear ly indicates that they are not a sphere subordinate to e i ther nat ional or provincia l sphere. Their by- laws, a l though required to be consistent wi th the Const i tut ion, can no longer be regarded as subordinate legis lat ion in a c lassical sense.

The purpose of Schedules 4 and 5 of the Const i tut ion is to i temise the powers and funct ions al located to each sphere of government. Accordingly th is autonomy cannot be achieved i f the funct ional areas i temised are construed in a manner that fa i ls to g ive ef fect to the const i tut ional v is ion of dist inct spheres of government.

Jafta J concluded that barr ing funct ional areas of concurrent competence (Schedule 4), each sphere is al located separate and dis t inct powers which i t alone is ent i t led to exercise. Sect ions 100 and 139 intervent ions const i tute an except ion to the pr incip les of re lat ive and l imi ted autonomy of spheres of government.

Conclusion

I t is c lear from the aforegoing that a l though dist inct ive, interdependent and interre lated, the spheres of government are not autonomous. Each exercises powers to the extent conferred by the Const i tut ion. The Const i tut ion enjo ins co-operat ion rather than competi t ion. The spheres are required to co-operate wi th each other on matters of common interest. This entai ls p lanning together on matters of concurrent competence referred to in Schedule 4 of the Const i tut ion. At the same t ime the

spheres are prohib ited from intervening in each other ’s af fa i rs except in c i rcumstances referred to in sect ions 100 and 139 of the Const i tut ion which author ise nat ional government and provincia l government to intervene in provincia l and local governments af fa i rs respect ively .

To ensure that the courts are not necessary drawn into mat ters of governance and pol icy-making , the Const i tut ion contains what one may refer to as a d ispute resolut ion mechanism which compels the spheres involved in a dispute to take al l reasonable measures to resolve the dispute before approaching the courts . A court is compel led to refer the mat ter back i f i t is not persuaded that the warr ing spheres exhausted internal remedies before seeking assistance f rom other arms of the state.

Despite the const i tut ion of government in the manner referred to above, South Afr ica is of ten def ined as a unitary state with federal character is t ics. The princip les of co-operat ive government and intergovernmental relat ions forceful ly br ing th is point home.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr Er ic PHINDELA for h is communicat ion and inv ited members present to put quest ions to him.

Mr David BEAMISH (United Kingdom) expla ined that the Uni ted Kingdom had for i ts part taken steps to move towards a uni tary state whi le conserving federal ist tendencies.

Mr Marc BOSC (Canada) expla ined that in Canada, there had always been a tension between municipal i t ies and local government, especia l ly those in large towns, which fe l t that they were insuf f ic ient ly represented.

Ms Claressa SURTEES (Australia) explained that there was a current at tempt to formal ise relat ions between the three levels of government in Austral ia. However, as the Const i tut ion was very hard to amend, the reforms proposed to date had not been successful.

Mr Eric PHINDELA expla ined that in South Afr ica, unt i l 1994, local government was not real ly considered as a ful ly funct ioning part of the State, and that s ince 1994, a d iv is ion of responsib i l i ty had been undertaken giv ing more power to local government . The South Afr ican Const i tut ion appl ied to al l laws. I t had been inspired great ly by the Canadian Const i tut ion, and the Supreme Court somet imes drew f rom decis ions of the Canadian Supreme Court in i ts interpretat ion.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr Er ic PHINDELA for h is communicat ion, as wel l as a l l those members who had put quest ions to h im.

3. Communication by Mr. Austin ZVOMA, Secretary to the Parliament of Zimbabwe: “The sub judice rule: parliament and the courts. Implications for the doctrine of the separation of powers”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, invi ted Mr. Aust in ZVOMA, Secretary to the Parl iament of Zimbabwe, to present h is communicat ion, as fo l lows:

1.0 Objective

1.1 This paper cr i t ica l ly analyzes the sub judice ru le and i ts appl icat ion at the Par l iament of Zimbabwe. I t also reviews pract ice f rom other jur isdict ions. Final ly, i t art iculates the impl icat ions of the rule more speci f ical ly on the re lat ionship between the Legislature and the Judiciary and to a lesser extent between the Legis lature and the Execut ive.

2.0 What is the Sub Judice Rule?

2.1 Sub judice is a Lat in term which when loosely translated means “under a judge”. In pract ice and in s imple terms, i t refers to mat ters that are pending before the courts of law. In v iew of the operat ion of the doctr ine of separat ion of powers which takes cognizance of separate but coordinate roles that the three arms of s tate, i .e. the Judiciary, the Execut ive and the Legislature, p lay in the governance matr ix, the quest ion which ar ises is to what extent can the Execut ive and Par l iament refer to or deal wi th mat ters that are pending before the courts wi thout the Legislature encroaching into the sphere of the Judiciary? This paper makes an attempt to provide answers to this quest ion.

3.0 Problem Statement

3.1 The extent to which Par l iament, an arm of the state, and i ts commit tees may refer to matters that are pending before the courts had remained largely not c lear, therefore, unset t led, before the courts had the occasion of pronouncing themselves on th is matter . The c learest at tempt by the courts to do so f inal ly came in the case of Aust in Zvoma v. Lovemore Moyo & Ors, HC 12497, a case that th is paper deals wi th below.

4.0 Interpretation of the Sub Judice Rule

4.1 I t is inst ruct ive to note from the onset that two dist inct interpretat ions, complete ly unrelated and diametr ical ly opposed to each other, dominated debate on how the Par l iament of Zimbabwe should conduct i ts business wi thout v iolat ing the sub judice ru le. The f i rst in terpretat ion, popular ized by the Execut ive, v iewed the sub judice ru le as an al l encompassing ru le of thumb, cast in stone, which barred Par l iament from referr ing to any aspect of a matter that is pending court , even i f the aspect under considerat ion by Par l iament is not the one to be determined by the court . The argument was that Parl iament is complete ly barred from referr ing to or debat ing such a matter even i f i t is complete ly divorced from a matter awai t ing determinat ion by the courts.

4.2 There are two precedents wi th in Par l iament of Zimbabwe that c lear ly demonstrate th is understanding. One re lates to the inquiry into diamond mining by the Port fo l io Committee on Mines and Energy Development. In February 2010, the Secretary for Mines and Mining Development and Chief Execut ive Of f icers (CEOs) of two mining companies (Mbada and Canadi le) were invi ted but communicated that they would not to appear before the commit tee to g ive oral ev idence. They ci ted the sub judice ru le arguing that the committee’s inquiry concerned ‘ matters that the Commit tee and i ts members were precluded from hear ing or put t ing quest ions on or debat ing …by reason of the fact that these are mat ters on which a judic ia l decis ion is pending. ’ This was in reference to the potent ial pre judice or compromise a vent i lat ion of an ownership sui t of the diamond f ield that was before the courts was l ikely to cause. They only appeared before the committee af ter Parl iament advised them that the mat ter was not sub judice as i t was wi th in the pr iv i leges of Par l iament. Quot ing sources on par l iamentary law and pract ice, Par l iament informed the two

mining companies and the Ministry of Mines that the argument that a matter was pending before the courts was not a defence and that refusal or fai lure to appear before the commit tee const i tuted contempt of Par l iament.

4.3 When the part ies mainta ined their stance, the Clerk of Parl iament served summons on the di rectors who duly appeared before the committee to escape contempt of Par l iament charges. I t must be noted, however, that there was indeed a case at the High Court involv ing the same company directors. Par l iament made i t c lear that i t was aware that ownership of the diamond f ie lds was being disputed in the courts of the land, but i t merely intended to establ ish other issues that had nothing to do wi th ownership. Thus, in essence, and according to this interpretat ion, i t is permissib le for Par l iament to invest igate a matter pending before the courts to the extent that par l iamentary invest igat ions are l imited to aspects that are not for determinat ion by the courts. Aspects of a matter that are not for determinat ion by the courts are not sub judice, s ince they are not in issue. 4.4 The second case involved the same port fol io committee’s invi tat ion to the administrator of an asbestos mine and the responsib le Minister to test i fy before i t . The Minister unsuccessful ly t r ied to invoke the sub judice rule arguing that re lated matters were pending at courts of law.

5.0 Application of the Sub Judice Rule

5.1 The second interpretat ion that dominated the debate on the sub judice ru le was an argument once a debate on a mat ter which is subsequent ly taken to court is before Parl iament , the doctr ine of separat ion of powers permit ted Par l iament to cont inue wi th the mat ter notwi thstanding the court process. The ci rcumstances that led to the Zvoma v. Lovemore Moyo case c lear ly demonstrate th is erroneous interpretat ion. These ci rcumstances are summarized below.

5.2 On 14 November 2011, the Act ing Speaker of the House of Assembly accepted a motion that sought to d ismiss the Clerk of Par l iament from the service of Par l iament wi thout fol lowing due process. Accordingly, the Clerk made an urgent appl icat ion to have the House interdicted from proceeding with the motion in v io lat ion of Standing Orders and the Const i tut ion of Zimbabwe. The decis ion of the Speaker to a l low debate to proceed notwithstanding the court appl icat ion att racted a record number of points of order f rom some members. They argued that the motion was motion unconst i tut ional and that debate on i t , therefore, v io lated the sub judice ru le envisaged by the House of Assembly Standing Order 62(d) which states:“No member shal l , whi le speaking to a quest ion - use derogatory, d isrespectfu l , of fensive or unbecoming words against the Head of State, Par l iament or i ts members, the Speaker;…..nor shall a member refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending ” . (emphasis is ours)The Senate has an ident ical Standing Order. 5.3 Those who were in favour of the mot ion argued that provis ions of Standing Order 62(d) not apply to the motion as the High Court appl icat ion had been made a af ter the not ice of motion had been given. Thus, at the t ime of i ts introduct ion, no matter was pending before the court . 5.4 Dismissing the points of order, the Speaker of the House of Assembly expla ined that the mot ion to dismiss the Clerk had been procedural ly int roduced and was in conformity wi th par l iamentary pract ice. His interpretat ion was that a matter on which a judic iary decis ion was pending was ‘ one where pleadings have been closed and

all the parties to the case have submitted their arguments to the courts and await a judge’s decision ’ . He argued that the mere f i l ing of a court appl icat ion was not suf f ic ient to warrant the invocat ion of the sub judice ru le, adding that the motion related to ‘… procedures of the legislat ive arm of government and unwarranted interference in these internal processes seriously undermine the authority and integrity of the legislative arm of government and compromises the doctrine of the separation of powers . ’ As shal l be i l lustrated, the court found th is f lawed interpretat ion ‘s trange’ and consequent ly quashed i t .

6.0 Parliamentary Sub Judice Rule

6.1 I t is important to f i rs t establ ish the legal s tatus of par l iamentary ru les before examining how the courts have interpreted th is Standing Order. Subject to the provis ions of the Const i tut ion and any other law, Sect ion 57 of the Const i tut ion gives powers to the Senate and the House of Assembly, joint ly or several ly as may be appropr iate, to make Standing Orders wi th respect to:

“ (a) the passing of Bi l ls ;(b) presiding in the Senate or the House of Assembly;(c) any matter in connect ion wi th which Standing Orders are required to be made by th is Const i tut ion; and(d) general ly wi th respect to the regulat ion and order ly conduct of proceedings and business in and between the Senate and the House of Assembly.”

6.2 The courts have made i t c lear that Standing Orders have the s tatus and force of law and must be complied wi th. Ret i red Judge of Appeal , Ebrahim J.A. , in the case of Bit i & Another v. Minister of Just ice, Legal and Par l iamentary Affai rs and Another, 2002 (1) ZLR 177(S), apt ly put i t thus:

“There is , therefore, meri t in the submission that , hav ing made such a law (Standing Orders) , Par l iament cannot ignore that law. Par l iament is bound by the law as much as any other person or inst i tut ion in Zimbabwe. Because Standing Orders ar ise out of the Const i tut ion, and because the Const i tut ion mandates Par l iament to act in accordance with Standing Orders, they cannot be regarded merely as “ ru les of a c lub”. Standing orders const i tute legis lat ion, which must be obeyed and fo l lowed.” (words in brackets ours)

6.3 In v iew of the foregoing and in l ight of long establ ished doctr ine of separat ion of powers, the quest ion that ar ises is under what c i rcumstances can courts intervene in the interpretat ion of Standing Orders? The basis upon which the Judiciary can intervene in the internal process of Par l iament depends on whether the country is a par l iamentary or const i tut ional democracy.

6.4 Par l iamentary democracy is found in the Uni ted Kingdom and ex is ted in former Apartheid South Afr ica. The essence of such a democracy is the supremacy of Par l iament above the const i tut ion or any other law. Thus Par l iament cannot be taken to court for the purpose of determining whether i t has complied with Standing Orders, the Const i tut ion or any other law.

6.5 On the other hand, const i tut ional democracies l ike Zimbabwe and modern day South Afr ica have a “supremacy of the const i tut ion” provis ion. Sect ion 3 of the Const i tut ion of Zimbabwe provides:

“3 Supreme Law

This Const i tut ion is the supreme law of Zimbabwe and i f any other law is inconsistent wi th this Const i tut ion that other law shal l , to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

6.6 Accordingly, the Execut ive, the Legis lature and the Judic iary must act wi th in the l imi ts imposed by the prov is ions of the Const i tut ion. In th is regard, the late Dumbutshena CJ had th is to say in the case of Smith v. Mutasa and Anor, 1989 (3) ZLR 183 :

“The Const i tut ion is the supreme law of the land. I t is t rue that Par l iament is supreme in the legis lat ive f ie ld assigned to i t by the Const i tut ion, but even then, Par l iament cannot step outside the bounds of author i ty prescr ibed to i t by the Const i tut ion… the dif ference between the power of the House of Commons and our House of Assembly is that the Const i tut ion of the United Kingdom does not permit the Judicature to s tr ike out laws enacted by Par l iament. [That] Par l iament in the f ie ld of legis lat ion is sovereign and supreme. That is not the posit ion in Zimbabwe, where the supremacy of the Const i tut ion is protected by the author i ty of an independent Judic iary, which acts as the interpreter of the Const i tut ion and al l legis lat ion. In Zimbabwe the Judiciary is the guardian of the Const i tut ion and the r ights of the ci t izens.”

6.7 Simi lar ly in the case of Chairman, Publ ic Service Commiss ion and Ors v . Zimbabwe Teachers’ Associat ion and Ors, 1996 (1) ZLR 637 (S), the court by a major i ty decis ion ru led that:

“We consider that this argument fa i ls to take into account the fact that Zimbabwe, unl ike Great Br i ta in, is not a par l iamentary democracy. I t is a const i tut ional democracy. The centrepiece of our democracy is not a sovereign par l iament but a supreme law ( the Const i tut ion ) . ”

6.8 Thus, in a const i tut ional democracy, i t is the courts , not Par l iament, that determine the lawfulness of Parl iament ’s and other bodies’ act ions. In the Bi t i case, (2002 (1) ZLR 177(S)) , referred to above the court held that :

“ I t is essent ia l to understand that al l the three branches of government , the Execut ive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, are bound by and work wi th in the conf ines of the Const i tut ion. For instance, the House of Assembly cannot, in the name of Par l iamentary Pr iv i leges, Immunit ies and Powers, d isregard the fundamental r ights enshr ined in the Const i tut ion. I f i t does that, i t invi tes the intervent ion of the Judiciary.”

6.9 Likewise, in South Afr ica and India, a l l branches of government are subject to scrut iny by the courts. Even the President is subject to the provis ions of the Const i tut ion

6.10 The learned Hlope J, in the case of De Li l le & Anor v . Speaker of the Nat ional Assembly & Ors 1995 (4) SA 877 (CC) ru led:

“The Nat ional Assembly is subject to the supremacy of the Const i tut ion. I t is an organ of state and therefore i t is bound by the Bi l l of Rights. Al l i ts dec is ions and acts are subject to the Const i tut ion and the Bi l l of Rights. Par l iament can no longer c la im supreme power subject to l imi tat ions imposed by the Const i tut ion. I t has only those powers vested in i t by the Const i tut ion express ly or by necessary impl icat ion or by other s tatutes, which are not in

conf l ict wi th the Const i tut ion. I t fo l lows, therefore, that Par l iament may not confer on i tsel f or on any of i ts const i tuent parts, including the Nat ional Assembly, any powers not conferred on them by the Const i tut ion expressly or by necessary impl icat ion.”

6.11 In a const i tut ional democracy, there is, therefore, no doubt that authori ty to interpret the law as wel l as Par l iament’s ru les vests in the Judiciary. Thus, the sub judice ru le appl ies by v ir tue of the operat ion of the law once a matter is before the courts. Par l iament’s v io lat ion of the sub judice ru le is a disregard the Judiciary, the only arm of the state vested wi th const i tut ional supremacy in interpret ing the law in terms of the const i tut ion. Such v iolat ion is l ike ly to prejudice the just ice del ivery process.

6.12 Dur ing del ivery of h is opening remarks dur ing the Off ic ial Opening of the 2011 Legal Calendar, Chief Just ice Chidyausiku stated that:

“…it is inappropr iate for members of the Execut ive to communicate to the Judic iary their legal opin ions on matters that are pending before the courts . I t is equally inappropriate for Parliament, in plenary or committee, to deliberate on matters that are pending before the courts and are yet to be determined.”

6.13 The statement, whi le not legal ly binding as i t was expressed as an opin ion, is very persuasive as i t was made by an indiv idual whose appreciat ion of the law is not quest ionable.

6.14 A def in ing interpretat ion of the sub judice ru le was recent ly made by Just ice Bere in the case of Aust in Zvoma v. Lovemore Moyo & Ors, HC 12497 . The learned judge observed that Standing Order 62(d) of the House of Assembly is c lear in that when a mat ter is pending before the Courts, ‘… House members are obl iged to respect the Court process unt i l a determinat ion has been made’ .

6.15 The learned Judge stressed that despi te the fact that the Speaker and other respondents had been duly served wi th the case number, debate on the motion cont inued in complete def iance or v iolat ion of the Standing Order in quest ion. Such disregard by the House of Assembly of i ts own rules resul ted in the nul l i f icat ion of the mot ion that i t had adopted. The nul l i f icat ion effect ively quashed the interpretat ion of the sub judice ru le the Speaker had made on 5 December 2011. Just ice Bere expressed the strong v iew that courts would not want to assist ‘ the House in assaul t ing i ts own ru les…’

7.0 Practices from other Parliaments

7.1 I t is import to examine interpretat ion of the sub judice rule in other jur isdict ions.

8.2 The Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembl ies have Standing Orders wi th s imi lar sub judice ru les. Northern Ireland Assembly Standing Order 68 provides that:

“… Subject always to the discretion of the Chair …….,matters await ing or under adjudication in all courts exercising a criminal jurisdict ion and in courts mart ial should not be referred to”

This includes any quest ion to a Minister and a supplementary quest ion from the t ime that a matter has been set down for t r ia l or otherwise brought before the court , as for example ‘by not ice of mot ion for an injunct ion’. The Speaker may al low reference

to such mat ters before the set down unless he/she is of the view there is a real and substant ia l danger of prejudice to the t r ia l of the case. Rule 7.13 of the Welsh Assembly Standing Orders provide that:“…., a Member shal l not ra ise or pursue in any proceedings of the Assembly any matter where ‘court proceedings have been ini t iated ’ (emphasis ours ) , or where not ice of appeal has been given, unt i l the t ime when judgment has been…”

7.3 The House of Commons (UK) resolut ion of 15 November 2001 states that : ‘…subject to the discret ion of the Chair, and to the r ight of the House to legis late on any mat ter or to discuss any delegated legis lat ion, the House in a l l i ts proceedings ( including proceedings of commit tees of the House) shal l apply the fo l lowing rules on matters sub judice

[ Richa rd Ke l l y ( 2007 ) , ‘The sub jud i ce r u le ’ , S tan da rd No t e S N/P C/114 1 Hou se o f Com mo ns L i b ra r y ]These inc lude:i ) cases in which proceedings are act ive in United Kingdom courts;i i ) act ive cr iminal or c iv i l proceedings;i i i ) any application made in or for the purposes of any civi l proceedings (our emphasis) ;iv) act ive appel late cr iminal or c iv i l proceedings.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 The few country speci f ic pract ices c lear ly demonstrate that the sub judice rule obl iges Par l iament to fu l ly comply wi th i ts own ru les and simi lar const i tut ional provis ions. In some cases, any vio lat ion not only cal ls the integr i ty of Par l iament into quest ion but wi l l inevi tably invi te intervent ion by the court resul t ing in the nul l i f icat ion of i ts resolut ion (s) .

8.2 A funct ioning const i tut ional democracy is premised on sound pr incip les enshr in ing the separat ion of powers and a state of comity between and among the three arms of the state. Thus, as long as al l the arms are operat ing wi th in the conf ines of powers a l located to them, conf l ict between the arms is l imi ted. As observed by Chief Just ice Chidyausiku:

‘…the tenets of the doctr ine of the separat ion of powers are not only meant to stop the Execut ive and the Legislature from inter fer ing wi th the Judiciary and vice versa, but to keep each of the three arms of State separate f rom each other ’ .

8.3 The doctr ine demands that each of the three arms of s tate must respect the const i tut ional sovereignty of the other two.

8.4 The foregoing makes i t imperat ive for Par l iament, in p lenary or in committees, to sat isfy i tsel f that the mat ter to be debated or inquired into is not sub judice. The language of Standing Orders re lat ing to a sub judice matter is peremptory, thus demanding absolute compl iance. Standing Order 62(d) of the House of Assembly unequivocal ly states that :

‘No member shal l , whi le speaking to a quest ion shal l-(d) ‘… refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending…’

The language is d i rect ive and admits no discret ion. The learned South Afr ican Judge Van Den Heever, JA, as quoted wi th approval by Just ice Bere in the case of Aust in

Zvoma v. Lovemore Moyo & Ors (supra) remarked on the use of term ‘shal l ’ as fo l lows:

“ I f a statutory command is couched in such peremptory terms, i t is a st rong indicat ion, in the absence of considerat ions point ing to another conclusion, that the issuer of the command intended disobedience to be v is i ted with a nul l i ty. ”

8.5 In the part icular instance, the command on compl iance wi th the Standing Order was issued by Par l iament i tsel f and any deviat ion nul l i f ies a l l consequent ia l developments including, but not l imi ted to, the adopt ion of a mot ion. As the apex representat ive inst i tut ion of the land, Parl iament ought to comply wi th i ts own commands and procedures as that is the epi tome of governance and accountabi l i ty . The ru le of law requires that a l l act ions be just i f iable at law.

8.6 I t is evident that par l iamentary convent ion and pract ice d ictates and demands that Par l iament respects i ts own procedures to avoid intervent ion by the courts. Compl iance wi th the sub judice rule does not in any way compromise the independence of Parl iament as a separate arm of the state. Instead, i t is guarantees that no arm of the state encroaches into the jur isdic t ion of other arms. Therefore, the rule has no negat ive ramif icat ions on the doctr ine of the separat ion of powers. ”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr Aust in ZVOMA for h is communicat ion and inv ited members present to put quest ions to him.

Mr David BEAMISH (United Kingdom) ment ioned the important d i f ferences between countr ies with par l iamentary systems and those countr ies where the Const i tut ion was al l -powerful . He thought that judic ia l independence was important enough that i t should not be inf luenced by events in Par l iament.

Ms Corinne LUQUIENS (France) expla ined that the separat ion of powers was strong in France, but that there was a k ind of hierarchy of powers. Thus the judic iary’s ro le was l imi ted to decid ing issues which were not c learly expressed in the law. The law could change, and thus inf luence the business of the courts, but wi thout being able to inf luence decis ions that had al ready been taken. A smal l except ion to th is pr inciple was what were cal led val idat ing laws, which somet imes emerged when judic ia l dec is ions had very inconvenient pract ical consequences: for example, annul l ing a compet i t ion for c iv i l service posts or a p lanning permission many years afterwards. Thus, for compel l ing reasons of publ ic interest, and for as long as a judic ia l dec is ion is not f inal, Par l iament could pass a law effect ively inval idat ing th is decis ion. Fol lowing the separat ion of powers, commiss ions of inquiry in Par l iament could not draw on facts which had given r ise to court cases, for as long as these cases were act ive.

Mr Eric PHINDELA (South Afr ica) noted that in South Afr ica, the Clerk obeyed the Chamber, never the other way round. Every decis ion or law judged unconst i tut ional was quashed. The pract ice was in fact very c lose to that descr ibed by Mr ZVOMA in Zimbabwe. He asked i f the courts in Zimbabwe tended to have recourse to the sub judice rule to head of f debates in the Chamber, and i f so, how the Speaker managed th is k ind of s i tuat ion.

Dr Vivek AGNIHOTRI ( India) said that the sub judice ru le appl ied equal ly in the Indian Parl iament , which had in the past decided not to pay heed to court injunct ions, and not to reply to their summons, in order to aff i rm i ts independence.

Parl iament thus had to be defended by the Execut ive. Members never appeared before the Courts.

Mr Geert HAMILTON (Netherlands) expla ined that in the Netherlands i t was impossib le to go against the sub judice ru le. He thought , in a country wi thout a wr i t ten rule, that i t would be appropr iate to respect the rule, whi le ensuring the independence of the legis lature.

Mr Austin ZVOMA expla ined that in some si tuat ions, Par l iament had won through. The Speaker had to be the f i rst to speak in the Chamber ’s defence in th is k ind of s i tuat ion. I t could also happen that Par l iament passed laws to sor t out connected issues, such as poor organisat ion of just ice, v io lat ing the r ights of the accused. For sure, the Clerk had to fo l low the Speaker, but when there were procedures for removing the Clerk, he had the r ight, l ike anyone, to a fai r process and to a defence. I t had been mentioned that the sub judice rule appl ied in the Chamber and not in Commit tee; however, any breach, in any par l iamentary body, would be inappropr iate, i f i ts intent ion was to inf luence the outcome of a court case. Just as in the Nether lands, the sub judice rule could not be waived, but some judges could be overcome and submit to the pressure of cer ta in Members.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr Aust in ZVOMA for h is communicat ion, as wel l as a l l those members who had put quest ions to h im.

4. Communication by Mr. Mohammad Kazim MALWAN, Secretary General of the Senate of Afghanistan: "Structure and function of the Upper House: a brief introduction"

Mr Marc BOSC, President, invi ted Mr Mohammad Kazim MALWAN, Secretary General of the Senate of Afghanis tan , to present his/her communicat ion, as fol lows:

The Nat ional Assembly of Afghanis tan is Composed of two Houses: Meshrano Jerga (Upper House) Wolosi Jerga (House of the People)

(Ar t ic le 82 of the Const i tut ion)

The NA of IRA holds two regular sess ions annual ly. The term of both regular sessions is nine months. (Art . 107, const i tut ion)

Meshrano Jerga (Upper House)has 102 members. 28 (27.45%) are women.

Members of MJ are e lected and appointed as fo l lows:

One thi rd (34 members) are e lected by provincial Counci ls for four years. One thi rd (34 members) are e lected f rom Dist r ic t Counci ls for 3 years. Remaining one th i rd (34 members) are appointed by the President of the

Country from amongst experts , knowledgeable and exper ienced personal i t ies inc luding two impaired/handicapped and two from nomads.

Fif ty percent of the appointees are women.

4

0

20

40

60

80

Men Women

74

28

Gender Composition of Meshrano Jerga (Upper House)

Leading bodies of MJ

A) Adminis trat ion Board:The Admin Board of MJ is comprised of 5 members:

The president (Speaker) of MJ, e lected by members for 5 years Firs t Deputy Speaker elected for one year Second Deputy Speaker e lected for one year Secretary, elected for one year Deputy secretary e lected for one year

B) Committee of the Chairs :

19 members: comprised of Admin Board members (5) , chair persons of Commissions (12) and leaders of Parl iamentary Groups (2)

The Commit tee meets once in a Week

Main dut ies of the Committee: Preparing/deciding on agenda of p lenary sessions and commiss ions meetings for short , medium and long terms

C) Standing Commissions of MJ:

In MJ there are 12 Commissions. Each commission has 7 to 11 members.Chairman, deputy and secretary of each commission are elected for a term of one year. Each Commission holds i ts meet ings three days in a week.

D) Par l iamentary GroupsTwo Par l iamentary Groups: Reform & Just ice” PG (34 members)“Law Protect ion & Nat ional Uni ty” PG (58 members)

Meetings of Meshrano Jerga

A) Plenary sessions:

Based on Rules of Procedure, MJ holds two plenary sess ions in a Week.From Dec 2005 to Dec 2010 (15th term of Afghan NA) MJ has held (388) p lenary sessions.From February 2011 to March 2012 (part of term 16th) 96 plenary sessions have been organized.

B) Commiss ions Meetings

In accordance to the Rules of procedure each Commission of MJ organizes 3 meet ings in a week. From Dec 2005 to Dec 2010 (15th term of NA), al l commissions of MJ have held more than (4,900) meetingsFrom Feb 2011 to March 2012 ( part of 16th term of NA) MJ Commiss ions held (1060) meetings.

Main functions of MJ

Meshrano Jerga l ike any other chamber of a parl iament conducts the fo l lowing 3 main dut ies:

Legislat ion

1)The Upper House of IRA through i ts commissions’ meet ings and plenary sessions , dur ing 5 years of Afghan NA’s 15th term (2005 to 2010) approved/cert i f ied 115 laws and agreements.2)From Feb. 2011 to March 2012, (27) laws and agreements have been approved/cert i f ied by Meshrano Jerga.

Oversight of the government

Oversight of execut ive branch and i ts act iv i t ies is the second important duty of MJ. Quest ioning of government bodies in MJ committees and in some cases in p lenary sessions is a v i ta l tool for making government accountable. Dur ing 5 years of 15th and more than one year of 16th term of Afghan NA, the Afghan Upper House has quest ioned d i f ferent h igh ranking of f ic ia ls for more than (2646) t imes.

Representat ionMJ raises the voice of the publ ic and highl ights the needs and expectat ion of the people in nat ional and local levels at p lenary and commiss ion meetings ( part icular ly in open debate of p lenary sess ions).

MJ considers complaint and pet i t ions of real and legal persons ( indiv idual ly or by a group of people) in commissions and takes needed decis ions.

Since 2005 to date the MJ commissions have received a tota l of 4,400 group/ indiv idual pet i t ions and complaints. Major i ty of the complaints have been solved as a result of cooperat ion/coordinat ion between re lated commissions and relevant government departments.”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr Mohammad Kazim MALWAN for h is communicat ion and inv ited members present to put quest ions to him.

Mme Daniel le RIVAILLE (France) asked why the length of the terms of d i f ferent k inds of Members, e lected and nominated, was di f ferent.

Mr Mohammad Kazim MALWAN repl ied that the powers of elected and nominated Members were not the same, and that the di f ferent length of their terms of of f ice ensured a degree of cont inuity in the Chamber. But i t ra ised technical problems, especia l ly dur ing the elect ion of a Speaker, who could hardly be a representat ive of d is tr ict counci ls , as these only had a mandate of three years. This gave the advantage to nominated Members, who had f ive-year mandates, which was not democrat ic and was the subject of current debate. To change these arrangements would require a change to the Const i tut ion.

Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER (Germany) expressed his admirat ion at the ef forts made to ensure an equi table representat ion of men and women in the Afghan Senate. However, the photographs showing the governing bodies d id not appear to include any women.

Mr Mohammad Kazim MALWAN repl ied that as of today, one woman had been elected secretary of the Bureau, and moreover, s ix women chaired committees. I t was not iceable that women were often more act ive than men wi th in Par l iament. Work had been begun on subjects such as the educat ion of women or the f ight against v io lence against them.

Mr Alphonse K. NOMBRÉ (Burkina Faso) asked i f the commit tee on the r ights of women was made up ent i rely of women, and i f hear ings could also involve c iv i l servants.

Mr Mohammad Kazim MALWAN expla ined that the committee on the r ights of women had previously been made up of men and women. I t was current ly composed only of women, but this was not the resul t of a decis ion. He noted that hear ings

almost a lways involved Ministers, a l though sometimes they sent their deputy ministers or experts from with in their minist r ies.

Mrs Jacqueline BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN (Netherlands) asked two quest ions, one re lat ing to v io lence against women, and the other to the secur i ty of female Afghan Members of Parl iament , quot ing the example of one who had wr i t ten a book expla in ing that she feared for her l i fe .

Mr Mohammad Kazim MALWAN repl ied that a law had been passed by the two Chambers to f ight against v iolence against women. Nonetheless, the chal lenge in Afghanistan remained to ensure secur i ty across i ts whole terr i tory. Government and Par l iament tr ied to make progress on women’s r ights and democracy, whi le bear ing in mind the specia l nature of Afghan society, which remained in many respects a very tradi t ional one.

M. David BEAMISH (United Kingdom) thought that the interest of an upper House was to be found in the specia l nature of i ts contr ibut ion to legis lat ive work, and he asked Mr MALWAN what this special nature was in re lat ion to the Afghan Senate, and what exact ly the ro le of a commit tee secretary was.

Mr Mohammad Kazim MALWAN expla ined how laws were passed between the two Chambers, not ing that the upper House had less t ime than the lower House to examine bi l ls . The lower House had more powers, especia l ly that of censur ing Ministers. The secretary and assistant secretary of committees were both e lected, and had a very d i f ferent ro le from the administ rat ive staff .

Mr Somsak MANUNPICHU (Thai land) expla ined how the Thai system funct ioned, and asked about the const i tut ional ro le of the Speaker of the Upper House. He also asked about the ro le of the administrat ive counci l descr ibed by Mr MALWAN.

Mr Mohammad Kazim MALWAN expla ined that for jo int meet ings, the Speaker ’s Chair was occupied by the Speaker of the lower House, but that the Speaker of the Senate was the fourth highest-ranking person in the State.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr Mohammad Kazim MALWAN for h is communicat ion, as wel l as a l l those members who had put quest ions to h im.

The si t t ing rose at 5.00 pm

SEVENTH SITTINGThursday 5 April 2012 (Morning)

Mr Marc BOSC, President, in the Chair

The Sitting was opened at 10.00 am

1. New member

Mr Marc BOSC, President, said that the Secretar iat had received one requests for membership, which had been put before the Execut ive Commit tee and agreed to. This was:

Mr. Mohammad Hassan Brémé Deputy Secretary General of the Nat ional Assembly of Chad

The new member was agreed to.

2. Presentation by Mr Marc BOSC, President of the ASGP, Deputy Secretary General of the House of Commons of Canada, on the next ASGP meeting in Quebec (autumn 2012)

Mr Marc BOSC presented a v ideo on the for thcoming meet ing in Quebec.

3. Communication by Ms Claressa SURTEES, Clerk Assistant (Table) of the Australian House of Representatives: “Developing a new document production system for the Chamber secretariat – Phase one”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, invi ted Ms Claressa SURTEES, Clerk Assistant (Table) of the Austra l ian House of Representat ives, to present his/her communicat ion, as fo l lows:

“Introduction

At the Parl iament of Austra l ia, a project has commenced to develop a replacement for the current computer based document product ion system of the Table Off ices of the House of Representat ives and the Senate. The Parl iament is support by three separate par l iamentary departments – House of Representat ives, Senate and common Parl iamentary Serv ices – and al l three are involved in th is project. This communicat ion records the rat ionale for the system redevelopment process and i ts progress.

The current document production system

A common document product ion system (DPS) is current ly in use by both Table Of f ices and i t is cr i t ica l to the conduct of proceedings of Par l iament . The system was purpose-bui l t for the House of Representat ives in 1995 as a document product ion system that interfaces with other systems to enable document creat ion for the chamber. The DPS was later adopted by the Senate Table Off ice and over the years, other funct ional i ty, such as electronic publ ishing and document management, has been added. The DPS, and i ts modif icat ions, have created eff ic iencies in managing documents and informat ion. However, some funct ional i ty is not wel l sui ted to Senate processes leading to some ineff ic iencies, and the piecemeal nature of development from the or ig inal system means that funct ions are not fu l ly integrated. These weaknesses are compounded by the DPS undergoing only l imi ted upgrades due to associated compl icat ions and r isks to system integr i ty.The DPS most l ike ly wi l l be incompatib le wi th software used in future upgrades to the global par l iamentary computing environment . Given the cr i t ica l funct ion of the DPS, i t was seen as desirable to redevelop i t , before fur ther g lobal upgrades occur, to ensure support systems remain compatib le wi th the overal l operat ing environment. I t is ant ic ipated that redeveloping the DPS also wi l l prov ide an opportuni ty to considerably enhance the operat ions support ing the chambers.External review of business appl icat ions used by the Table Off ices

In late 2007, the Clerks Assistant (Table) of the House and Senate commiss ioned an invest igat ion by an external bus iness analyst into opt ions for the future of the DPS. The t iming of th is review was dr iven by the need to change over to new software, MS Off ice 2007, and uncerta inty as to whether the DPS could operate in the new environment.

In March 2008, the rev iew found that:

the DPS could be reconf igured easi ly to work wi th MS Off ice 2007 the DPS was becoming increasingly technical ly unpredic table and

unsupportable, and unforeseen fai lures were di f f icul t for technical personnel to repair in a t imely

manner because the DPS had evolved without fu l l support ing explanatory documentat ion.

The review therefore recommended ful l redevelopment of the DPS and databases, at an est imated cost of between $A2.8 m and $A3.2 m.Internal working group

In Apri l 2009, a working group of House of Representat ives ’ staf f , having operat ional exper ience wi th the DPS, was establ ished to determine whether there was a business case for redeveloping the DPS. The terms of reference for the working group were to:

1. out l ine the archi tecture and funct ional i ty of the DPS;2. ascerta in the common use of the DPS between the House and Senate Table Off ices, Hansard and other areas of the three par l iamentary departments (and beyond);3. obtain the plan for intended future information technology upgrades to the global par l iamentary computing environment, including the current redevelopment of Hansard’s document product ion system, and assess the impact the changes might have on the DPS;4. ident i fy aspects of the current redevelopment of Hansard’s document product ion system that could be appl ied to redevelopment of the DPS;5. ident i fy desired outcomes of the project , in part icular , benef i ts f rom redevelopment including opportuni t ies for improv ing eff ic iency and effect iveness;6. determine whether there is a business case for redevelopment, and i f so, draft a customer request for redeveloping the DPS;7. est imate a feasib le t imeframe and indicate the preferred approach for releasing the redeveloped DPS, wi th part icular focus on paragraph 3 and the par l iamentary cycle; and8. propose sui table support arrangements for the DPS.

The working group met with representat ives of the Senate Table Of f ice and the Department of Par l iamentary Services (which is responsib le for the global par l iamentary comput ing environment and Hansard services) . From these discussions a preference for redevelopment rather than upgrade became apparent , as wel l as ident i fy ing areas which a new system could improve.

Developing a business case and scope of requirements

Preparat ion of the business case for redeveloping the DPS commenced in late 2009.

The business case proposed that the two chamber departments jo int ly fund and manage the project and fol low a three stage process:

Stage 1 – analysis of requirements,Stage 2 – procurement of a solut ion, andStage 3 – development and implementat ion of the solut ion.

The business case also considered three opt ions for the future of the DPS:Option 1 – ful l redevelopment ,Opt ion 2 – integrat ion of ‘of f- the-shel f ’ products, andOption 3 – cont inuat ion of the current system.

In March 2010, the two Table Of f ices reached general agreement on the need for a major project to replace the DPS and Table Off ice databases (e.g. quest ions, papers, d iv is ions, Senate pet i t ions) and to move to a new system, and there was a preference for using customised off- the-shel f sof tware. Important ly, the chief f inancia l of f icers of the two departments advised that funding for the project would be avai lable.Staff developed a ‘wish l ist ’ of features for a new system, and each of the Table Of f ices conducted separate brainstorming workshops to inform the scope of requirements for the new system and appointed their own project l ia ison off icers.

Governance for the project

A project board was appointed in August 2010, wi th senior execut ive representat ives from each of the three parl iamentary departments. The board considered, and f inal ly approved the ini t ia t ion document for the Table Off ices Document Product ion System (TOPS).

Procurement processIn re lat ion to s igni f icant expendi ture of publ ic funds, the parl iamentary departments are required to fol low the same rules and processes which apply to the Austral ian publ ic sector more broadly . These ru les and processes are intended to ensure departments achieve the best value for money and that funds management and administrat ion fo l lows best pract ice and is sui tably prudent.Departmental s taf f in i t ia l ly drafted a statement of requirements for the project and th is s tatement was completed wi th the help of an external business analyst. The project board formal ly approved the statement of requirements, a request for tender and a draft contract in mid 2011. The request for tender was issued to the publ ic for a per iod of s ix weeks in September and October, and f ive tenders were received.A tender evaluat ion plan was developed and a tender evaluat ion panel was establ ished, wi th staff f rom each of the three par l iamentary departments supported by technical assistance from the external business analyst who had assisted ear l ier in prepar ing the project documents. The tender evaluat ion took two weeks to complete with a preferred vendor ident i f ied, and subsequent ly endorsed by the project board in December 2011.Contract negot iat ions cont inued wi th the vendor unt i l the end of January 2012. The project board approved the draft contract and i t was signed on 13 February 2012.

Conclusions and observations

Al l major contr ibutors to the work of the House of Representat ives and Senate Table Of f ices have been involved in the development of the project. I t is not easy to envisage solut ions for operat ional requirements especia l ly when they deal wi th

technical matters. Sometimes external technical expert ise must be obtained in order to bui ld the best systems for current and future needs.I t has taken four years s ince the proposi t ion that a new DPS might be needed, unt i l the commencement of a contract to del iver a new system. The re lat ively long lead t ime is due in part to the real i ty that the project has developed whi le the pr incipal work of the responsib le parl iamentary s taff cont inues to be support ing an act ive Par l iament, and notably, during a period dist inguished by a change of government in 2007 and a fur ther change to minori ty government in 2010.The out look is that under the terms of the contract, system development is to be completed wi th in 18 months from commencement of the contract . Current project t iming would enable changeover to, and fu l l implementat ion of, the new system dur ing a relat ively inact ive per iod for the Table Off ices, at the t ime of the next general e lect ion, est imated to be at the end of 2013.”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Ms Claressa SURTEES for her communicat ion and invi ted members present to put quest ions to her.

Mr Geert HAMILTON (Netherlands) asked what the advantages for Members were of the new system compared wi th the old.

Ms Claressa SURTEES repl ied that Members had already been able to f ind a lot of information on the websi te, but that , as the system was old and incoherent fo l lowing numerous addi t ions and modi f icat ions, a new system had been necessary, which al lowed documents to be more re l iable and complete.

Mr Claus DETHLEFSEN (Denmark) expla ined that a new system had been implemented in Denmark three years before, as the same t ime as a reform of the Standing Orders had made the elect ronic publ icat ion of a l l documents compulsory. Members were becoming increasingly fami l iar wi th e lect ronic means of communicat ion; th is was also fac i l i ta t ing the reduct ion in paper consumption.

Ms Nomonde KESWA (South Africa; non-member) indicated that in her country, the adminis trat ion was try ing to put in p lace an elect ronic minut ing system, but paper consumpt ion remained very h igh.

Mrs Danièle RIVAILLE (France) asked i f the solut ion ident i f ied was standard or bespoke, and i f the lat ter , how much the adaptat ions had cost.

Mr Heiki SIBUL (Estonia) asked i f the database was connected to Government databases, and i f Members could look at their f inancial in formation onl ine.

Mr Md Mahfuzur RAHMAN (Bangladesh ) expla ined that the implementat ion of a d ig i ta l system sometimes caused di f f icu lt ies for Members’ staf f , who required tra in ing.

Ms Claressa SURTEES (Austral ia) thought that d igi t isat ion and developments such as the provis ion of tablet computers were inevi table and only a matter of t ime. She repl ied that the solut ion was not s tandardised but had been developed in l ine wi th the specia l nature of Par l iament. The contract prov ided for t ra in ing courses. Access to documents used by the Execut ive was provided for . However, Members could not current ly access their data as regards al lowances onl ine.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Ms Claressa SURTEES for her communicat ion, as wel l as a l l those members who had put quest ions to her.

4. Communication by Mr. Habtamu NINI ABINO, Head of the Secretariat of the House of Federation of Ethiopia: “Lessons from the work of the House of Federation in celebrating Ethiopian Constitution Day 2011”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, invi ted Mr. Habtamu NINI ABINO, Head of the Secretar iat of the House of Federat ion of Ethiopia, to present his communicat ion, as fo l lows:

“Ethiopia has throughout i ts long history endeavoured to develop a system of governance that embraces i ts d iversi ty- one that helps i t to t ransform i ts extraordinary diversi ty f rom an existent ia l threat to a deep wel l of strength and dynamism with l i t t le success. Indeed the management of i ts d iversi ty has for centuries const i tuted a pr imary chal lenge- a chal lenge that has massively contr ibuted to i ts century ’s long journey backwards f rom the front l ine of wor ld c iv i l izat ion to one of the poorest countr ies on earth.

Our experiment wi th Democrat ic Federal ism over the past two decades must thus be seen as one in a l ine of at tempts to achieve uni ty in Diversi ty. Al l indicat ions so far suggest that th is is at last a successful exper iment. Our federal system has al lowed us to introduce a democrat ic system of governance that is fast matur ing and consol idat ing.

I t has enabled al l the peoples of Ethiopia to maintain and celebrate their indiv idual ident i t ies whi le at the same t ime const i tut ing the bigger fami ly of Ethiopians. I t has empowered al l the peoples of Ethiopia to manage their local af fa i rs autonomy and to mobi l ize al l their local af fa irs autonomously and to mobi l ize a l l their resources to improve their l ive l ihoods and develop their communit ies whi le at the same t ime becoming act ive part ic ipants in common nat ional af fa i rs. I t has al lowed us to design our governance system to f i t the ci rcumstances of each local i ty and thus serve the people bet ter whi le consol idat ing our common democrat ic governance. Democrat ic Federal ism has enabled us to forge a common Ethiopian ident i ty- one that is not separated and above our d iverse ident i t ies but one that is const i tuted by the magni f icence of such divers ity. I t has become the bedrock upon which a stable and peaceful nat ion is being const i tuted. I t has become the sol id basis upon which we are bui lding a young and dynamic nat ion out of one of the oldest s tates on earth.

The House of Federat ion is Ethiopia’s Second Chamber of the federal Par l iament, represent ing Ethiopia ’s 75 ethnic groups, the Nat ions, Nat ional i t ies and Peoples of Ethiopia. Whi le the ethnic, cul tural and re l ig ious diversi ty of our country has been suppressed dur ing prev ious regimes, the Nat ions, Nat ional i t ies and Peoples became the founders of the new, federal and democrat ic Ethiopia in 1994. The Ethiopian Const i tut ion is based on the pr inc ip le of self -determinat ion and focuses strongly both on group as wel l as indiv idual r ights.

The const i tut ion st rongly promotes equal i ty, democracy and social just ice and binds governments to the development of the country. The Nat ions, Nat ional i t ies and Peoples are granted an uncondi t ional r ight to self -determinat ion up to secession. For this reason, the Second Chamber of Parl iament , the House of Federat ion is represent ing the Nat ions, Nat ional i t ies and Peoples and not the regional states.Whi le many second chambers have strong legis lat ive mandates, the House of Federat ion’s mandates are d i f ferent. The House of Federat ion resolves conf l ic ts

between regional states and between regional governments and the federal government , i t des igns and decides the larger part of the f iscal t ransfer system, i t promotes the uni ty of the country through equitable development and last but not least , i t interprets the const i tut ion and promotes democracy and const i tut ional ism.

The House of Federat ion has embarked on immense and intense act iv i t ies promoting const i tut ional ism and democracy throughout the last s ix years. Huge effor ts have been undertaken in popular iz ing the democrat ic pr incip les of the const i tut ion. Among many others we have designed radio and TV programs which are both entertain ing and educat ional. Most of them are quiz-shows, part ic ipat ing the audience. We have designed a ser ies of animated cartoons for chi ldren, expla in ing democrat ic pr incip les through short stor ies around the l i fe of school-chi ldren. This inc ludes equal r ights of men and women, chi ldren’s r ights, fa i r elect ions and the l ike. The resonance from chi ldren and adul ts towards th is program but a lso to other is immense.

In 2006, the House of Federat ion has in i t ia ted the commemorat ion of the s igning of the const i tut ion by representat ives of the Nat ions, Nat ional i t ies and Peoples on December 8, 1994.

Since then the House in cooperat ion wi th at least one regional government has organized the federal celebrat ion of th is day. The federal celebrat ion has been organized since in a number of regional capi ta ls – the cruis ing being simi lar to Germany’s Nat ional day celebrat ion.

Whi le the commemorat ion has been focusing on a re lat ively smal l number of part ic ipants at the beginning, the celebrat ion consis t ing of d iscussions and cul tural shows have been enlarged signi f icant ly over t ime.

This year, target-group or iented conferences have been organized across the country in order to reach are far larger number of people. This included a symposium for women (Addis Ababa), media and ar t ists (Addis Ababa), c iv i l servants (var ious conferences across sectors and regions), students (31 workshops, one in each universi ty) . The f inal symposium in Meqel le drew part ic ipants from al l sectors. Al l in a l l , we managed to part ic ipate 5382 people in seven di f ferent events/ conferences. The detai ls of the conferences and number of part ic ipants were: in pr ivate sector 470, in women 521, in Youth 1112, in Media and ar t professionals 500, in the Civi l Service at Federal Level and wi th Video conference to Regional States 500 and Nat ional Conference at Meqelle 1800. The events and the number of part ic ipants are excluding part ic ipants of Defence and Just ice Sector conference, 31 Universi t ies, 28,000 schools, Civ i l Service inst i tut ions’ , Women and Youth at Regional and grass roots level including Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa.

Al l symposia and workshops discussed the quest ion "Why do we need a const i tut ion and const i tut ional ism?" The discussions have been induced through target-group speci f ic presentat ions towards th is quest ion and through a common booklet expla in ing the pr inciples of the const i tut ion.

The lessons we can learn from our cont inuous ef forts are mani fold. Fi rst of a l l , we were drawing attent ion towards the const i tut ion and i ts object ives and pr inciples in a more general manner. Through l inking al l const i tut ional awareness creat ion act iv i t ies, we have been able to engage a large number of people f rom al l layers of society in a dia logue wi th both, pol i t ica l leaders and intel lectuals. Alongside wi th a

fast growing l i teracy rate, we also obtain stronger feedback regarding const i tut ional awareness, so to say an increasing const i tut ional l i teracy rate.

Whi le these act iv i t ies are very budget- intensive, we have also learned that people are gett ing more conf ident in democrat ic inst i tut ions through these effor ts. For example, requests for const i tut ional review and interpretat ion have r isen by 100 percent between 2006 and 2011.

The change we observe is not only remarkable in terms of quant i ty but a lso in terms of qual i ty . Whi le 2011’s celebrat ion of the Const i tut ion Day has attracted by far more people than in any previous year, the level of d iscussion has also reached a qual i ty we have not been observ ing prev iously. The quest ions and comments ra ised and made by part ic ipants showed a strongly increased level of information and an increasing level of ident i f icat ion wi th democracy and const i tut ional ism.

Summariz ing, we can note that we went a long way in a re lat ively short per iod of less than 20 years. We have learned that learning and teaching democrat ic r ights takes t ime but we have also learned the lesson that i t can be accomplished provided a s trong pol i t ica l wi l l and the commitment to part ic ipate ci t izens in th is endeavour. The commemorat ion of Ethiopia ’s Const i tut ion Day is one good example for th is .Thank you very much.”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr. Habtamu NINI ABINO for h is communicat ion and invi ted members present to put quest ions to h im.

Mr Ibrahim MOHAMED IBRAHIM (Sudan) thought that the example provided was very useful , especia l ly for many Afr ican countr ies, where the idea of nat ionhood was not yet sol id enough. To consol idate th is idea and involve al l c i t izens in doing so was an excel lent ini t ia t ive.

Ms Claressa SURTEES (Austral ia) asked how knowledge of the Const i tut ion and State inst i tut ions was usual ly conveyed to chi ldren and young people in Ethiopia.

Mr Hassan MUSA SHAIKH EL SAFI (Sudan) thought that Ethiopia was a good model of contemporary democracy.

Mr Habtamu NINI ABINO expla ined that a steer ing commit tee had been establ ished, br inging together regional and local leaders, to organise th is day. Sub-committees had been set up by minist r ies, especia l ly the Educat ion Minist ry , which had been responsib le for ra is ing awareness in schools . The committee had prepared publ icat ions and brochures, and train ing was also proposed, to a l low members to convey their knowledge into the provinces. The House of Federat ion was responsib le for supervis ing the organisat ion of school programmes, and for ensur ing that they were in keeping wi th const i tut ional pr inciples.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr Habtamu NINI ABINO for h is /her communicat ion, as wel l as a l l those members who had put quest ions to h im.

5. Communication by Mr. Kursad MELIH SARIARSLAN, Deputy Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic-speaking Countries: “Basic aspects and prospects of TURKPA’s international co-operation”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, invi ted Mr. Kursad MELIH SARIARSLAN, Deputy Secretary General of the Par l iamentary Assembly of Turkic-speaking Countr ies, to present h is communicat ion, as fo l lows:

“The Par l iamentary Assembly of Turkic-speaking countr ies (TURKPA) was establ ished on 21 November 2008 upon the Is tanbul Agreement s igned by the chairmen of par l iaments of Azerbai jan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkey.Goals of organizat ion inc lude developing inter-par l iamentary cooperat ion among i ts members, promot ing pol i t ica l and economic d ialogue between i ts members and creat ing favourable pol i t ica l c l imate for e laborat ion and implementat ion of var ious ini t ia t ives aimed at st rengthening regional , g lobal s tabi l i ty and secur i ty . One of the main tasks of TURKPA is establ ishment of new relat ions and development of exist ing ones wi th par l iaments and other internat ional organizat ions of the countr ies in the region and al l over the wor ld. TURKPA, being at the qual i tat ively new stage of inter-par l iamentary cooperat ion, cont inues i ts act iv i t ies on the development cooperat ion wi th other countr ies and internat ional organizat ions, enhancement of socio-economic, pol i t ica l , cul tural, humani tar ian and legal relat ions among the part ies concerned.

With in a short per iod of t ime, TURKPA has establ ished re lat ions wi th number of internat ional organizat ions, including inter-par l iamentary ones, and TURKPA Secretar iat has been act ively engaged in th is process. TURKPA’s interact ion wi th European and internat ional parl iamentary or other inst i tut ions aims, f i rst of a l l , at strengthening the role of par l iamentary d ip lomacy and inter-par l iamentary d ialogue. Astana Declarat ion adopted at the TURKPA 2nd Plenary Session reaf f i rms that “over short per iod of i ts act iv i t ies Parl iamentary Assembly has t ransformed into a fu l l -f ledged inter-parl iamentary structure wi th an observer s tatus to the Inter-Par l iamentary Union and the Par l iamentary Union of Organizat ion of Is lamic Conference”.

In the f ramework of internat ional cooperat ion, TURKPA cont inues i ts act iv i ty wi th internat ional organizat ions aiming at enhancement of re lat ions and closer interact ion. These are the UN General Assembly, Par l iamentary Assembly (PA) of OSCE, PA of NATO, European Par l iament (EP), Asian Par l iamentary Assembly, Inter-Par l iamentary Assembly of CIS, Parl iamentary Union of the Organizat ion of Is lamic Cooperat ion, Inter-Par l iamentary Union, PA of the Black Sea Economic Cooperat ion, Conference on Interact ion and Conf idence Bui ld ing Measures in Asia (CICA), Nordic Counci l , Par l iamentary Dimension of the Southeast European Cooperat ion Process, Cooperat ion Counci l of Turkic-speaking states (TURKKON), TURKSOY etc. I t ’s necessary to note that TURKPA is represented in the organizat ions mentioned above in capaci ty of observer or guest.

TURKPA was accepted to: the Inter-Par l iamentary Union ( IPU) and Par l iamentary Union of the Organizat ion of Is lamic Cooperat ion as an observer. As a resul t of the fru it fu l act iv i ty of the group of TURKPA par l iamentar ians in the Par l iamentary Assembly of OSCE, TURKPA was given a s tatus of guest in th is organizat ion.TURKPA act iv i t ies, on top of a l l , meet the spir i t and values of the UN. Declarat ions adopted by the Turkic-speaking countr ies leaders have repeatedly s tressed their adherence to the pr inciples envisaged by the UN Charter . Therefore, an internat ional cooperat ion of TURKPA, as wel l , is based on recogni t ion of legi t imate and supreme role of the UN. In this regard, TURKPA has appl ied for grant ing an observer status in the UN General Assembly. As a resul t of the efforts done by the

permanent representat ions of the TURKPA member states in UN, th is request was posit ively accepted and included to the agenda of the 66th session of the UN General Assembly.TURKPA closely cooperates wi th the European Par l iament. In th is regard, interact ion between TURKPA and the Off ice for Promotion of Parl iamentary Democracy (OPPD) represents a good opportunity for long-term relat ionships wi th EP and other EU inst i tut ions. OPPD operates wi th in the Directorate-General for External Pol ic ies of EP and ass is ts in the establ ishment and development of regional inter-par l iamentary organizat ions aiming at strengthening their capaci ty of inter-par l iamentary legis lat ive cooperat ion and shar ing of best pract ices. As the f i rs t stage of cooperat ion with OPPD, s taff of TURKPA Secretar iat has been invi ted by the EP to take part in exper ience-exchange programme.

Part ic ipat ion of the TURKPA internat ional delegat ions in the 35th Plenary Session of the PABSEC, Trans-Asian Par l iamentary Forum of OSCE PA, 123th, 124th and 125th Plenary Sessions of IPU, I I I Summit of CICA, VII I Internat ional Cooperat ion Conference of the parl iaments of South-Eastern European countr ies, internat ional conference on “Stabi l i ty and Cooperat ion in South-Eastern Europe” of the Organizat ion of Is lamic Conference (OIC), conference of the Organizat ion of Dialogue on Euras ian Plat form devoted to the “ Inter-cultural and Generat ions Dialogue”, I I I Astana Economic Forum, last four sessions of ASGP, p lenary sess ions of the OSCE PA, IPA CIS and PUIC and internat ional conference on “OSCE and CIS: new opportuni t ies and prospects” organized by the Par l iament of Kazakhstan, is an indicat ion of posi t ive impact on establ ishing and shaping inter-par l iamentary relat ions by TURKPA, being among the leading internat ional inst i tut ions. In the context of cooperat ion wi th internat ional organizat ions, TURKPA has organized three internat ional conferences. The conference on “Par l iamentary Diplomacy – TURKPA” was held on 24 May 2010 on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the Grand Nat ional Assembly of Turkey and in l ine wi th foster ing the Turkey-Azerbai jan and Turkey-Kazakhstan inter-par l iamentary re lat ions; an internat ional conference on “par l iamentary democracy ro le in the process of the interstate re lat ions development” was held at the Baku State Universi ty on 21 September 2010. The internat ional conference on “ Increasing ro le of women pol i t ic ians in the 21st century” devoted to the 20th anniversary of Azerbai jan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan was organized on 3-4 October 2011 jo int ly by TURKPA and “Women Leaders” Associat ion. TURKPA’s establ ished mandate to observe elect ions in the member countr ies has contr ibuted to the Assembly enhanced cooperat ion wi th publ ic administ rat ions and their ef forts to comprehensively moni tor the nat ional elect ions processes in the member countr ies. The parl iamentary elect ions held in Azerbai jan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, as wel l as the president ial elect ions in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were moni tored by the TURKPA Internat ional Observers Mission.

Importance of regional and parl iamentary d iplomacy has been repeatedly conf i rmed by the leading internat ional organizat ions, including UN, and th is aspect is ref lected in the UN Mi l lennium Declarat ion of 8 September 2000. Par l iamentary d ip lomacy and i ts mechanisms of ten achieve the resul ts that are d if f icu l t to accomplish by means of convent ional channels. TURKPA is fu l ly aware that permanent contacts between the par l iament members contr ibute to shar ing the exper ience and developing understanding between pol i t ica l e l i tes of the member countr ies. Also, this contr ibutes to bui ld ing trust ing and mutual understanding between the indiv iduals.

In the other s ide TURKPA real ized an exper ience exchange program among Par l iament staff of member countr ies regarding the re lat ion development, part ic ipat ion of legis lat ive body staff in mutual exchange process, jo int part ic ipat ion in the preparat ion of laws, improvement of foreign relat ions of Par l iaments and such subjects as permanent committees and commiss ions. At the end of program “cert i f icates of part ic ipat ion” were submitted by Head of Apparatus of par l iaments.

TURKPA member countr ies appeal to internat ional community to fo l low pr incip les of to lerance and norms of internat ional law. Our Assembly f i rmly s tands for to lerant co-existence of d i f ferent nat ions and communit ies, peaceful and fr iendly co-existence of people wi th d if ferent re l ig ious fa i th and nat ional ident i ty, refrain from the threat or use of force to v io late the exist ing internat ional boundar ies of another s tate, protect ion of bas ic human r ights and freedoms, including freedom of expression, and strengthening democrat ic inst i tut ions. Interact ion between parl iamentary and t radi t ional d ip lomacy, enhancing cooperat ion between, f igurat ively speaking, elected and appointed diplomats would br ing benef i ts . With this v iew, we would l ike to not ice that our Assembly is ready to develop re lat ions establ ished wi th a number of inter-parl iamentary and inter-governmental inst i tut ions.

Thank you for k ind attent ion!”

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr. Kursad MELIH SARIARSLAN for h is communicat ion and inv ited members present to put quest ions to him.

Mr Geert HAMILTON (Netherlands) thanked his col league for his presentat ion, which had al lowed him to learn many th ings about TURKPA. He welcomed the stabi l is ing ro le of Turkey in a s t i l l unstable region. He asked what was the responsib i l i ty of indiv idual States, and what was the responsib i l i ty of TURKPA. For example, he asked i f TURKPA as an organisat ion deal t wi th subjects such as the current s i tuat ion in Syr ia.

Mr Phil ippe SCHWAB (Switzer land) noted that par l iamentary assembl ies normal ly emanated f rom execut ive structures cover ing the same area, and asked i f such an execut ive st ructure existed for TURKPA.

Mr Kursad MELIH SARIARSLAN expla ined that TURKPA was composed of e ight par l iamentar ians from each country , and each country had an equal voice. The Assembly had reached resolut ions and agreed pol i t ica l recommendations in several d i f f icu l t areas. A co-operat ive counci l (Turkon) a lso ex is ted, as did an educat ional academy (Turc ik) , as wel l as another body responsible for culture. TURKPA had the status of an internat ional organisat ion. Each of the other organisat ions was based in one of the TURKPA nat ions.

Mr Petr KYNŠTETR (Czech Republic) thought that i t was very interest ing to have a col league with such a network in Turkish-speaking countr ies, which were somet imes dif f icu l t to access for members f rom European countr ies.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr Kursad MELIH SARIARSLAN for h is communicat ion, as wel l as a l l those members who had put quest ions to h im.

6. Examination of the draft agenda for the next meeting (Quebec, October 2012)

Mr Marc BOSC, President , read the draf t Orders of the Day for the next sess ion in Quebec (22–26 October 2012) which had been approved by the Execut ive Commit tee:

Possible subjects for general debate:

1. Personnel management for ef fect ive par l iamentary services Group 1: Recruitment of par l iamentary staf fGroup 2: Career and succession planning for par l iamentary s taff

Moderator: Mr Marc BOSC, President of the ASGP, Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons of Canada

2. The protect ion of wi tnesses who appear before par l iamentary committees

Moderator: Ms Doris Katai Katebe MWINGA , Vice-President of the ASGP, Clerk of the Nat ional Assembly of Zambia

Communicat ions

1. Communicat ion by Mr. Vladimir SVINAREV, Secretary General of the Counci l of the Federat ion of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federat ion: “Co-operat ion between the adminis trat ions of nat ional and regional parl iaments”

2. Communicat ion by Mr Damir DAVIDOVIC, Secretary General of the Par l iament of Montenegro: “ Involv ing c iv i l society in the legis lat ive and scrut iny process”

3. Communicat ion by Mr İ r fan NEZİROĞLU, Secretary General of the Grand Nat ional Assembly of Turkey: "Foreign Relat ions of the Grand Nat ional Assembly of Turkey and Strengthening Inter-par l iamentary Cooperat ion"

4. Communicat ion by Mr David BYAZA-SANDA LUTALA, Secretary General of the Senate of Democrat ic Republic of Congo: "Connect ing s tructures between the legis lat ive and execut ive branches"

5. Communicat ion by Dr V.K. AGNIHOTRI, Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha of India: “Discussing matters wi th in the jur isdict ion of the prov inces/states in the nat ional Par l iament ”

6. Communicat ion by Mr Geert Jan A. HAMILTON, Clerk of the Senate of the States General of the Nether lands: “Par l iamentary d ip lomacy”

7. Communicat ion by Mr Alphonse K. NOMBRÉ, Secretary General of the Nat ional Assembly of Burk ina Faso: “Par l iamentary communicat ion: the example of Burkina Faso”

8. Communicat ion by Mr Zingi le A. DINGANI, Secretary to the South Afr ican Par l iament : “ Integrated sustainabi l i ty f ramework of the Par l iament of South Afr ica”

9. Communicat ion by Mr Mohamed Kamal MANSURA, Secretary to the Nat ional Assembly of South Afr ica: “Enhancing Par l iamentary Overs ight”

10. Communicat ion by Mr Hugo HONDEQUIN, Secretary General of the Belg ium Senate: “The si tuat ion of par l iament dur ing a long last ing pol i t ica l cr is is”

11. Communicat ion by Mr Phi l ippe SCHWAB, Secretary General of the Counci l of States and Deputy Secretary General of the Federal Assembly of Switzer land: “Role of Par l iament in moni tor ing the effect iveness of publ ic pol icy”

12. Communicat ion by Dr Ulr ich SCHÖLER, Vice-President of the ASGP, Deputy Secretary General of the German Bundestag: "The necessary l imi ts to transparency – the problems for Par l iaments of f reedom of informat ion legis lat ion"

Other business

1. Presentat ion on the Canadian par l iamentary system by Ms Audrey O’BRIEN, Clerk of the House of Commons and Mr Gary W. O’BRIEN, Clerk of the Senate of Canada

2. Presentat ion on recent developments in the Inter-Par l iamentary Union

3. Administrat ive and f inancia l quest ions

4. Elect ions for at least one ordinary member of the Execut ive Committee

5. Draf t agenda for the next meet ing in Quito (March 2013)

The Orders of the Day were agreed to.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, noted that the excursion would take place in a tradi t ional Huron si te, and would be fo l lowed by a recept ion at the Château Frontenac.

He added that th is session in Quebec would be an opportuni ty to experiment wi th a new kind of general debate, beginning with more informal d iscussions in smal l groups.

7. Closure

Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked the Ugandan Par l iament and i ts secretar ies general , the Joint Secretar ies of the ASGP and their assis tants, as wel l as the Ugandan assistants. He hoped to see many col leagues at the session in Quebec and congratulated members on the qual i ty of the work carr ied out during the sess ion.

The si t t ing rose at 12.10 pm