Third General Meeting of Associations of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe Member States

Strasbourg, 16 September 2010

Speech by Halvdan SKARD, Rapporteur on the Reform of the Congress

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am very happy to have this opportunity to meet with you today to outline and discuss openly and frankly with you, the Congress’s natural partners, our proposals for the reform of the Congress. My co-rapporteur, Günther Krug, sends his apologies for not being able to participate in this morning’s discussions, but he will join us this afternoon.

As you know, these proposals are not only the fruit of our own reflection; they are very much the result of in-depth discussion and consultation. Consultation with our Bureau, with our Congress members, with national and with European associations.  I would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank all those who sent us their contributions and helped us to better evaluate the needs, the specificities and the added-value of the Congress as well as those aspects of our working methods and structures which needed review; you have been instrumental in helping us arrive at the conclusions and suggestions I will be presenting to you this morning.

Mr Krug and I will also be discussing our report with our fellow Bureau members tomorrow and I greet those of our colleagues who are here today to take part in this meeting.

My task today is to present the general background of our reform to you and describe some of the issues we have dealt with. I will also outline the specific reform proposals which the Bureau will be discussing tomorrow and which will be presented for adoption to the full Congress at its session in October.

Background

As you know, the Congress started a review of its working methods and political role in 2008.  I was tasked by the Congress Bureau with presenting a first report to the Standing Committee in June 2009 based on a questionnaire which had been sent out to national delegations.  Over the following 12 months there were a series of discussions and meetings which culminated in the report my co-rapporteur and I presented to the Standing Committee this June.

That report, together with its recommendation and resolution, outlined a series of proposals and options which, once adopted, formed the basis of the consultation document which was sent out to Congress members, national associations and other external partners of the Congress at the end of June. Feedback was requested by 16 August 2010.  A compendium containing contributions from associations has been made available to today’s participants.

As Mr Micallef mentioned at the start of today’s meeting, our Congress reform has coincided with the wide-ranging reform of the Council of Europe launched, in 2009, by Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The aim of that reform is to revitalise the Council of Europe and its political role and to refocus its activities on the Council’s fundamental values: human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

The Congress Bureau, since the launch of that reform, has made it clear that it considers it both important and opportune for the Congress to take on board a certain number of Secretary General Jagland’s proposals, in particular this refocusing on our fundamental values – and added value – while at the same time respecting the specific role and identity of the Congress.

The questions

A number of questions have emerged as the crux of our reform, these are:

-           the place the Congress should aspire to have within the Council of Europe and on the European stage;

-           how we can develop our co-operation with external partners;

-           what structures the Congress needs to fulfil its mission more effectively;

-           what form its activities should take and how its working methods could best serve these activities;

-           how increased transparency and a more effective communication policy can ensure greater impact for the Congress and last, but by no means least;

-           how the Congress can ensure a greater involvement of its members in its work.

I will just take some of these issues, elaborate on them and give you our recommendations...

Co-operation with external partners

Firstly, co-operation with external partners: the fact we are here today shows how strongly we believe that we need to develop closer co-operation and synergy with our external partners. Indeed, this is one of the Congress’ main priorities adopted in June, as our President ad interim and Rapporteur on the Congress’ priorities, Ian Micallef, will tell you later this morning.

By external partners we mean, amongst others, the Committee of the Regions, the European Commission, relevant NGOs and INGOs, civil society and, of course, national and European associations of local and regional authorities.

Your associations are essential multipliers of our work within your countries and among your members.  You can help us to make our political initiatives known and understood at local and regional level; you can complement our institutional role through joint activities with us.  You can give us feedback on our action on the ground.

We intend to find new ways to work with you – and I look forward to this afternoon’s debate and hearing how you believe we can best achieve this.

Activities

A word on the Congress’ activities: these need to be refocused on our core values and our own political priorities. By narrowing our focus to those areas where our action is unique we strengthen it and give it greater impact.  I am referring to our unique role as promoter and watchdog of local and regional democracy in particular through the observation of elections and the monitoring of the European Charter of Local Self-government. With regard to this monitoring, we further believe that a human rights element should be included since local and regional authorities have a key role to play in ensuring that such rights are respected at territorial level.

As for its documents, and in particular the texts it adopts – the Congress will ensure that these are not only more succinct and more political in nature, but that they are subject to a clearer and more concrete follow-up procedure.

These are both changes that are already underway as the Standing Committee gave a clear sign regarding the Congress’ priorities in June.

Structures

As rapporteurs we have been convinced that a thorough review of the working and decision-making structures of the Congress are essential to lay the groundwork for the success of the reform. 

Of all the issues we have had to consider, I would say that the crucial question of the Congress’ structures is one that has generated the liveliest debate and thought-provoking discussion.  Naturally, we believe that our structures should reflect the Congress’ renewed tasks and objectives.  The sharpening of our focus should be matched by the aptness of the tools to put it into practice.

Bicameral Congress?

The issue of abandoning the bicameral structure is a good example of the kind of open discussion we have had, with complex issues that have no clear resolution.  There were strong arguments on both sides:  on the one hand, a unitary structure might bring simplification of procedures, more synergy, and a collective approach.  On the other, the bicameral approach allows local and regional authorities to have their specific platforms where issues unique to their level can be addressed.  Once it became clear that the financial argument of reduced running costs for a unitary structure wasn’t decisive, since savings would be negligible, it was decided to keep the two-chamber structure for the time being.

Sessions

We discussed increasing the number of times Congress members can meet to enable them to have a greater sense of “ownership”.  Naturally, we would very much like to be able to meet in session more than twice a year – unfortunately, budgetary constraints mean that at present this is not a feasible option.

Members

However, perhaps there is a way to ensure more continuity of membership?  We have made a proposal for an extended mandate which will, we hope, mean that members can become more involved over a longer period of time.  This need for more involvement of members was certainly felt across the board as the contributions show and our proposal to extend the term of office from 2 to 4 years has meet with universal approval.  This new extended mandate will come into force following adoption by the Committee of Ministers of our revised Charter – so it will be effective as of the new renewal session in 2012.

Despite the 4-year mandate, we believe that political representativity of the Bureau can best be served by maintaining the renewal of the Bureau and of the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the committees on a two-yearly basis.

As you know, the Congress is among the first assemblies to have a stipulated threshold of 30% participation of the under-represented sex in its delegations. We propose to clarify this clause by making it clear that this means that at least 30% of Representatives and 30% of Substitutes in a delegation must be of the under-represented sex.  If Mr Krug were here, in his role as Rapporteur also on the Verification of Credentials I am sure that he would say that while he understood the difficulties some delegations face, he strongly believes, as do I, that the spirit as well as the letter of this rule must be applied, and this is why we are clarifying it. The under-represented sex must be present throughout a delegation and not simply as its substitutes. Nor are empty seats a viable solution.

We do understand that delegations will need time to adapt to this provision and so entry into force is foreseeen with the next general renewal of delegations in 2012.

Bureau

As the political steering body and executive organ of the Congress the Bureau is responsible for the continuity of the Congress’ work in between sessions.  Our proposal is that this central role not only be recognised, it be reaffirmed and strengthened.  This means a new, clarified, mandate which should detail such important responsibilities as that of election observation – a task which falls directly under the supervision of the Bureau.

In order to increase the flow of communication and help the Bureau in its task of coordinating the work of the committees and political groups we suggest that today’s informal practice of allowing the chairs of committees and Presidents of political groups be codified in the Rules of Procedure and that they be granted a seat in Bureau meetings, ex officio, as members without voting rights.

This will come into force immediately.

Standing Committee

The Standing Committee has been another matter where we, as rapporteurs, have had to remain flexible and one may see from the various documents and discussions along the way that we have adapted our views to the different proposals and arguments we have encountered.  Some members have proposed strengthening this organ – others, doing away with it altogether.  What to do?  Our main goal has been to ensure a coherent decision – the ultimate argument being political relevance and greater representativity.

After several transformations, we think our proposal today encapsulates the best of both worlds – continuing to ensure representativity of all delegations while creating a tool that can be used as and when necessary thereby ensuring maximum flexibility and reactivity. 

Our proposal is that the former Standing Committee – to be known as the Statutory Forum – shall consist of the heads of all national delegations and the members of the Bureau.  We suggest that delegations elect a deputy head as well as a head of delegation so that the deputy may replace the head in Forum meetings if necessary.

In addition, Secretaries of delegation may participate in Forum meetings to ensure the flow of information to all members.

The Forum shall be convened by the President on the Bureau's decision and acts on behalf of the Congress.

As this is a change that must be reflected in the Congress’ Charter – and is therefore subject to approval and adoption by the Committee of Ministers – this change will come into force after said adoption, at some point in 2011.

Committees

Many members felt that our committee structure should be re-examined, especially in the light of the general consensus reached in June at the Standing Committee on prioritising the monitoring of local and regional democracy.

There have been many different viewpoints, but there is a general agreement that the committees need to be refocused and their number reduced. The Congress’ energy needs to be concentrated on its priorities as discussed earlier – its core values, its important role as protector of local and regional democracy and it also needs to be in a position to react in a more timely, targeted fashion to the challenges faced by local and regional authorities whether these range from social problems to environmental crises.

Our proposal is therefore to create three new committees.  These would be:

Firstly, a Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by member states of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (ECLSG) (to be known as the Monitoring Committee). This committee will be responsible, in particular, for monitoring the European Charter of Local Self-Government (ECLSG) as well as institutional developments in Europe’s regions, for preparing reports on the situation of local and regional democracy in Europe and for monitoring specific questions related to local and regional democracy in the member states.

A second, Governance, Committee shall be responsible for affairs falling within the scope of the Congress’ statutory mandate such as governance, public finance, cross-border and interregional co-operation and e-democracy as well as co-operation with intergovernmental bodies.

The third committee will be a Current Affairs Committee and will therefore have responsibility for ensuring a swift response to the major challenges of our society and for preparing work on thematic issues such as social cohesion, education, culture and sustainable development from the point of view of the Council of Europe’s core values.

These committees will be composed of members from both chambers and will deal with issues of interest to them both but will meet in plenary only to ensure the most effective use of their time and collective discussion of important issues.

Just a quick word on the apportioning of seats on committees: as is already the case, each Congress member shall be entitled to one seat on a committee – but not more than one.  However, we are proposing a new rule which will mean that every country will have the right to be represented on each committee.  This, of course, is relevant in particular for the smaller countries who would therefore be entitled, under the new procedure, to send members to every committee according to a banding system we will introduce.  With regard to the Monitoring Committee the rule will be that each country may send 2 members at least (except for those countries without regions) and the rest of their seats shall be allocated according to the banding system.

This proposal, if adopted by the Congress members at their 19th session in October, will come into force immediately and the committees will have their constituting meetings the very next day.

Working methods

I mentioned working methods as one of the essential elements of the reform.  Indeed for most of the reports I have written it has been part of the title.  This is because we have identified a real need for simplification and clarification of our procedures – for the sake of transparency, accountability, effectiveness and impact.  We need to function smoothly and be seen to function smoothly.  This refers, in particular, to such high-profile and essential activities as election observation and country monitoring.

As I will explain in a moment, the Congress has decided to amend its Rules of Procedure now, in October, to enable it to carry out some of the more immediate stages of the reform.  However, it also intends to proceed with a later, general revision of the Rules of Procedure with a view to further simplifying, clarifying and streamlining its procedures and working methods.

Timeline for reform

So, finally, having discussed some of the issues at stake, our objectives and the main recommendations, allow me to say a few words about our timeline.

It has been our desire, as rapporteurs – and this reflects the Congress Bureau’s wishes – to move swiftly through the reform process, identifying areas for change and implementing such changes as quickly as it is feasible to do so.  Clearly, we wish to keep pace with the Organisation’s global reform, but it is also imperative to maintain our momentum and start putting into practice our members’ good ideas. This is why the reform essentially has three stages.

Stage one: part of the reform already accomplished

The reform of the Congress is well underway, and indeed, in the first stage we have already achieved a certain number of the goals we set for ourselves earlier in the year, which go straight to the heart of some of the issues I mentioned before – namely, focusing on our priorities and clarifying our procedures.  These achievements include:

-           - a three-fold increase in the rhythm of monitoring of local and regional democracy and the clarification of the criteria for missions and appointment of rapporteurs by the adoption of new rules during the Standing Committee;

-  the adoption, again during the Standing Committee, of new rules on the observation of elections together with a new global strategy for election observation which ensures a clearer picture on the ground by taking in the entire election campaign from start to finish.

We have devised a further two stages which will enable the Congress to set in motion, in the aftermath of our 19th Session, as many practical improvements as it can in the immediate to short term, while planning for further important and wide-ranging modifications over the next two-year mandate.

The next stage involves certain provisions which may be implemented by the Congress independently and promptly. The Congress hopes to implement these changes directly after adoption of the relevant resolution and Revised Rules of Procedure at the October session.

The following stage involves those changes requiring amendment of the Statutory Resolution and Charter which are subject to approval by the Committee of Ministers.  We hope that this last stage will be accomplished as soon as possible so that by 2012 we will have an entirely reformed Congress, complemented by an entirely revised Rules of Procedure.  Let me assure you though that this doesn’t mean we will rest on our laurels. One of our commitments is to keep up, in the future, a constant review and adaptation of our structures, working methods and activities.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen, before concluding my brief presentation of our reform proposals, I would like to stress once again that all our recommendations are aimed at making the Congress more effective, more visible and its action more targeted. In so doing, we have, naturally, taken into consideration the available budgetary and human resources and our colleague, Mr Jean-Claude Frécon, Congress Rapporteur for the budget, has been invaluable in this regard.

I hope that I have given you a clear picture of what the main recommendations for change are and, above all, what we hope to achieve with this reform.  I look forward to answering any questions you may have – and to a lively debate.  My co-rapporteur and I will take all of your suggestions and comments very carefully into consideration and present them, together with our documents, to the Congress Bureau tomorrow.

Thank you.