UNION INTERPARLEMENTAIRE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION

Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments

MINUTES OF THE AUTUMN SESSION

BERN

17 - 19 OCTOBER 2011

ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES GENERAL OF PARLIAMENTS

Minutes of the Autumn Session 2011

BERN, SWITZERLAND17 – 19 October 2011

LIST OF ATTENDANCE

MEMBERS PRESENT

NAME COUNTRYDr. Hafnaoui AMRANI Alger iaMr. Alex is WINTONIAK Austr iaMr. Hugo HONDEQUIN BelgiumMr. Idès de PELSEMAEKER BelgiumMr. Al i joša ČAMPARA Bosnia and HerzegovinaMr. Rogér io VENTURA TEIXEIRA Brazi lMr. Ivan SLAVCHOV BulgariaMr. Alphonse NOMBRÉ Burkina FasoMr. OUM Sari th CambodiaMr. Victor YÉNÉ OSSOMBA CameroonMr. Marc BOSC CanadaMr. Mar io LABBE ChileMr. Emi l io Otero DAJUD ColombiaMr. David BYAZA-SANDA LUTALA Congo (Dem. Rep.)Mr. Socrates SOCRATOUS CyprusMr. Frant išek JAKUB Czech Republ icMr. Petr KYNŠTETR Czech Republ icMr. Carsten LARSEN DenmarkMr. Heiki SIBUL EstoniaMr. Habtamu NINI ABINO EthiopiaMr. Negus LEMMA GEBRE EthiopiaMr. Alain DELCAMP FranceMs. Cor inne LUQUIENS FranceMs. Danièle RIVAILLE FranceMs. Mar ie-Françoise PUCETTI GabonDr. Ulr ich SCHÖLER GermanyMr. Harro SEMMLER GermanyMr. Emmanuel ANYIMADU GhanaDr Athanassios PAPAIOANNOU GreeceMr. Helg i BERNÓDUSSON IcelandDr. Vivek AGNIHOTRI IndiaMr. T.K. VISWANATHAN IndiaMrs. Nin ing Indra SHALEH IndonesiaMr. Hossein SHEIKHOLISLAM IranMr Salah Al-deen AHMAD ABDUL-AZIZ ZANGANA IraqMrs. Yardena MELLER-HOROWITZ IsraelDr. Hee Kwon KOO Korea (Republic of)Mr. Al lam Al i Jaafer AL-KANDARI KuwaitMs. Lebohang RAMOHLANKA Lesotho

Mr. J. Nanbor lor F. SINGBEH Liber iaMr. Claude FRIESEISEN LuxembourgMr. Tserenkhuu SHARAVDORJ Mongol iaMr. Damir DAVIDOVIC MontenegroMs. Natasa KOMNENIC (non-member) MontenegroMr. Abdelouahed KHOUJA MoroccoMr. Naj ib EL KHADI MoroccoMr. Johannes JACOBS NamibiaMs. Panduleni SHIMUTWIKENI NamibiaMr. Geert HAMILTON Nether landsMr. Issa KANGA NigerMr. Benedict EFETURI Niger iaMr. Mohammed Ataba SANI-OMOLORI Niger iaMr. Karamat Hussain NIAZI Pakis tanMr. Raja Muhammad AMIN Pakis tanMr. Roberto PROLL PanamaMr. Edwin BELLEN Phi l ippinesMs. Mar i lyne BARUA-YAP Phi l ippinesMrs. Ewa POLKOWSKA PolandMrs. Adel ina SÁ CARVALHO PortugalMr. Constant in Dan VASILIU RomaniaMr. Gheorghe BARBU RomaniaMr. Vladimir SVINAREV Russian Federat ionMr. Mohamed Kamal MANSURA South Afr icaMr. Zingi le DINGANI South Afr icaMr. Manuel ALBA NAVARRO SpainMr. Manuel CAVERO GOMEZ SpainMr. Dhammika KITULGODA Sri LankaMr. Ibrahim MOHAMED IBRAHIM SudanMrs. Marcia I . S. BURLESON SurinameMr. Ul f CHRISTOFFERSSON SwedenMr. Chr istoph LANZ SwitzerlandMr. Hans-Peter GERSCHWILER SwitzerlandMr. Phi l ippe SCHWAB SwitzerlandMr. Pierre-Hervé FRELÉCHOZ SwitzerlandMr. James WARBURG TanzaniaMr. Pi toon PUMHIRAN Thai landMr. Sompol VANIGBANDHU Thai landMrs. Norarut PIMSEN Thai landMr. João Rui AMARAL Timor LesteMr. Sadett in KALKAN TurkeyMr. Paul GAMUSI WABWIRE UgandaMr. Valentyn ZAICHUK UkraineMr Abdulrahman AL SHAMSI United Arab EmiratesMr Mohamed Salem AL-MAZROUI United Arab EmiratesMr. Edward OLLARD United KingdomDr. José Pedro MONTERO UruguayMr. Aust in ZVOMA Zimbabwe

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

NAME

Mr. Amine ABBA-SIDICK CEMAC (Inter-Par l iamentary Commission of the Economic and Monetary Community of Centra l Af r ica)

Mr. Alex Lumumba OBATRE East Afr ican Legislat ive Assembly

Mr. Mohamed DIAKITE ECOWAS Par l iament

Mr. Petr ZVEREV IPA EurAsEC ( Inter-Par l iamentary Assembly of the Euras ian Economic Community)

Mr. Said MOKADEM Maghreb Consul tat ive Counci l

Mr. Mar io MARTINS Par l iamentary Assembly, Counci l of Europe

Mr. Wojciech SAWICKI Par l iamentary Assembly, Counci l of Europe

Mr. Rami l HASANOV TURKPA (Par l iamentary Assembly of the Turkic Countr ies)

Mr. Sergey STRELCHENKO Union of Belarus and the Russian Federat ion

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

OBSERVER

NAMEMr Gherardo CASINI United Nat ions

SUBSTITUTES

NAME COUNTRYMs. Nacera BENGUERNA ( for Mr. Abdelhamid Badis Belkas)

Alger ia

Mr. Pedro Ricardo LUVAMBANO (for Mr. Eduardo de Jesus Beny)

Angola

Ms. Claressa SURTEES ( for Mr. Be rnard Wright) Austral iaMs. Sophie LANDERTSHAMMER (for Mr. Alexis Austr ia

Wintoniak) Mr. Amir Abbas GHASSEMPOUR (for Mr. Hossein Sheikhol is lam)

Iran

Mr. Ken SHIMIZU ( for Mr. Masafumi Hashimoto) JapanMs. Agathe KARKOWSKA-SOKOLOWSKA ( for Mrs. Ewa Polkowska)

Poland

Mr. Wojciėch GRUBA ( for Mr. Lech Czapla) PolandMr. L iam LAURENCE-SMYTH ( for Mr. Robert Rogers) United KingdomMs. Car ina GALVALISI ( for Mrs. Virg in ia Ort iz) UruguayMr. Oscar PIQUINELA ( for Mr. Gustavo Sánchez) Uruguay

ALSO PRESENT (non-members)

NAME COUNTRYMs. Anabela do ESPIRITO SANTO AngolaMr. Mohamed Joynal ABEDIN BangladeshMr. Neo THEBE BotswanaMr. Abakar Hamaï MAKORE ChadMr. Germain MBAVUYAV Congo (Dem. Rep.)Mr. Ekva Esono Abe BIENVENIDA Equator ia l GuineaMs. Bi l jana OGNENOVSKA Former Yugoslav

Republ ic of Macedonia

Ms. Barbara GEORGOPOULOU GreeceMr. Jean Arie l JOSEPH Hait iMr. Riche ANDRIS Hait iMr. Simon DESRAS Hait iMs. Luisa ACCARRINO Ita lyMr. Laoual i IBRAHIM NigerMr. Khan Ahmad GORAYA Pakis tanMr. Renato BANTUG Phi l ippinesMr. Fahad bin Mubarak AL-KHAYAREEN QatarMs. Adr iana BADEA RomaniaMr. Jul ius Mor iba SONGA Sierra LeoneMs. Nomunde KESWA South Afr icaMr. John N. JOEL TanzaniaMr. Monton NOPPAWONG Thai landMrs. Samonrutai AKSORNMAT Thai landMs. La-or PUTORNJAI Thai landMs. Natcha NILRAT Thai landMs. Wantanee SAIPIMPIN Thai landMr. Anar RAHIMOV TURKPA (Par l iamentary

Assembly of the Turkic Countr ies)

Mr. Robert REEVES United States of AmericaMr. Tom WICKHAM United States of AmericaMr. Johana GANDIWA ZimbabweMr. Nersbert SAMU Zimbabwe

APOLOGIES

NAME COUNTRYMr. Abdelhamid Badis BELKAS Alger iaMr. Eduardo de Jesus BENY AngolaMs. Emma de PRINS BelgiumMr. Marc RWABAHUNGU BurundiMr. David JANIASHVILI GeorgiaMr. Iakob IOSEBASHVILI GeorgiaDr. Ute RETTLER GermanyMr. Gerd SCHMITT GermanyMr. Makoto ONITSUKA JapanMr. Masafumi HASHIMOTO JapanMr. Takeshi NAKAMURA JapanMr. Henk BAKKER Nether landsMr. Ion MORARU RomaniaMr. Modibedi Eric PHINDELA South Afr icaMr. Robert ROGERS United KingdomMr. Gustavo SÁNCHEZ UruguayMrs. Virgin ia ORTIZ UruguayMr. Fairchi ld CHIBOMBA ZambiaMrs. Dor is Katai Katebe MWINGA Zambia

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No

FIRST SITTING................................................................................................................................................... 10Monday 17 October 2011 (Morning).....................................................................................................................

1. Opening of the Session...............................................................................................................102. Elections to the Executive Committee.........................................................................................103. Orders of the day of the Conference...........................................................................................104. New members............................................................................................................................. 145. Welcome from Mr Christoph LANZ, Secretary General of the Federal Assembly of the Swiss

Confederation..............................................................................................................................156. Communication by Mr Alain DELCAMP, Secretary General of the French Senate: “Relations

between Parliaments and the Constitutional Courts”...................................................................157. Communication by Mr Austin ZVOMA, Clerk of Parliament of Zimbabwe: “The unseating of a

Speaker by the courts and its implications”.................................................................................32

SECOND SITTING.............................................................................................................................................. 40Monday 17 October 2011 (Afternoon)..................................................................................................................

1. General debate: Planning Chamber business – informal channels for decision-making and timetabling................................................................................................................................... 40

2. Communication by Mr OUM Sarith, Secretary General of the Senate of Cambodia: “The rationale and background conducive to the establishment of the Parliamentary Institute of Cambodia and the strategic development of the Parliamentary Institute of Cambodia”..............59

3. Communication by Mr Sadettin KALKAN, Secretary General of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey: “Party Discipline in Political Parties and its effect on the Legislative Process”...............70

4. Nominations for the post of President of the ASGP.....................................................................73

THIRD SITTING.................................................................................................................................................. 74Tuesday 18 October 2011 (Morning)....................................................................................................................

1. Preliminary remarks.................................................................................................................... 742. Orders of the day.........................................................................................................................743. New members............................................................................................................................. 744. Communication by Dr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI, Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha of India:

“Suspension of a Member from attending proceedings of the House”........................................755. Presentation by Mr Anders JOHNSSON, Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union

836. Communication by Mr Kamal MANSURA, Secretary to the National Assembly of South Africa:

“Attendance policy for Members of Parliament: The South African experience”.........................847. Presentations by candidates for the post of President of the ASGP...........................................878. Election to the post of President of the ASGP.............................................................................88

FOURTH SITTING.............................................................................................................................................. 91Wednesday 19 October 2011 (Morning)..............................................................................................................

1. Nominations for the post of Vice-President of the ASGP............................................................912. New member............................................................................................................................... 913. Communication by Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER, Deputy Secretary General of the German Bundestag:

“Rules for the use and misuse of research facilities in Parliament”.............................................914. Communication by Mr T K VISWANATHAN, Secretary General of the House of the People (Lok

Sabha) of India: “Meeting the information needs of Members in Parliament”..............................95

5. Communications by Mr Geert A HAMILTON, Secretary General of the Senate of the States General of the Netherlands: “Exchange of information between government and parliament” and “The Dutch Senate: a paperless parliament”......................................................................102

6. Presentations by candidates for the post of vice-President of the ASGP..................................1157. Election to one post of Vice-President of the ASGP..................................................................115

FIFTH SITTING................................................................................................................................................. 117Wednesday 19 October 2011 (Afternoon)...........................................................................................................

1. Presentation by Mr Martin CHUNGONG and Ms Kareen JABRE on recent developments in the Inter-Parliamentary Union..........................................................................................................117

2. Election of two ordinary members of the Executive Committee................................................1243. General debate: The concept of an activist Parliament.............................................................1244. Administrative and financial questions......................................................................................1325. Presentation by Mr Paul WABWIRE, Deputy Clerk of the Parliament of the Republic of Uganda,

on the organisation of the next session (Kampala, April 2012).................................................1326. Examination of the draft agenda for the next meeting (Kampala, April 2012)...........................1337. Closure...................................................................................................................................... 134

FIRST SITTINGMonday 17 October 2011 (Morning)

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, in the ChairThe sitting was opened at 11.00 am

1. Opening of the Session Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , welcomed al l those present, part icular ly new members. He said how honoured he was to chair the sessions of the ASGP, and that he hoped, thanks to mutual co-operat ion, that the Associat ion would remain a l ive ly forum for enr iching dia logue. He encouraged part ic ipat ion in the conference that would take place on Thursday 20 October on effect ive capacity-bui ld ing programmes for par l iamentar ians.

2. Elections to the Executive Committee Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , noted that dur ing the meet ing, there would be elect ions for a var iety of posts on the Execut ive Committee. The Commit tee had agreed to a schedule for these elect ions, which was inc luded in the draft orders of the day which would be submit ted to the Associat ion for i ts approval as the next i tem of business. He reminded members that i t was customary for exper ienced and act ive members of the Associat ion to stand as candidates rather than new members. He drew at tent ion to the note on the organisat ion of the elect ions which had been prepared by the Joint Secretar ies and dist r ibuted before the meeting.

3. Orders of the day of the Conference Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , read the proposed Orders of the Day as fol lows:

Monday 17 October

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 f rom Mr Chr istoph LANZ, Secretary General of the Federal Assembly of the Swiss Confederat ion

Communicat ion by Mr Ala in DELCAMP, Secretary General of the French Senate: “Relat ions between Par l iaments and the Const i tut ional Courts”

Communicat ion by Mr Aust in ZVOMA, Clerk of Par l iament of Zimbabwe: “The unseat ing of a Speaker by the courts and i ts impl icat ions”

Afternoon

2.30 pm General debate: Planning Chamber business – informal channels for dec is ion-making and t imetabl ingModerator: Mr Marc BOSC, Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons of Canada

Communicat ion by Mr OUM Sari th, Secretary General of the Senate of Cambodia: “The rat ionale and background conducive to the establ ishment of the Par l iamentary Inst i tute of Cambodia and the strategic development of the Par l iamentary Inst i tute of Cambodia”

Communicat ion by Mr Sadett in KALKAN, Secretary General of the Grand Nat ional Assembly of Turkey: “Party Discip l ine in Pol i t ical Part ies and i ts ef fect on the Legislat ive Process”

4.30 pm Deadline for nominations for the post of President of the ASGP

Tuesday 18 October

Morning

8.30 am Meet ing of the Execut ive Commit tee

9.00 am Communicat ion by Mr Kamal MANSURA, Secretary to the Nat ional Assembly of South Afr ica: “Attendance pol icy for Members of Par l iament: The South Afr ican experience”

Communicat ion by Dr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI, Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha of India: “Suspension of a Member from attending proceedings of the House”

10.45 am Presentations by candidates for the post of President of the ASGP

11.00 am Election to the post of President of the ASGP

11.30 am Deadline for nominations for one post of Vice-President of the ASGP

Afternoon

11.45 am Vis it to Par l iament and excursion

6.30 pm Return to Bern

The vis i t wi l l include a presentat ion on the par l iamentary system of the Swiss Confederat ion by Mr Chr is toph LANZ, Secretary General of the Federal Assembly of the Swiss Confederat ion.

Wednesday 19 October Morning

9.30 am Meet ing of the Execut ive Commit tee

10.00 am Communicat ion by Mr Ulr ich SCHÖLER, Deputy Secretary General of the German Bundestag: “Rules for the use and misuse of research faci l i t ies in Par l iament”

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 n at ional and regional par l iaments”

Communicat ion by Mr T K VISWANATHAN, Secretary General of the House of the People (Lok Sabha) of India: “Meeting the informat ion needs of Members in Parl iament”

12.00 pm Election to one post of Vice-President of the ASGP12.30 pm Deadline for nominations for two vacant posts on the Executive

Committee (ordinary members)Afternoon

2.30 pm Presentat ion by Mr Mart in CHUNGONG and Ms Kareen JABRE on recent developments in the Inter-Par l iamentary Union

General debate: The concept of an act iv ist Par l iamentModerator: Mr Zingi le DINGANI, Secretary to the South Afr ican Par l iament

Communicat ion by Mr Geert A HAMILTON, Secretary General of the Senate of the States General of the Nether lands: “The Dutch Senate: a paper less par l iament”

Administrat ive and f inancia l quest ions

Presentat ion by Mr Paul WABWIRE, Deputy Clerk of the Par l iament of the Republ ic of Uganda, on the organisat ion of the next meeting (Kampala, Apr i l 2012)

Examinat ion of the draft agenda for the next meeting (Kampala, Apr i l 2012)

4.00 pm Election of two ordinary members of the Executive Committee

Closure

The Orders of the Day were agreed to.

4. New members Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , said that the Secretar iat had received several requests for membership which had been put before the Execut ive Committee and agreed to. These were:

Mr Mario Labbe Secretary General of the Senate of Chi le(replac ing Mr Car los Hoffmann Contreras)

Mr. Koo Hee Kwon Deputy Secretary General of the Nat ional Assembly of the Republ ic of Korea(replac ing Mr Ha Sung Jun)

Mr. Negus Lemma Gebre Secretary General of the House of People’s Representat ives of Ethiopia(replac ing Mr Dagnachew Befekadu)

Mr. Munehiro Seino Deputy Secretary General of the House of Representat ives of Japan(replac ing Mr. Shigeo Inoue)

Mr. David Natzler Clerk Assistant of the House of Commons of the Uni ted Kingdom (replac ing Mr Robert Rogers who has become Clerk)

Mr. Hassan Musa Shaikh El Safi Secretary General of the Counci l of States of Sudan

Mr. Pierre-Hervé Freléchoz Secretary of the Nat ional Counci l of Switzerland

Mr. Gustavo Sánchez Second Secretary of the Senate of Uruguay(replac ing Mr Sant iago González Barboni)

Mrs Virginia Ort iz Second Secretary of the House of Representat ives of Uruguay(replac ing Dr José Pedro Montero who has become Secretary General)

For associate membership:

Mr. Mario Mart ins Second Secretary of the Parl iamentary Assembly of the Counci l of Europe(replac ing Mr. Wojciech Sawicki who has become Secretary General)

The new members were agreed to.

5. Welcome from Mr Christoph LANZ, Secretary General of the Federal Assembly of the Swiss Confederation

Mr LANZ (Switzer land) welcomed part ic ipants to Bern and said that he looked forward to a successful and interest ing session.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr Lanz for host ing what promised to be an excel lent session.

6. Communication by Mr Alain DELCAMP, Secretary General of the French Senate: “Relations between Parliaments and the Constitutional Courts”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invi ted Mr Ala in DELCAMP, Secretary General of the French Senate, to present h is communicat ion, as fo l lows:

“The idea of this report came to me through an observat ion that, I th ink, can apply to many countr ies – that of the development of judic ia l control of the const i tut ional val id i ty of laws. I t can be dif fuse, v ia the Judic iary, or concentrated, v ia special ised jur isdict ions, or mixed, where Courts step in a prior i (before the laws are effect ive) or a poster ior i (af ter their passage and dur ing a proceeding) or both a pr ior i and a poster ior i .

One of the aims of th is report wi l l actual ly be to describe the different types of consti tut ional control systems and to categor ise them according to var ious legal t radi t ions.

This development of const i tut ional just ice has been hai led by academics and special ist reviewers as one of the major phenomena of the assert ion of const i tut ional ism, to the point of sometimes shadowing a more tradi t ional v iew of the inst i tut ions, which we are natural ly at tached to as Secretar ies General of Par l iaments.

Whatever the nuances, the ex is tence and autonomy of Par l iaments l ie indeed at the very heart of today's democrac ies – and of tent imes symbol ise them – even though one has always been and is st i l l able to chal lenge the merging between the idea of democracy and that of representat ive democracy, where the People act v ia elected representat ives, be they gathered in one or two-chamber Parl iaments.

To us, the law is the expression of sovereignty: i t is only tru ly meaningful when i t ar ises from as f ree del iberat ions as possible between elected representat ives.The development of const i tut ional just ice in i tsel f quest ions the concept of democracy based on elect ion. Indeed, these Courts are not d i rect ly issued f rom vote and are by def in i t ion able to go against the People 's wi l l as expressed by i ts representat ives. Famous const i tut ional ist Hans Kelsen had actual ly named them "negat ive legis lators " .

Due to the development of const i tut ional ism in most countr ies – the adopt ion of fundamental laws def ining both the ru les of the organisat ion of powers and what is commonly cal led the c it izens ' fundamental r ights – one could of course easi ly reply that Parl iaments express the People 's sovereignty " with in the frame of the Const i tut ion".

One should then separate the " const i tuent power " – the People's d i rect expression when the Const i tut ion is adopted – and the " const i tuted powers " – those that precisely der ive their author i ty f rom the Const i tut ion.

From now on, Parl iaments in most countr ies should therefore be considered as const i tuted powers as wel l and, as such, subject to compl iance wi th the Const i tut ion. This should not in any case be seen as a vio lat ion of the pr inc iple of the People's sovereignty. However i t cal ls for a broadening of the very not ion of democracy; one should a lso be speci f ical ly concerned with how the Parl iaments ' and "const i tut ional just ices " ' respect ive ski l ls and ro les can be organised.Courts are const i tuted powers too, s ince they derive their power from the same source as Par l iaments, but they cannot c la im the same legi t imacy.

I t is now even more necessary to c lar i fy the re lat ionship between Courts and Par l iaments. Indeed, changing minds and above al l , mediat isat ion, our societ ies ' growing need for t ransparency and the very evolut ion of inst i tut ions lead to a chal lenging of the representat iveness, i f not the usefulness, of the Par l iaments ' operat ing mode: cr i t ic ism may ar ise here and there – of how the law is developed, of the very legit imacy of Par l iaments to monopol ise, or near ly so, the development of laws in v iew of their representat iveness.

The movement of const i tut ional just ice – too hast i ly l ikened to the development of the " rule of law " – is also part of the idea that there should be a balance of powers, and that wi th in inst i tut ions (besides Par l iaments, which express changing major i t ies) , there should be elements of cont inui ty and balance, which const i tut ional Courts would be a part of .

Through the notion of the rule of law , the very notion of sovereignty is now being chal lenged or even modif ied, s ince Par l iaments are admit tedly held pr imar i ly responsib le for the establ ishments of norms, but they may also be judged, or even corrected in their act ions by bodies checking that such norms are consistent wi th a l l supra- legis lat ive rules. The rule of law is sometimes reduced to those supra-legislat ive rules, while it refers to a much broader real ity: that of the whole of legal standards – primarily the laws – developed within democratical ly organised societ ies.

To me, i t was not as much about restor ing the concept of sovereignty, but about determining to what extent consti tutional control could be reconci led with the primary source of sovereignty, i .e. popular expression.

Rather than opposing const i tut ional Courts and Par l iaments, i t might be useful i f we al l t r ied to ref ine our concept ion of democracy. We could then show that the development of constitut ional case-law is not just a movement competing with Parl iaments development of norms. Indeed, it necessarily completes it and is accepted as such by Parl iaments, i f i t remains within the functional needs i t emerged from.

For th is work, I used two di f ferent sources: f i rst your repl ies as Secretar ies General . As of the 7 t h of October, when th is

report was wri t ten, I had gathered repl ies from 28 Secretar ies General f rom 26 countr ies;

I a lso benef i ted f rom fourteen reports submit ted by academics or members of const i tut ional Courts dur ing the 27 t h Internat ional Roundtable of Const i tut ional Just ice on the 9 t h and 10 t h of September 2011 at the Universi té

Paul Cézanne in Aix-en-Provence (France), and for which I was General Rapporteur.

41 reports for 38 countr ies have therefore been gathered: 24 European countr ies inc luding 18 members of the European Union, 2 from the Middle-East , 3 of Sub-Saharan Afr ica, 5 of America, 3 of As ia: Austr ia, Bahrain, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazi l , Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Czech Republ ic, Denmark, Egypt , Estonia, Fin land, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, I ta ly, Japan, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mexico, Monaco, Norway, Poland, Portugal , Romania, Senegal , Slovenia, South Afr ica, Spain, Switzerland, Thai land, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uni ted States of America.

I . – THE VARIOUS SYSTEMS OF CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE

Const i tut ional just ice ex isted before Hans Kelsen, the Universi ty of Vienna professor who inspired the 1920 Austr ian Const i tut ion. But wi th h im, i t became al l important , and as such a subject for al l const i tut ional ref lect ions. I t was theor ised in h is book "Pure Theory of Law " , but also in an ar t ic le ent i t led " The Judic ia l Guarantee of Const i tut ion " , publ ished 1928 in Par is in a journal of publ ic law.

The events that tore Europe apart and lead to quest ion the very not ion of democracy showed the importance of set t ing up systems of const i tut ional contro l cer ta in ly based on the separat ion of powers, but they also ra ised the concern of protect ing the ci t izens' f reedom against various abuses from those supposed to stand for democracy – elected representat ives, a lways l ikely to "use their major i ty unduly". From then on there was a growing tendency 1 to include a number of so-cal led " fundamental " r ights in const i tut ional texts , an expression borrowed to German Law. Their control was assigned to a specia l ist body – the const i tut ional judge. This const i tut ional judge had to rev iew rules produced by Parl iaments wi th the regard to the fundamental r ights developed in the Const i tut ion, or included in the internat ional Convent ions which the relevant States adhered to, or even to principles "discovered" by the constitut ional judges themselves. The movement widely spread to post-war Const i tut ions, as in Germany and I ta ly pr imar i ly, and later on in Spain and Portugal . After the fa l l of the Ber l in Wal l , the concept of const i tut ional control immediate ly appeared to be a substant ial par t of the balance of new Const i tut ions and accepted as such by most Const i tut ions emerging from the per iod's popular movements.

However, this development has not been entirely identical and constant in all the countr ies , for at least three reasons:

I t f i rst ran counter to some legal t radi t ions, which made the law voted by representat ives the very centre of the normative st ructure (" law-centeredness") . The not ion of const i tut ional just ice was therefore reluctant ly int roduced in 1958 in France, for instance. Not unt i l 1971 or 1974, and very

1 However, that tendency was there from the start, especially in the United Kingdom ("bill of rights", 1689), in the United States (Declaration of Independence in 1787) and in France (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789).

recent ly in the 2008 const i tut ional review, has i t f inal ly sett led wi th in the inst i tut ions.

Some other countr ies general ly based on the so-cal led Westminster model and on the not ion of the Par l iament 's sovereignty st i l l largely lack a t rue const i tut ional just ice system, even today. They consider especia l ly that the Par l iament 's acts cannot general ly be contro l led by the judic iary ( those are "Par l iamentary Pr iv i leges") . This att i tude is found not only in the United Kingdom, but a lso in most former dominions, including those with a federal structure, be i t Canada or the Indian Union. Even though they are not, str ict ly speaking, the heirs of the Br i t ish system, some of these const i tut ional systems st i l l favour a so-cal led "by-way-of-plea" contro l , when there are court cases quest ioning the const i tut ional val id i ty of laws. Such is the current system in, say, Northern European countr ies that have not exper ienced the same pol i t ica l upheavals as the rest of the cont inent . Thus Norway has had so-cal led "d i f fuse" const i tut ional contro l exerc ised by "ordinary" Courts s ince 1843.

Third-case scenar io is in countr ies where const i tut ional contro l f i rs t ar ises from the necessi ty to contro l the implementing of power d istr ibut ion between central and decentra l ised or federate powers, whatever the extent of decentra l isat ion. The most topical example is obviously the Uni ted States of America. The Supreme Court decided (1802, Marbury vs. Madison) that i t should contro l not only the distr ibut ion of powers, but a lso the const i tut ional val id i ty of laws. The same goes for the whole legal system, at the top of which i t stands. This model has natural ly spread to the American cont inent (Centre and South) , however Canada, though a federal country, has kept the Westminster model . The change from dist r ibut ion of powers to const i tut ional control of the law, an American feature, has not been emulated by al l federal states. In Switzer land, the const i tut ional Court cannot const i tut ional ly judge whether federal laws are const i tut ional ly val id.

L ikewise, the organisat ion of const i tut ional Courts in federal , regional or "composite " countr ies does not fo l low uni form regulat ion. The organisat ion system of const i tut ional just ice does not necessari ly match the form of the State: some federal states have federal Courts and State Courts . Some others have only one federal Court . And in some composi te states, especia l ly in Europe, Courts somet imes wish to avoid const i tut ional Courts being establ ished at the level of ent i t ies. On the other hand, the fact that a State is uni tary does not prevent decentra l ised communit ies from being able to uphold the vert ical d istr ibut ion of powers when addressing the const i tut ional Court (Bulgar ia, Czech Republ ic, Japan, Madagascar, Slovenia) .

A pr ior i control is most ly found in countr ies wi th a specia l ist const i tut ional Court separate f rom the judic ia l system ( for instance Austr ia, Belg ium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgar ia, France, Germany, I ta ly, South Afr ica, Spain, Ukraine). The Court may be referred to immediately after the passage of the law and before its promulgation , general ly by the Execut ive but a lso by a g iven number of Par l iamentar ians, as we wi l l see later . Unt i l 2008, th is was the only system in France. However, th is system was abol ished in Spain in 1985. Except ional ly, i t has sometimes been introduced to complete a poster ior i a system already in p lace (Brazi l s ince 1946, Egypt 1979).This a priori control by a special ist consti tutional Court is st i l l cal led "concentrated" or "abstract".

The panel shows however that a poster iori control is the most widespread, since it can be common to all systems. In th is case, in various ways, i t can be brought to any ordinary Court in the event of l i t igat ions. Contro l is " dif fuse " when i t is l ike ly to be used in a l l par ts of the terr i tory, or even al l levels of the Judiciary. I t is "speci f ic " when i t regards the text re levant to the current l i t igat ion. I t does not general ly lead to the law being repealed, in which i t di f fers from a prior i contro l . I t simply puts aside i ts implementing for the l i t igat ion to be resolved. Sometimes the judge may also, upon referra l of the part ies or – rarely – on their own mot ion, br ing a prel iminary ru l ing to the const i tut ional Court or the body serv ing as such. The decision may then be that of repeal . Note that Supreme Courts may sometimes have a gatekeeper funct ion before decid ing to transfer the request themselves to the const i tut ional Court (France 2008). In th is case, they act as " f i l ters" .

Signi f icant ly, a priori control has developed after a posterior i control , especial ly in those countr ies with dual jur isdic t ion inspired by the Napoleonic model . Indeed, in th is system, the establ ishment of adminis trat ive jur isdict ion – the adminis trat ive judge – counterbalanced the judic ial court being banned from contro l l ing government act ions, general ly on the administ rat ive level .

Despite a general t rend towards developing const i tut ional contro l of the laws, some countries sti l l expl icit ly ban the Judiciary from having such control (The Nether lands). For others, the ban might be more subt le (Fin land has a prior i par l iamentary contro l , the Uni ted Kingdom does not a l low amendments " of const i tut ional s igni f icance " to be submitted to the Par l iament 2 , Luxembourg does not have "erga omnes " cancel lat ions).

Final ly, note that especia l ly in countr ies wi th more recent Const i tut ions, i f const i tut ional contro l is expl ic i t ly ment ioned in the Const i tut ion, i t belongs to the Supreme Court – the top of the Judic iary. This can imply that const i tut ional contro l might be carr ied out by a specia l ist chamber of this Court (Austr ia, Estonia) .

Specia l is t const i tut ional Courts might wel l have the main role of contro l l ing the const i tut ional val id i ty of laws. However, a progressive diversification of their competences can be noted. They can act as a d i rect or appeal judge of mat ters related to the status of Parliamentarians , such as immunity (Czech Republ ic , Estonia, France, Germany, Slovenia, Thai land, the United States) . They might a lso act as High Court of Justice to judge the Head of State and minist r ies (Bulgaria, Czech Republic , Germany, I ta ly (s ince 1989)) , as an election Court 3 (Austr ia, Bulgaria, Costa Rica (on Supreme elect ion Court appeal), Estonia, France, I taly, Portugal, Senegal (president ia l e lect ion) , Slovenia) , as an administrat ive authori ty – contro l of the organisat ion of e lect ions (Egypt, India) –, or of course, as Supreme Court .

The Parl iament can therefore be faced wi th const i tut ional just ice in contexts not necessari ly l imi ted to const i tut ional contro l a lone.

I I . ROLE OF PARLIAMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND DEFINITION OF THE OPERATING RULES OF COURTS

2 Human rights and powers delegated to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 3 Competence extended to political parties (status and control) and to corruption matters (Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Thailand).

Various reports show the importance of institut ional l inks between Parliaments and consti tutional Courts , as i f i t was necessary, to assert the legi t imacy of the lat ter – especial ly i f they were created after the Par l iaments, as is of ten the case –, to re ly on the obvious assert ion of their relat ionship with the natural – or pr imary –representative of the sovereign outside elect ion t ime.This l ink is especial ly obvious in the insti tutional and constitut ive regulations of the Courts.

I I .1. Inst i tut ional and const i tut ive regulat ions of Courts:The decision of establ ishing a const i tut ional Court comes from the or iginal const i tuent power. Sometimes, however, th is creat ion or change may prov is ional ly or permanent ly ar ise f rom the inst i tut ional , special or even ordinary legis lator according to legal t radi t ions and his tor ical events ( re instatement of the Austr ian const i tut ional Court in 1945, creat ion of the const i tut ional Court in Poland in 1985, creat ion of the const i tut ional Court in Belg ium in 2007, 1982 const i tut ional law in Portugal) .

However, though not a lways – th is depends on the legal system –, the operating modal it ies of Courts fal l within the so-cal led " institut ional or special" laws , which means, wi th except ions, that they require speci f ic major i t ies to be adopted (Brazi l , France, I ta ly, Madagascar, Romania, Senegal , Slovenia, Spain, Thai land, Ukraine).

Whatever those major i t ies, these ru les almost exc lusively fa l l wi th in the Par l iament, which therefore receives ful l delegation of the consti tuent to organise consti tut ional justice , subject to specif ic del iberat ion condi t ions and, i ronical ly , margin checks by the const i tut ional Courts themselves when procedures are appropr iate. Sometimes the legis lator acts upon a Court proposit ion, wi th c i rcumscr ibed powers (Brazi l and Costa Rica).

This regards: the modalit ies for the implementation of rules for the appointment of judges (somet imes the very pr inc ip les) , referral modalit ies (author i t ies, procedures), possible impact of decisions , sometimes, and proceedings before the Court (France, Germany, I taly, Thai land) 4 . The re lat ive importance of the regulatory framework and internal ru les var ies from country to country. The Rules of Court are considered important in South Afr ica. The Supreme Court regulat ions in the Uni ted Kingdom are establ ished by i ts President (but can be annul led by the Chambers).

The Par l iament thus plays a major role in defining the constitut ive and functional rules of the Court . Throughout the per iod, these rules have often been amended , commonly leading to power extensions (appeal via e lect ion establ ished in I taly in 1948, a pr ior i contro l suppressed in Spain in 1985, progressive reinforcement in Belg ium (1969, 2003, 2007) and even more often in several " new " democracies 5) . In other c i rcumstances, some legis latures have not resisted l imi t ing the ro le of the Court or amending the system in a more restr ict ive way (Mexico, Uni ted States) , but a lso for object ive reasons (congest ion in Spain) .

I I .2. – Regulat ions for the appointment of judges:

4 Contrary to popular belief, the American Congress has significant authority to define the Supreme Court's intervention conditions (i.e. authority of appeal).5 Especially in Romania, where the Judiciary has consistently reinforced and diversified the Court's competences, therefore also weakening it.

These regulat ions actual ly give an important role to the Parliament, although within proportions and according to varying modali t ies. In very few countr ies do Par l iaments p lay no ro le whatsoever (Bahrain, Senegal). I t is due to the nature of the Court , pr imar i ly a Supreme Court (Canada, Indian Union, Japan 6) and therefore wi th appointed judges. The intervent ion of the Parl iament can be replaced by consultat ion of a body represent ing the Judiciary (Egypt). The mixed nature of funct ions (a const i tut ional Court act ing as a Supreme Court or v ice-versa) cal ls for mixed procedures. Some appointments, even though approved by the Parl iament , involve the judic iary 's representat ive bodies (or have to be selected amongst judges or former judges (Belg ium s ince 2007 to one hal f , Germany, I ta ly) or var ious high jur isdict ions (3 of the 8 members of each "Senate" (Chamber) of the German Supreme Court have to be elected amongst the members of the Federat ion 's Supreme Courts) . In Thai land, pr imary e lect ion through General Assembly of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Adminis trat ive Court . Out of the Court 's 8 posit ions, a few may be expl ic i t ly restr icted to "ordinary and administrat ive Supreme Judic iar ies": 33 % in I taly 7 , 2/3 in Bulgar ia (elected by General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Cassat ion (1/3) and by the administrat ive Supreme Court (1/3)), 2 out of 12 in Spain by the High Counci l of Judic iary .

Overal l , the consensus of approval by the Par l iament seems l ike a substant ia l formal i ty that may concern a var iable proport ion of members, a l though on average between 1/3 and 2/3: 33 % in Bulgar ia, I ta ly or Ukraine; around 40 % in Austr ia, Bosnia Herzegovina; 2/3 in France, Romania, Spain; 77 % in Portugal ; al l of them in Belg ium, Brazi l , Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Madagascar, Mexico, Poland (e lect ion by the Sejm alone), Slovenia, Switzer land (e lect ion by the assembled Chambers, as in I ta ly), Thai land (by the King upon a proposal f rom the Senate) , Uni ted States (a l though i t is pr imar i ly a Supreme Court ) .

Par l iaments general ly also share th is author i ty wi th the Head of State or the Government.

Appointment modali t ies, however, are usually highly supervised: presentat ion procedure (Austr ia, Belg ium, Brazi l (by the President, as in Mexico), Estonia (proposit ion by the President of the Supreme Court) , Germany, Portugal in part , Spain and the Uni ted States) . Assembly of qual i f ied majori t ies (Austr ia, Belgium, Brazi l , Germany, I taly (assembled Chambers) , Portugal , Slovenia, Spain) . France's part ia l appointments by Assembly Presidents seem a relat ive oddi ty in th is respect . In Switzer land, the system is especia l ly open, s ince any ci t izen can be a candidate according to the Const i tut ion.

Most commonly as wel l , Par l iamentar ians face qualif ication condit ions in choosing proposed or selected people. These may be const i tut ional (Bulgar ia, Germany, Poland, Thai land), or s imply legal (Belg ium 8 , Bosnia Herzegovina, I taly , Spain) .Final ly, should appointments not be carr ied out by the Par l iament i tsel f , the re levant author i ty has to consul t at least one of i ts internal bodies (standing commit tees in France). A hear ing is also expl ic i t ly expected in Spain or Belg ium (as wel l as in the United States, obviously), in Mexico and in Romania. This trend is being pragmatical ly developed ( i t has been emerging in Canada since the 2000’s) .

6 Note the specific case of South Africa, where the President appoints on presentation or after consulting with the Judicial Service Commission and the political parties.7 Note the specificity of the constitutional Court of Bosnia Herzegovina (which has two other Courts for the two entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Serb Republic): 3 out of 7 are appointed by the President of the European Court of Human Rights, following consultation with the head of state.8 As of the 2007 Act, Parliamentarians should be elected alongside judges.

This parl iamentary ro le has var iously appreciated ef fects , such as the pol i t ic isat ion and the important involvement of main part ies in appointments, or delays wi thin the system ( I ta ly, Mexico, Spain, the Uni ted States) .

I I I . PARLIAMENTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL PROCESSES

III .1. – Referra l procedures

Defining referral procedures also largely involves the Parl iament or Par l iamentar ians.

Indeed, the Court may rarely take up a case on i ts own mot ion (even though i t has been so in Austr ia s ince 1920), at least a pr ior i . I t is more common a poster ior i (Egypt 1979; Estonia, upon request by the other Chambers of the Supreme Court , Bulgaria and Romania ( inc luding upon const i tut ional review), Poland – so-cal led "s ignal" decis ions). The judge may br ing up a const i tut ional inval idi ty on their own motion in the event of l i t igat ion in Belgium, Iceland, Slovenia and Spain.Referra l may be compulsory for speci f ic laws (" inst i tut ional" in France and Thai land, Court laws, reviews – Costa Rica). I t may also be the case for Treat ies (Costa Rica).

Referra l by an external author i ty is the norm. However, the Parl iament mostly intervenes in countries where there is a priori control , a l though not exclus ively .Par l iamentar ians get involved concurrent ly wi th the Government, sometimes even wi th Governments or Assembl ies in federal , " regional " or composite States (Austr ia, Belg ium, Brazi l , Germany, South Afr ica) .

Final ly, even when the Par l iament does not appoint (Japan), there are impeachment procedures against judges in which Parl iamentar ians play an important ro le (Costa Rica, Japan – but a lso conf i rmat ion and recal l – Thai land, the Uni ted States) .Referra l can be rest r icted to an Assembly in a b icameral system (Spain and South Afr ica) ; to Assembly Presidents (Bahrain, Bosnia Herzegovina, Brazi l , Czech Republ ic , France, Romania) ; or to part of an Assembly (a th i rd of the Bundestag in Germany and of the Parl iament in South Afr ica) :

1/4 of each Assembly in Bosnia Herzegovina, 1/5 of Bulgar ian MPs, 10 MPs in Costa Rica, 60 députés or 60 sénateurs in France, 50 in Spain before the suppression, 41 deput ies or 17 Senators in the Czech Republ ic, 25 Senators or deput ies in Romania, 10% of deput ies or senators in Senegal (deput ies or senators in both when they represent 10% of the Par l iament) .

Amongst other condi t ions, one can note: The Bureau of Chambers in Brazi l , Par l iamentary group Presidents in Romania, one party represented in the Brazi l ian Par l iament, each Par l iamentar ian in Austr ia (1975) and in Braz i l upon const i tut ional amendment infr inging a fundamental feature of the form of the State.

Few countr ies al low Court consul tat ion for interpretat ion: sect ion 83 of the Norwegian Const i tut ion (never appl ied), Madagascar and the Uni ted Kingdom. As in Finland, there remains an internal procedure of const i tut ional contro l in Poland (3/5 of the Law Commission have to advise and check (as ru led by the const i tut ional Court in 2007) that impact research has been carr ied out) .

Rules subject to chal lenge are obviously laws in between adopt ion and rat i f icat ion, and emergency decree-laws.

A pr ior i contro l most commonly regards Treat ies pr ior to rat i f icat ion, ei ther de jure (Bulgar ia, Estonia, Germany), or upon referra l to various, most ly decentral ised, author i t ies (Czech Republ ic, France, Mexico, Spain, Thai land).

Even for a poster ior i contro l , the Par l iament has some role in the referra l. However, th is seems more l inked to the s tructure of the State than to the wi l l to involve the Par l iament in i ts own contro l (Belg ium: general Assembl ies + Community and Regional Par l iaments; Germany: Government of Länder, 1/3 of the Members of Bundestag; Mexico; South Afr ica: members of the Nat ional Assembly but a lso of the Nat ional Counci l of Provinces, Spain (Assembl ies of the autonomous Communit ies) , same in I ta ly: Counci l President vs. regional laws, or regions vs. State Law).

I I I .2. – Court proceedings

One essent ia l matter is not d irect ly apparent f rom the quest ionnaires, or relevant works and ar t ic les, is that of the Parl iament 's involvement in the const i tut ional Court proceedings. Do Assemblies act as part ies? Are they represented? Do they (of f ic ia l ly or not) f i le br iefs? Are the proceedings contradictory? I f so, who acts as defender of the law? There are clear textual answers to this. However in most cases, pract ice and i ts evolut ion should be examined.

Logical ly, a prior i or abstract contro l is an "object ive" one, where there are not actual ly any part ies to the const i tut ional t r ia l . This is the general interpretat ion, but there may be except ions due to specif ic organisat ion rules: publ ic hearings (Brazi l and Mexico). The Par l iament is then represented by the Pres ident of the Senate (Brazi l ) – rules of ordinary c iv i l proceedings. Chambers may be part ies and represented by their President (Belgium, Czech Republ ic) . In the Uni ted States they can act under the amicus cur iae or in case of l i t igat ion wi th the Execut ive. However, the law is defended in pr incip le by the General Department of Just ice. The Par l iament 's competent Commit tees may be addressed (Bosnia Herzegovina). The Chambers may produce br iefs, of f ic ia l ly or not (secret procedure in Romania).

Elsewhere, there is a true inst i tut ional dia logue between Par l iaments and Courts (Poland, Slovenia) . In Poland, the President of the const i tut ional Court submits an annual report to both Chambers.

I I I .3. – Impact of Par l iament structure

Bicameral or monocameral st ructure does not seem to great ly impact the st ructure of relat ionships between Courts and Par l iaments. There are however some notable except ions – the Uni ted States and the Czech Republ ic – where the Senate has a speci f ic role in contro l l ing appointments, or even ensur ing the appointed judges' autonomy.

The second Chamber often intervenes in federal or composi te structures as a vehic le for ent i t ies to take part in presentat ion procedures (Spain, Belg ium). Such procedures, however, seem insuf f ic ient to counterbalance the inf luence of pol i t ica l part ies. The Bundesrat is not d i rect ly involved in the referral . One reason is that intervent ion is up to the Governments of the Länder, who make up the Bundesrat.

Regarding the second Chamber's equal or d i f ferent iated part ic ipat ion, Poland seems to be an except ion. There, the Sejm (Assembly) a lone is cal led to vote for an

appointment . This is balanced by the Senate superv is ing the appl icat ion of Court rul ings. In Brazi l , the second Chamber plays an even greater ro le, s ince i t ensures the appl icat ion of the Courts ' dec is ions ( i t may suspend the appl icat ion of a law declared unconst i tut ional).

On the other hand, i t is l ike ly that the absence of a second Chamber s igni f icant ly a lters the relat ionship between Courts and legis lators as to the concrete operat ing of the inst i tut ional system and especia l ly the possible appreciat ion of the Courts' role on the polit ical scene. In a monocameral system, the Court might eas i ly appear as the only countervai l ing power, or even an " object ive" al ly of the pol i t ica l minor i ty. In the end, th is would be going back to one of the main reasons for the movement that cal led for the creat ion of const i tut ional Courts , even for Kelsen. The idea was to counterbalance possib le undue uses of major i ty powers via an appreciat ion based more on laws, col lect ive " values " or long-term interests of the State rather than according to current major i ty powers.

IV. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN COURTS AND PARLIAMENTS

Data referr ing to inst i tut ional relat ionships between const i tut ional Courts and Par l iaments seem much fuzz ier . Indeed, they depend very much on the pol i t ical systems and tradi t ions of the var ious re lated countr ies. This is even more so s ince they are seldom formal ised – wi th a few except ions al ready ment ioned.Therefore, these re lat ionships need to be grasped v ia the role of constitutional Courts within the whole polit ical system and the various practices .

IV.1. – Impact of the role of Courts in the inst i tut ional system

The Courts ' ro le depends on when and mostly why they were establ ished. The most s igni f icant cases are countr ies wi th federal structures, where the establ ishment of the Court answered the need to set up an adjudicat ive structure between the var ious powers and chief ly for the v indicat ion of the interests of the federal competences. This obviously happened in the Uni ted States, but a lso in Switzer land, or even in a country turned federal through dissociat ion, l ike Belgium.

Only afterwards were those Courts cal led to check the const i tut ional val id i ty of laws, especia l ly in regard to the fundamental pr inc ip les recognised in the Const i tut ions. This power was extended at var ious paces, but seems l ike a natural evolutionary rule. The evolut ion may have been due to the Court i tsel f ( the Uni ted States) or the const i tuent (Belg ium). But in some other federal countr ies, i t is not yet complete (Switzer land). Somet imes, federate powers may have benef i ted from i t , despi te an obvious re luctance from special ist Courts at the centra l level ( I taly, Mexico, Spain) .

In countr ies where c iv i l and administ rat ive jur isdict ions were dual , const i tut ional Courts were of ten created sui gener is (France, Austr ia, Federal Republ ic of Germany).

Only in countr ies wi th more recent Const i tut ions, at least post-Wor ld War I I and post-1989 in Europe, do we see Courts that might be descr ibed as “mult ipurpose” . Indeed, they have author i ty to consul t for the Execut ive and incidental ly for the Par l iament (assessing const i tut ional inval id i ty of t reat ies, act ing as const i tut ional Court , Supreme Court , e lect ion judge, administ rat ive author i ty, High Court able to judge the Head of State, ministers, Par l iamentar ians, sometimes al l three).

I f such a uni f ied structure does not tr ivial ise constitut ional l i t igations, at least i t makes it a logical step in the operating of the whole Judiciary. We saw ear l ier that this is the case in Austr ia and Estonia, where communicat ion between the Judic iary and the const i tut ional contro l body is carr ied out by the var ious Chambers of the Court .

IV.2. – Diversi ty of the Courts ' competences and re lat ionships between Courts and Par l iaments.

Even specia l is t Courts do not lack complementary powers. Indeed, when these do exist , communication between Courts is the clearest and most direct.

The election judge Court usual ly has author i ty to judge regular i ty in organising elect ion, ei ther pres ident ia l or par l iamentary, and often federal or decentra l ised. They can also announce the resul ts. I f need be and on appeal , i t a lso often acts as a surveyor of par l iamentary powers. I t judges immunity and incompat ib i l i ty cases, most ly on appeal upon the decis ions of the Parl iament 's bodies or on remand of those.

IV.2.1. – Inst i tut ional or adjudicat ive competences

As for their const i tut ional judge competences per se , Courts may act as a safe-keeper within the balance of powers . They can therefore appear as protective elements of the competences of the Parliament itself . I t is so in federal systems, as wel l as numerous countr ies regarding separat ion of powers as a fundamental part of any democracy.

The Court is then both part of this pluralism and the main keeper of its balance. This concept seems very strong in Const i tut ions and inst i tut ional pract ices of Southern European countr ies, especia l ly when part of the European Union. When i t is separate from the Judiciary, some tension wi th the lat ter may ar ise.

Sometimes, even when the Court was establ ished to preserve the competences of the Execut ive (France), i t actual ly acts as keeper of the par l iamentary power. I t can even lead to i ts extension (negat ive incompetence ) .

IV.2.2. - Courts judging materia l const i tut ional law. Fundamental r ights

I f chal lenges arise, or more accurately, s igns of misunderstanding or uncerta inty, i t has nothing to do wi th the const i tut ional Courts ' ro le as keeper of the balance of powers, but wi th their functions as keeper, or even f inder, of fundamental r ights and what they seem to exerc ise at that point : some establ ishing power r ival l ing or even surpassing that of the Parl iament .

Thus, i t is less about the Courts ' powers per se than about how they develop their case law. They are often granted th is power of fundamental r ights apprec iat ion by Const i tut ions. But they may contr ibute to assert i t themselves, or even to th is end rely on internat ional Convent ions, whose implementing, by def in i t ion, eludes Par l iaments.

IV.2.3. - Const i tut ional Courts and operat ing rules of the Par l iament (Rules, procedures and interna corporis acta)

One speci f ic i ty should be noted: the Courts ' powers and case- laws regarding the very operat ing rules of the Parl iament as an administ rat ive body, be i t procedure or operat ing ru les.

The Par l iament 's adminis trat ive acts do not necessari ly come under the jur isdict ion of const i tut ional Courts, but of ten of adminis trat ive Courts , as long as they are deemed separable from the legis lat ive funct ion. This trend is far f rom being universal , though.

Rules of organisation and procedure , and especial ly regulat ions, are not always direct ly checked for their const i tut ional val id i ty . In some countr ies, they undergo a prior i contro l (France, Madagascar, Monaco, Thai land); in others, the legal i ty of regulat ions is checked by way of p lea, as this can be done for al l other categories of rules (Czech Republic, Germany, Romania since 2000). The so-cal led amparo appeal in Spain and Iber ian countr ies (a c i t izen's appeal for protect ion against an act d i rect ly infr inging their fundamental r ights) a l lows Par l iamentar ians to ensure the respect of their " r ight to pol i t ica l involvement" . However, i ts pract ical scope is l imi ted. In this respect, countr ies seem div ided between support ing and opposing automatic control . But there is of course an obvious l ink between the exis tence of a special ist const i tut ional Court and the possib i l i ty of control l ing internal act ions in Par l iament. Indeed, the Westminster model users remain extremely re luctant about judges possib ly inter fer ing wi th the operat ing of the Par l iament.

Final ly, the procedure is one of the aspects Courts have general ly to check when assessing the const i tut ional val id i ty of the law. Concepts of " qual i ty of law " and "comprehensib i l i ty " are increasingly considered as const i tut ional pr incip les. However, the legis lat ive procedure should not be deemed the same as substant ive law. Courts therefore make sure to exerc ise minimum contro l (even when such procedures have been const i tut ional ised).

IV.3. – Impact and implementing of decis ions

Al l Courts do not necessar i ly have power of repeal (or , to quote Kelsen and the theory of const i tut ional just ice, that of negat ive legis lator ) . In Luxembourg, for example, a const i tut ional Court 's decis ion is only val id for l i t igat ions.The power of repeal , however, may general ly be total or part ia l .Through law-case evolut ion, th is repeal power can be combined wi th a large amount of procedures prolonging its effects and l ikely to be felt as constraints by Parliaments.

I t can also set t imelines for const i tut ional amendments. Regarding the ci rcumstances of declarat ion of const i tut ional inval id i ty and predictable reject ions, i t can, i f need be, proceed to – at least temporary – legislat ion changes i tself . This is act ing as an actual "posit ive legis lator " . In qui te a few countr ies, i t can even show jur isdict ions that have provided i t wi th a cause how to interpret the law to end the l i t igat ion. Courts may also issue in junct ions to the legis lator and give them " t ips" to put an end to the const i tut ional inval id i ty. Note that the dis t inct ion between the two can be tenuous.

This diversi f icat ion in the nature and impact of decis ions has var ious, subt le and evolv ing character is t ics.

Sometimes Courts might even c laim being competent to judge const i tut ional amendments. This raises a matter of pr inciple and creates controversy (accepted in South Afr ica and in Germany, more frowned upon in Romania) . Such controvers ies wi l l probably be tackled dur ing the second roundtable.

Note however that at this stage, Courts seldom hail themselves as the Parl iament's r ivals for the establ ishment of legal order. Most commonly, they careful ly insist on the degree of autonomy of the legis lator and, at least formally, make a clear dist inct ion between the " pol i t ica l " and " legal " f ie lds.

V. "CONFLICTS" BETWEEN COURTS AND PARLIAMENTS – OBJECTIVITY AND SUBJECTIVITY

V.1. – Impact of the moment when a decis ion of const i tut ional inval id i ty is made

The "clash" between Courts and Par l iaments may nevertheless be qui te s trong and depend on when the Court has to intervene.Regarding relat ionships between Courts and Parliaments within their consti tut ional functions , one should d ist inguish between a priori and a posterior i referrals. Indeed, the timing of the referral may very well impact how Parl iamentar ians perceive the att itude of const i tut ional Courts.

In the case of a prior i contro l , the Court 's decis ion is interpreted as immediate and even " frontal" re ject ion of the legis lator 's decis ion. I ts decis ion might be even worse perceived i f i t seems to give way to the Opposit ion's arguments. However, a pr ior i control seems to occur re lat ively rarely . Some si tuat ions have even been known to be amended, precisely due to their possib ly too provocat ive nature ( 2005 Spanish rev is ion ) .

On the other hand, the possib i l i ty of immediate rul ing has some advantages, since it avoids establ ishing an unconsti tutional provision and does not infringe legal securi ty.

Most referra ls, however, are a posteriori . Examples in this respect are extremely varied. Referra l may cal l for execut ive – more rarely parl iamentary – bodies to intervene. But most commonly, l i t igation cases are brought before the Courts , e i ther on the in i t ia t ive of part ies, or judges themselves. In the lat ter case, the decis ion of const i tut ional inval id i ty is, most f requent ly, only the resul t of an except ion. I t can undermine the norm's legal secur i ty , but does not a lways (a l though apparent ly increasingly) lead to i ts erga omnes annulment .

In any case, c i t izen's access is thus ensured. And th is large number of possib le d is trainers leads to a fundamental change in the practice of constitut ional control, especial ly when it exists on its own. I t is then no longer about confrontation between Courts and Parl iaments, but about some given point in t ime, even though it is an essential part of the operating of the Judiciary . The whole society is involved in the process. At th is stage, the Court and the Par l iaments may appear as elements of one single norm-producing institut ional system .

The Court therefore has a mediation role between publ ic expectat ions and the assessment of legal norms. I ts decis ions thus have to take into account both par l iamentary and publ ic opin ions. Hence, several const i tut ional Courts in countr ies

where indiv idual appeal is allowed have a screening role, and therefore a system-regulat ing one 9 . In a way, they protect the classic system of norm product ion. Strangely, confl icts should therefore be looked for more within relat ionships between Courts and ordinary judges, or even Supreme Courts when both functions are not held within the same insti tut ion.

V.2. - Conf l ict resolut ion:

Al though most Courts repeatedly c laim not to inter fere wi th the legis lat ive funct ion, some speci f ic arrangements or dec is ions may sometimes raise controversy. On the other hand, i f Par l iaments usual ly take const i tut ional inval id i t ies into account and do agree that Courts have a complementary and useful ro le, they may from t ime to t ime assert their autonomy (a rescinded law may remain so) or to react by " tak ing their t ime", a l though sometimes wi th deadl ines due to agenda matters, as wel l as pol i t ica l expediency.

I t is nevertheless qui te common for Par l iaments or const i tuents having introduced the adopted prov is ions to inst igate a const i tut ional rev iew, so as to " break the verdict " , rather than accept the Court 's decis ion. There are quite a few examples even i f they are not that common. However these should not be viewed as symptomatic of a conf l ic t between Courts and Par l iaments, but as a normal appl icat ion of power d ist r ibut ion. According to French Dean Georges Vedel, the Court 's role is more about " guiding " rather than "censorship " ( the Court indicates the r ight procedure).Al though the quest ionnaire asked about i t , i t is di f f icu l t to reach a conclusion about Courts and Par l iaments ' mutual opin ions. Indeed, assessing any opin ion is part ly subject ive.

Consider ing the answers, i t seems that the ro le of the Courts in the democrat ic system is now recognised as a necessity in most countr ies. Parliaments themselves not only consider that the Courts play a useful role, but also contr ibute to legislation improvement . In th is respect , the const i tut ional control seems l ike a necessary d ia logue, even i f i t should preserve the autonomy and funct ions of each party.

Here and there in a few answers, there was the feel ing that some countr ies were wary of seeing a const i tut ional judge as a legis lator . Personal ly as wel l as theoret ical ly, I do not see how they could be denied th is qual i ty . Besides, many respondents expl ic i t ly quote Kelsen's famous term " negat ive legis lator " . This is crucial as to the assessment of the ro le of Courts in the inst i tut ional system: far f rom weakening the legis lator , i t a l lows to ease constitutional control into the norm-producing process. It also r ids it of i ts sanctioning aspect, which it is too often confused with.

This does not mean that Courts should act as " legis lators" and subst i tute their opin ions and choices to the People 's e lected representat ives' dec is ions. Regarding th is, the near unanimity of the reports is s tr ik ing when i t comes to the Courts ' – at least apparent – respect for par l iamentary sovereignty and their " reluctance " to rescind a law.

V.3. -Elements of standardisat ion: what the Par l iament gains from const i tut ional control

9 They have actually wished to introduce procedures for the selection of appeals (Germany, Spain, United States).

As a result , relat ionships between Courts and Parliaments should not be regarded unequivocally: constitut ional control ensures the cit izen's protection against undue uses of majority powers. On top of this, despite short- l ived drawbacks, i t has at least three advantages for the Parliament:

Helping it in its work:I t might uncover aspects that the Par l iament might have missed in the heat of the moment. To quote French pol i t ica l sc ient ist Pierre Rosanval lon, Courts act wi th in " ref lect ive democracy " . They are part of the second legi t imacy of modern democracy, which besides "establ ishment legi t imacy " (e lect ion resul ts) recognises a second source – the "universal ident i f icat ion legi t imacy " . Hence do Courts br ing a poli t ical dimension of impart ial i ty. Their dual status is thus assessed: They are inst i tut ions of the pol i t ica l system ( they can only act wi th in the legal scene) and autonomous author i t ies wi th speci f ic responsib i l i t ies. Strangers to the pol i t ical scene, their legi t imacy l ies wi th in their own abi l i ty to st ick to their at tr ibuted – or at the very least, funct ional 1 0 - legit imacy.

I t can also give the Par l iament a second chance. One should real ly praise how the Courts ' methods have evolved through choices perta ining to the ret rospect iv i ty, or lack thereof, of their decis ions, as wel l as establ ishing t imel ines to correct const i tut ional inval id i t ies submitted to the legis lator .

I t can save a law by el iminating i ts faults (a l though there is a r isk the Court 's interpretat ion might depart f rom the intent of the legis lator) . However, I shal l not conclude on the discussion over the const i tut ional val id i ty of " interpretat ion in conformity" , which has al ready taken us t ime;

I t can restore the norm-producing function of the Parliament:

By reminding what const i tut ional balance is wished by the const i tuent ( in th is respect , there are reveal ing reports from countr ies having recent ly completed a t ransi t ion process: Courts have a great ro le in ensur ing law enforcement , inc luding by f i l l ing the gaps dur ing t ransi t ions) .

i t reminds the Par l iament of i ts dut ies: "negat ive incompetence " springs to mind, but in some other cases, Courts might refuse to come to a decis ion instead of the Parl iament . In some countr ies, resort ing to a const i tut ional judge sometimes seems to be a way of gett ing r id of di f f icu lt pol i t ical choices.

I shal l conclude wi th a general ref lect ion, drawn from my own experience as a pract i t ioner: I do not know of any conf l ic ts that cannot be resolved, a lbeit wi th var ious ups and downs. But conflicts are best resolved when their terms are best defined. One might therefore wish for a future and renewed ef for t to better define parliamentary and judicial identit ies, and to ini t iate a composed process of mutual recognit ion , which would preserve a broader concept of democracy combining pr incip le of sovereignty and ru le of law.”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr DELCAMP for h is communicat ion and inv ited members present to put quest ions to him.

10 Besides competences per se, these responsibilities are increased by the inevitable emergence of strategic and administrative matters, especially for flow management. (In many countries, a posteriori constitutional control leads to an actual explosion of appeals. This calls for some new awareness, leading to procedural reforms and thoughts about the future of the system itself.)

Mr MANSURA (South Africa) said that the growing power of unelected const i tut ional courts were a mat ter of growing concern in many par l iaments. He had part icular worr ies where important judgments were reached by a spl i t major i ty .

Dr AGNIHOTRI (India) said that the si tuat ion in his country was pecul iar. India was a union of states and not a federat ion, wi th const i tut ional separat ion of powers. But the interact ion between the pi l lars of the s tate general ly lef t Par l iament holding the wrong end of the s t ick. Ordinances, on which he had recent ly given a presentat ion, were an example of th is, wi th the execut ive pre-empting the legis lat ive r ight of the Par l iament. A ser ies of ru l ings by the supreme court over a number of years had resul ted in a s i tuat ion in which Par l iament’s r ight to amend the const i tut ion had become restr icted.

Mr LAURENCE SMYTH (UK) noted a misunderstanding in Mr Delcamp’s paper. Al l he had meant to say about the Bri t ish si tuat ion was that the courts d id not tend to expedi te judgments on mat ters of const i tut ional s igni f icance.

Mr NINI ABINO (Ethiopia) said that the upper House in h is country had a ro le in interpret ing the const i tut ion. Pol i t ical legi t imacy and judic ia l professional ism were combined in a specia l uni t wi th th is part icular ro le, which included members of the Upper House. He asked whether Mr Delcamp had anything to say about pr inc iples of const i tut ional interpretat ion.

Mr PAPAIOANNOU (Greece) noted the del icacy of balancing const i tut ional powers. Greek pol i t ic ians did not l ike the status quo, but could not achieve a consensus for changing i t . The same went for the method of appointment of supreme court judges. In fact, there was no supreme court in Greece, just an a poster ior i appl icat ion of the law in ordinary court cases rais ing const i tut ional issues. This led to s ignif icant delays in judging the const i tut ional i ty of laws. There was also no judic ia l restra int : courts of ten put a greater emphasis on environmental protect ion than seemed just i f ied by the Const i tut ion. A group that was under-represented in the pol i t ica l system might just i fy specia l protect ion under the Const i tut ion. But for the courts to intervene in a proper ly operat ing pol i t ica l system was excessive.

Mr HAMILTON (Netherlands) re i terated that his country was a pecul iar case in that Par l iament was considered the highest author i ty in const i tut ional matters. However, a draft law was in process that might change this s i tuat ion – al though i t was doubtfu l whether i t would be passed. One argument against change was that there seemed to be no examples of anything going wrong under the current system.

Mr DINGANI (South Africa) said that a lack of suf f ic ient publ ic consul tat ion in passing a law by Par l iament meant that the law could be chal lenged and set aside by the const i tut ional court on the grounds that Par l iament had not fo l lowed i ts own procedures. Chapter 9 of the Const i tut ion included inst i tut ions in support of democracy in the ro le of ensur ing publ ic protect ion. Judges were appointed by the Execut ive, but wi th a r igorous select ion system behind i t . There had been a recent case in which the qual i f icat ions of the proposed Chief Just ice had been cr i t ic ised by lawyers and the publ ic . This showed publ ic engagement in the system.

Mr ZVOMA (Zimbabwe) said that h is country had no separate const i tut ional court , but the supreme court could s i t as such. Laws had to pass a const i tut ional i ty test before they could be proceeded wi th in Par l iament . There had been chal lenges to laws passed by Par l iament, nonetheless. Interpretat ion of the Const i tut ion was a matter for the courts.

Mr DELCAMP (France) said that his communicat ion covered both a fundamental matter of pr inciple and a technical matter . Const i tut ional issues did not need to be lef t to the courts. Par l iaments, as democrat ical ly e lected inst i tut ions, had an important ro le to p lay. Courts should not be r ivals to Par l iaments. Par l iaments were often involved in the appointment of const i tut ional judges as a ref lect ion of th is. Par l iaments sometimes fe l t help less in the face of internat ional case law, which they had brought upon themselves through treaty rat i f icat ion. His communicat ion was only a star t ing point , and he looked forward to fur ther work on the subject. He noted some misunderstanding of the US system. He wondered why the Indian system could not deal wi th ordinances in an a prior i fashion. Parl iaments should not accept that i t was beyond their powers to modi fy parts of the const i tut ion on the say-so of judges. Courts had to balance const i tut ional pr incip les in their judgments: i t was their ro le to reach opin ions based on considered thought , but par l iamentarians did not always understand th is. More work was needed to expla in to the publ ic the representat ion of voters by par l iamentar ians and the technical work of the courts. Courts were not more legi t imate than Par l iaments, but they had an important ro le to play.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr DELCAMP for h is communicat ion as well as a l l those members who had put quest ions to h im. He said that these issues were worthy of fur ther discussion at future sess ions.

7. Communication by Mr Austin ZVOMA, Clerk of Parliament of Zimbabwe: “The unseating of a Speaker by the courts and its implications”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invi ted Mr Aust in ZVOMA, Clerk of the Parl iament of Zimbabwe, to present h is communicat ion, as fo l lows: “1.0 Objective and Scope

This paper chronic les the unprecedented sett ing aside of the August 2008 elect ion of Mr. Lovemore Moyo as Speaker of the House of Assembly by the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe si t t ing as a court of f inal appeal in March 2011. The paper rel ies on the Supreme Court landmark ru l ing in the case of Jonathan Moyo and 3 ors v Aust in Zvoma NO and Anor, SC 28/10. I t reviews l i terature and legis lat ive pract ices f rom regional and internat ional par l iamentary jur isdic t ions on precedence in the removal of a Speaker from off ice by the Judic iary.

2.0 Introduction and Background The Speaker of the House of Assembly in Zimbabwe is e lected in terms of Sect ion t ransacts any business. The Const i tut ion and Standing Orders (SOs) of the House of Assembly do not give the Clerk any powers in the conduct of an elect ion of Speaker. Sect ion 39(1) and (2) of the Const i tut ion simply states:‘When the House of Assembly f i rs t meets after any dissolut ion of Par l iament and before i t proceeds to the dispatch of any other business i t shal l elect a presid ing of f icer to be known as the Speaker; and whenever the off ice of the Speaker becomes vacant the House of Assembly shall not transact any other business unti l a person to f i l l that off ice has been elected ’

SO 6 provides that:-

‘ I f more than one person is proposed as Speaker, the Clerk shal l conduct the elect ion of Speaker by a secret bal lot . ’

Accordingly , pursuant to a proc lamation by the President, the Clerk convened the f i rst meet ing of Par l iament on 25 August 2008 for the purposes of swearing in the Members of Par l iament and elect ing Presid ing Off icers of the two Houses. Fol lowing the nominat ion of two candidates, the Clerk conducted an elect ion of Speaker in accordance wi th c learly laid out ru les. He read out the previously c i rculated ru les to Members. The rules provided that upon receipt of a bal lot paper, each Member was required to:

i ) cast his /her vote in a Pol l ing Booth p laced in the Chamber;i i ) fo ld the bal lot paper;i i i ) show the stamped side to the Clerk; andiv) deposi t the fo lded bal lot paper in one of the two bal lot boxes on the

Table of the House.Needless to say, the Clerk reminded Members that, as products of the same electoral process which internat ional norms expect to be transparent, f ree and fa i r , they were equal ly expected to observe and respect the ru les. Members refused to leave the Chamber after vot ing as requested. At this juncture, i t is important to note that dur ing the electoral process, s ix members, inc luding Mr. Lovemore Moyo, def iant ly and openly d isplayed their bal lots in the process showing other members how they had voted. The Clerk decided against taking any act ion as he considered that this would have worsened an al ready near chaot ic s i tuat ion. This was to become a contested point dur ing the court hear ing. At the conclusion of the elect ion process, the Clerk declared Mr. Lovemore Moyo duly e lected. The open display of bal lots was not d isputed in Court . What became content ious was i ts ef fect on the electoral process and whether or not the Clerk had complied wi th the law when he al lowed those votes to be deposi ted into the bal lot boxes and counted as val id votes.

3.0 Tenure of Office of Speaker The tenure of of f ice of a Speaker is prov ided in the Sect ion 40(2) of the Const i tut ion. The Speaker shal l vacate h is off ice:

i ) on the dissolut ion of Par l iament;i i ) i f he holds another publ ic of f ice incompatib le wi th that of f ice.i i i ) i f he is found to be mental ly d isorderediv) the High Court declares that he is incapable of managing his own

affa i rs;v) he has been convicted of an of fence under the Electoral Law and

the High Court d isqual i f ies him from registrat ion as a voter or f rom vot ing at any elect ion;

v i ) i f he has been the subject of a prevent ive detent ion order for a cont inuous per iod of s ix months or more.

In addi t ion to the above, the off ice of the Speaker shal l become vacant i f the House of Assembly resolves by the af f i rmat ive votes of not less than two-th i rds of i ts tota l membership that the off ice of the Speaker shal l become vacant (our emphasis) .

Simi lar provis ions exist in other jur isdict ions. In Nigeria a Speaker may be removed by the votes of not less than a two-th i rds major i ty whi le in South Afr ica the Nat ional Assembly may remove the Speaker or Deputy Speaker from off ice by a resolut ion of the major i ty of members present .

Our research suggests that const i tut ions of many countr ies are si lent on the removal of a Speaker from off ice by the Judiciary. This br ings to the fore the quest ion of the involvement of the courts in unseat ing a Speaker and i ts impl icat ions.

4.0 Application to the High CourtAggr ieved by the conduct of the elect ion of Speaker, Professor Jonathan Moyo made a chamber appl icat ion to the High Court praying for the set t ing aside of Mr. Lovemore Moyo’s e lect ion. In h is Founding Aff idavi t , Professor Moyo submitted that the elect ion had not been conducted in terms of Sect ion 39 of the Const i tut ion of Zimbabwe, as read wi th Standing Order 6 of the House. He fur ther pointed out that the elect ion had not been conducted by secret bal lot as at least s ix members of the MDC-T, including Mr. Lovemore Moyo, had def iant ly and openly displayed their bal lots; and that there was ‘chaos’ in the Chamber dur ing the elect ions.Through i ts verdict of 10 March 2010, the High Court upheld the elect ion of Speaker after concluding that the display of bal lots by six members d id not mater ial ly af fect the outcome of the elect ion. Professor Moyo reacted by appeal ing to the Supreme Court .

5.0 Supreme Court AppealIn the papers f i led at the Supreme Court , Professor Moyo argued that the High Court erred in f inding that a proper e lect ion of Speaker of the House of Assembly was conducted in terms of the Const i tut ion and the law. He submit ted that the learned Judge of the High Court had erred in condoning the Clerk ’s fa i lure to implement and enforce his own procedures for the elect ion. He also argued that the High Court erred in f inding that the exposure of completed bal lot papers was not a v iolat ion of the secret bal lot . Professor Moyo further argued that the learned Judge erred in both f inding that a secret bal lot took place and in interpret ing Sect ion 39 (2) of the Const i tut ion as read wi th SO 6 of the House as di rectory and not peremptory.

6.0 Supreme Court JudgementAfter hear ing submiss ions from Counsels represent ing both part ies, the Supreme Court made the fol lowing observat ions:‘Sect ion 39 of the Const i tut ion, as read wi th Standing Order 6, is not a const i tut ional or s tatutory provis ion conferr ing the r ight to vote on a voter in the form of the Member of Par l iament. Sect ion 39 of the Const i tut ion, as read wi th Standing Order 6, prescr ibes how a part icular of f icer in Par l iament, namely the Speaker, is to be elected. I t expressly provides that i f more than one person is proposed as Speaker the Clerk of Par l iament shal l conduct the elect ion of the Speaker by a secret bal lot . In other words, the use of the words "by a secret bal lot " in the Statute is prescr ib ing the method by which a Speaker is to be elected. The language is peremptory language (sic) . I t would be a di f ferent story i f the wording of Standing Order 6 were to the effect " I f more than one Member is proposed Members of Par l iament may vote by secret bal lot to e lect the Speaker" . Therefore, ‘ In v iew of the expl ic i t language of the Statute, i t is not open to the Clerk or any Member of Par l iament to subst i tute the method of elect ing a Speaker wi th another method of their own choice, such as by open bal lot . Put d if ferent ly , i t was not open, for instance, to Members of Parl iament to tel l the Clerk that they were waiving their r ight to vote for the Speaker by secret bal lot or that they wished to vote for the Speaker by open bal lot e i ther indiv idual ly or as a group. That opt ion was not

open to the Members of Par l iament as a whole or to indiv idual Members of Par l iament. ”

The Supreme Court noted that vot ing by secret bal lot entai ls the fol lowing procedures:-

i ) Each Member receives a bal lot paper;i i ) Each Member indicates on that bal lot paper the candidate of choice

in pr ivate and to the exclus ion of the publ ic; i i i ) The Member deposi ts h is/her bal lot paper into the bal lot box

pr ivate ly without disclos ing his/her bal lot paper to the wor ld. The process of vot ing by secret bal lot ends wi th the bal lot paper being deposi ted into the bal lot box. Thereafter , a Member would not be vio lat ing the secret bal lot i f he/she discloses whom he has voted for .

The Court found that Par l iament had, in v io lat ion of the law, conducted a cross-breed part ly secret and part ly open elect ion. The Supreme Court concluded that Par l iament intended to render inval id an elect ion wherein the Clerk fai ls to comply with the prov is ions of Sect ion 39 of the Const i tut ion, as read wi th SO 6. Thus, fai lure to stamp his author i ty and to comply with peremptory provis ions rendered the elect ions a nul l i ty. The Clerk should have ins is ted that Members conduct themselves in accordance with set instruct ions. The Court concluded that s ix named Members d id not vote by secret bal lot and, therefore, their votes were i r regular and should not have been deposi ted in the bal lot boxes. Consequent ly, their inc lusion contaminated the f inal outcome of the elect ion of the Speaker rendering i t inval id and hence the nul l i f icat ion of the elect ion resul ts .

7.0 Implications of the JudgementIn l ight of th is development a number of quest ions arose:

i ) The Judiciary ’s jur isdict ion in determining the regular i ty of the elect ion of Speaker;

i i ) The appl icat ion of the Doctr ine of Separat ion of Powers a matter occurr ing wi th in Par l iament;

i i i ) Mr. Lovemore Moyo’s status af ter the Supreme Court set as ide his e lect ion in 2008 given the fact that h is seat had been declared vacant;

iv) The const i tut ional and other provis ions the Clerk would use to conduct a fresh elect ion for Speaker.

8.0 Jurisdict ionZimbabwe is a const i tut ional democracy in which al l arms of the State are subordinate to the const i tut ion. Par l iament’s independence f rom the other two arms of the State and power to make i ts own ru les in terms of Sect ion 57 of the Const i tut ion does not exempt those ru les from complying with the provis ions of the Const i tut ion. As such, a l l i ts act ions must have a basis in law.The Supreme Court ru l ing is in l ine wi th the pr inciples of const i tut ional ism which states that there ought to be str ict adherence to const i tut ional prov is ions, part icular ly the peremptory provis ions. Where Par l iament lacks internal remedies to deal wi th fa i lure to abide by mandatory prov is ions, the Judiciary wi l l intervene. From the foregoing, i t is indisputable that the Judiciary has jur isdict ion in a contested elect ion of Speaker.

9.0 Separation of Powers The three arms of the State have separate but co-ordinate ro les wi th each being supreme in i ts own sphere. In other words, whi le the Legis lature is supreme in making laws, the Judic iary is s imi lar ly supreme in interpret ing those laws. Thus, there is no tota l separat ion of powers.

10.0 Mr. Lovemore Moyo’s Status after JudgementThe Supreme Court only set aside the elect ion of Speaker for non-compliance with the secrecy of the bal lot . I t did not reverse or set aside any other act done or presided over by Mr. Lovemore Moyo. Accordingly, the Clerk d isagreed wi th h is argument that he reverted to being Member of Par l iament for Matobo North Const i tuency which he held immediate ly pr ior to h is i r regular e lect ion on 25 August 2008. In the event, Mr. Lovemore Moyo made an urgent chamber appl icat ion demanding that the Clerk declares him member for Matobo North which he abandoned in part for fa i lure to comply wi th court ru les. Needless to say, nei ther the const i tut ion nor Standing Orders repose in the Clerk such powers.The Clerk accordingly barred former Member, Mr. Lovemore Moyo, f rom vot ing in the subsequent re-run of the elect ion on 29 March 2011. This is because as de facto Speaker of the House of Assembly, he had declared Matobo North Const i tuency vacant af ter his e lect ion.

11.0 Post-Judgement ImplicationsThe const i tut ion and Standing Orders specif ical ly state:

i ) ‘whenever the off ice of the Speaker becomes vacant the House of Assembly shal l not t ransact any other business unt i l a person to f i l l that of f ice has been elected’ ;

i i ) the Clerk shal l conduct the elect ion’ .The Supreme Court had also previously ru led on Par l iament ’s fai lure to comply wi th the SOs. In 2002 in the case of Bit i and Anor v. the Minister of Just ice, Legal and Parl iamentary Affa i rs and Anor , 2002 (1) ZLR 177 (S), the Supreme Court ru led that SOs made in terms of the Const i tut ion have the status of law. Mr. Bit i had approached the Supreme Court praying for i t to set aside the enactment of the General Laws Amendment Act passed by Par l iament in v iolat ion of SOs.The Supreme Court accordingly nul l i f ied the Act. That nul l i f icat ion was consis tent wi th another landmark ru l ing in the United States where the Federal Supreme Court ru led in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) that the delegated powers (of the Court) include the author i ty to determine whether a statute v io lated the Const i tut ion and, i f i t d id, to declare such a law inval id. http:/ /usinfo.state.gov (2004).

The Judic iary’s const i tut ional competence to intervene and interpret the law, therefore, compels a l l arms of the State to operate wi thin the conf ines and l imi ts of the law. The ru le of law enjo ins c i t izens, Members included, to approach the courts for the resolut ion of legi t imate disputes.

The co-ordinate re lat ionship involv ing Par l iament’s legis lat ive funct ion, the Courts interpretat ive ro le and the Execut ive’s determinat ion of publ ic pol icy and implementat ion of the law can be summarized as: Enactment, Interpretation and Implementation (EII or EI2) . This contrasts sharply wi th the jur isdict ions which pract ice par l iamentary democracy def ined as a pol i t ica l system ‘…based on the idea that Par l iament is supreme or sovereign’ . In Zimbabwe, the Supreme Court , in the case of Chairman of the

Publ ic Service Commission and Others v . Zimbabwe Teachers Associat ion and Others, 1996 (9) BCLR 1189 (ZS) , af f i rmed that:

‘We consider 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 centre-piece of our democracy is not a sovereign par l iament but a supreme law (The Const i tut ion) ’ .

Par l iament must a lways exerc ise i ts powers with in the conf ines of the Const i tut ion and not to purport to legis late beyond those powers.The Supreme Court concurred that the major facet of a par l iamentary democracy as that obtains in the UK is that their ‘ const i tut ion does not permit the judicature to str ike out laws enacted by Par l iament . Their Par l iament, in the f ie ld of legis lat ion is supreme and sovereign ’ . This contrasts sharply wi th the case in Zimbabwe where the supremacy of the const i tut ion is protected by the author i ty of the independent judic iary.

12.0 Consequences of the Supreme Court JudgementThe nul l i f icat ion of the elect ion of Speaker had a number of far reaching impl icat ions. The sett ing aside of the elect ion of Speaker did not af fect or reverse any other act performed or presided over by the de facto Speaker. The only unf in ished business from August 2008 was to complete the process of e lect ing the Speaker. Accordingly, the President f ixed 29 March 2011 as the date on which Par l iament was to meet and elect the Speaker. Informed by the Supreme Court ’s st r ic t cr i ter ia for an elect ion by secret bal lot , the Clerk put in p lace an elaborate fool-proof system for the elect ion to avoid a repeat of August 2008. He conducted the elect ion in a room where a few members were al lowed at a t ime, thus guaranteeing order l iness of the process. Al l the 199 members who voted compl ied wi th s tr ict inst ruct ions save for one member whose bal lot was disqual i f ied as a spoi l t paper. The process which was closely observed by two elect ion agents for each of the two candidates and the press fu l ly compl ied wi th Supreme Court cr i ter ia for a secret bal lot . Mr. Lovemore Moyo garnered 105 votes against 93 obtained by the ZANU PF candidate, Ambassador S. K. Moyo.

13.0 Lessons LearntThe ru l ings of the Supreme Court re lat ing to Par l iament are in l ine wi th the pr incip le of the separat ion of powers. The landmark Supreme Court ru l ing is important in that i t underscored the need for Par l iament to str ict ly adhere to the Const i tut ion and the Standing Orders in the conduct of i ts administ rat ive and legis lat ive business. The ru l ing was also precedent-set t ing in c i rcumscr ibing the cr i ter ia for and conducts of e lect ions for Presid ing Of f icers by the Clerk.

14.0 ConclusionParl iament‘s tota l compl iance wi th the Supreme Court ’s ru l ing is a c lear indicator of the state of comity which ex is ts between the Legislature and the Judic iary. The rul ing did not chal lenge the pr iv i leges of Par l iament but fa i lure to comply wi th the law. The rul ing should guide both current and future Administrat ions of Par l iament on the need to adhere to the laws of the country .

15.0 References1. Const i tut ion of Zimbabwe2. Const i tut ion of the Republ ic of South Afr ica

3. Const i tut ion for the Federal Republ ic of Niger ia4. Standing Orders for the House of Assembly, Par l iament of Zimbabwe,

20055. Pr iv i leges, Immunit ies and Powers of Par l iament Act (Cap 2.08)6. Outl ine of the US Legal System, Bureau of Internat ional Information

Programs , Uni ted States Department of States (2004). ”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr ZVOMA for h is communicat ion and inv ited members present to put quest ions to him.

Claressa SURTEES (Australia) said she had no background on the Tasmanian si tuat ion that had been mentioned. There had been a chal lenge to the Speaker ’s author i ty in House of Representat ives, but no judic ia l involvement.

Mr ZVOMA (Zimbabwe) noted an ear l ier occasion on which the Speaker had accused the judic iary of loyal ty to ZANU-PF, the former rul ing party. He had therefore been seen by some as in a compl icated si tuat ion when his appointment as Speaker was disal lowed by the courts. This showed the sensi t iv i ty of re lat ions between elected Members and the judic iary.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr ZVOMA again for h is communicat ion. He also thanked the interpreters for work ing beyond their scheduled hours.

The si t t ing rose at 1.00 pm.

SECOND SITTINGMonday 17 October 2011 (Afternoon)

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, in the ChairThe sitting was opened at 2.30 pm

1. General debate: Planning Chamber business – informal channels for decision-making and timetabling

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, inv ited Mr Marc BOSC, Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons of Canada , to open the debate.

Mr Marc BOSC (Canada) spoke as fol lows:

The business of the House of Commons is conducted, for the most part , in an order ly manner in large part because of mechanisms for informal consul tat ion that are the outcome of both formal ru les and well -entrenched pract ices that have evolved over t ime. Some would say that due to these informal channels Chamber Business is so well p lanned that proceedings are de facto choreographed. The Standing Orders of the House inc lude some mechanisms for the planning and schedul ing of the House’s business. These rules are extensive but not exhaust ive. For example, the Standing Orders establ ish a dai ly program in general, but the detai led s tructure of the t ime set as ide for Government Orders and how i t p lays out is largely d ictated at the government’s d iscret ion.

I would l ike to talk to you today about compromise and adaptabi l i ty in the pract ices of the House, and to share some of the exper iences we have had recent ly in Ot tawa of negot iat ion in minor i ty government versus majori ty government s i tuat ions. I wi l l provide examples especia l ly f rom the work done by House Of f icers, pr imar i ly party House leaders, but a lso f rom t ime to t ime party Whips, and from the work done by pr ivate Members themselves.

HOUSE OFFICERSFor many years now, the planning of House business has been executed mainly through the House leaders’ meet ings, which are informal in the sense that they are not expl ic i t ly prov ided for in the Standing Orders.

Each recognized party, that is , each party that has a minimum of 12 seats in the House of Commons, appoints one Member to be i ts “House Leader”. The posit ion of the party House leader has exis ted for a very long t ime, and i t benef i ts f rom a status recognized in the Parl iament of Canada Act, that provides for addi t ional a l lowances to those Members p laying that ro le. The House leaders are the pr imary agents for the planning of House business as they, along wi th their staf fs, party Whips and their staf f , meet regular ly to discuss upcoming business in the Chamber, how long bi l ls wi l l be debated, when part icular issues wi l l be d iscussed, and the l ike. The Clerk of the House is a regular at tendee as an observer at these weekly meetings.

House leaders are general ly expected to be fami l iar wi th the Standing Orders, with the gist of Speakers’ rul ings, and wi th the various convent ions that apply to the day-to-day funct ioning of the House. Their ef fect iveness as negot iators is in part a

product of th is fami l iar i ty. Furthermore, the success of the House leaders at managing and expedi t ing the business of the House is re lated to their percept ion of themselves as House Of f icers with an obl igat ion to serve the best interests of the inst i tut ion as wel l as those of their respect ive part ies. I t is not unusual , for example, for the House leaders to negot iate a more expedit ious discharge of outstanding business pr ior to the Christmas or summer adjournments. I t is , I bel ieve, accurate to state that the House leaders’ meet ings, though not prov ided for by statute or by the Standing Orders, are nevertheless indispensib le to the effect ive p lanning and t imetabl ing of Chamber business. By keeping the detai ls of House leaders ’ meet ings conf ident ia l , the part ies ensure that d iscussion can be frank and col laborat ive. House leaders can be candid wi th each other about the obstacles they face in gain ing acceptance of part icular proposals from their respect ive caucuses.

The Government House Leader p lays the most important role here — part icular ly when there is a major i ty government — and bears the responsibi l i ty of ensur ing the smooth f low of government business. In order to accomplish th is, he or she must determine the level of pr ior i ty which the Cabinet at taches to part icular legis lat ive ini t ia t ives, statutory deadl ines ( i f any) for the renewal of legis lat ion, and the avai labi l i ty of Ministers who sponsor b i l ls and of the committees designated to consider them.

Given that the Government House Leader must ensure that the considerat ion of legis lat ion takes place in a t imely fashion, he or she wi l l consul t wi th the other House leaders to e l iminate obstacles to i ts progress.

Regular meet ings of the House leaders are convened by the Government House Leader; they vary in frequency but tend to be weekly. At these meetings they discuss, negot iate and arrange House business to ensure the smooth, thorough and speedy considerat ion of legis lat ive in i t ia t ives. The Government House Leader indicates the tentat ive order in which i tems of government business wi l l be considered, usual ly over a two-week hor izon, in order to af ford the other House leaders the opportuni ty to have their spokespersons in the House as appropr iate. The House leaders may also come to agreements to expedi te the passage of government b i l ls and they may negot iate the condi t ions of specia l debates (e.g. Take-note debates) , statements on occasions of note, or other specia l proceedings. They also discuss the schedul ing of a l lot ted opposi t ion days, al though the t iming of such debates remains a government prerogat ive.

The tone of these meetings is dependent upon the pol i t ical context, but tends to be cordia l and col laborat ive. The House leaders come to know each other wel l as a resul t of these f requent meet ings and the resul t is usual ly a product ive working relat ionship. In order to funct ion effect ively, the House leaders have considerable delegated author i ty f rom their part ies so that they can commit to negot iated agreements wi th the conf idence that they wi l l receive the necessary support f rom their respect ive caucuses, though of course they often return to their part ies for expl ic i t conf i rmat ion.

Since agreements dur ing House leaders’ meet ings concern the al locat ion of House t ime, the opposi t ion House leaders are at somewhat of a d isadvantage in a major i ty-government s i tuat ion since the government has at i ts disposal procedural tools, such as t ime al locat ion and closure, that i t can use to expedi te the progress of legis lat ion. In a minor i ty Parl iament , on the other hand, the government must be prepared to put some water in i ts wine i f i t hopes to achieve anything on i ts

legis lat ive agenda; such negot iat ions often occur at the House leaders’ meet ings, a lthough pr ivate agreements may also be arr ived at between the government and one or more of the opposit ion part ies. An agreement negot iated by the House leaders might, for example, l imi t the number of speakers on a b i l l a t a g iven stage, in exchange for cer ta in considerat ions — perhaps an agreement by the government not to oppose an opposi t ion amendment. A major i ty government may also on occasion be recept ive to such agreements, s imply as a gesture of good wil l . The tendency for these types of negot iat ions is wel l -establ ished, and has become an inevi table and ef fect ive feature of the arrangement of the House’s business.

Agreements tentat ively negot iated beforehand by House leaders are often ef fected by the unanimous consent of the House. In fact, pract ical ly al l mot ions that are eventual ly adopted by unanimous consent are preceded by much negot iat ion, and unanimous consent is l i t t le af fected by the minor i ty or major i ty status of the government . Since one dissent ing voice is suff ic ient to deny unanimous consent for a motion, even an independent Member wi thout the leverage provided by party status has the power to b lock certa in ini t ia t ives and therefore, potent ia l ly, to secure concessions on matters of importance in return for grant ing consent . The 41st Par l iament has al ready been fasc inat ing to observe in th is respect , s ince the Bloc Québécois – at one t ime the Off ic ia l Opposi t ion, and the second opposi t ion party as recent ly as the last Par l iament – was reduced to only four Members dur ing the last e lect ion, and thus no longer has of f ic ia l par ty status. These four Members si t as independents, even though they ident i fy themselves by party. A f i f th independent Member is the leader of the Green Party but she is the only Member f rom that party in the House. These f ive independent Members have al ready exercised their abi l i ty to deny unanimous consent on occasion and, as a resul t , House leaders have found i t necessary to consul t them beforehand in order to reach agreements regarding the conduct of House business.

Informal agreements a lso faci l i ta te specia l events that require the House to resolve i tsel f in to Committee of the Whole ( in order to al low non-Members on the f loor of the House, something that is not a l lowed when the House is s i t t ing). This has happened in recent memory when the House resolved i tsel f in to Commit tee of the Whole in order to a l low the Olympians f rom the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic games to stand in the House for a br ief ceremony in their honour, and when the House sat in Commit tee of the Whole so that representat ives of aborig inal communit ies could be present on the f loor of the Chamber to accept the Prime Minister ’s apology for abuses committed against Fi rst Nat ions in Canada’s res ident ia l school system. In the lat ter case, an agreement amongst part ies also al lowed the abor ig inal representat ives to not only be present on, but a lso to speak f rom, the f loor of the House. These are but a few examples which clear ly demonstrate the impact of informal negot iat ions between House leaders on the abi l i ty of the House to adapt to new and unprecedented ci rcumstances, as wel l as a l low i ts procedures and pract ices to evolve.

There are, of course, other par l iamentary convent ions that a lso require the use of informal channels for decis ion-making. One of these is the number and order of speaking slots avai lable to the Members of any given party, which is usual ly proport ionate to the number of seats held by that party in the House. Since a number of recurr ing procedures in the House are managed by rotat ion l ists – Quest ion Period, Statements by Members and debate, i t is incumbent upon the part ies, and in part icular their Whips, before the star t of a new Par l iament, to agree upon the order in which representat ives from the var ious part ies wi l l speak. Whi le mathematical calculat ions form the basis for these rotat ion l ists, there can st i l l be

room or need for negot iat ion, part icular ly as the l is t varies according to the procedure. The off ic ia l opposi t ion, for example, normally has the greater part of the quest ions during Quest ion Period, wi th proport ionate accommodations made for each of the other opposi t ion part ies and any independent Members. Government Members are a lso al lot ted a certain number of speaking s lots but not in proport ion to their numbers in the House since Quest ion Period is ul t imately an opportuni ty for the opposi t ion to ask quest ions of Minis ters in order to hold them accountable.

Whi le such negot iat ions take place between the representat ives of of f ic ia l ly recognised part ies, they must at t imes take into considerat ion the independent Members. Independent Members usual ly have relat ively infrequent opportuni t ies to make statements or ask quest ions given their smal l representat ion in the House. I t fa l ls to the Speaker, as guardian of the r ights of a l l Members, to ensure these Members are aware of the House t ime avai lable to them, and to moni tor their use of i t . In the past , many of the independent Members d id not even use these rare chances to speak. In the current Parl iament , however, independent Members are making fu l l use of their a l lot ted t ime and have r isen to speak or to pose a quest ion more regular ly than was the case in the last Par l iament.

This is but one example of how the Speaker too, by taking on an informal p lanning role, can contr ibute to ensur ing the ef fect ive funct ioning of the Chamber.

PRIVATE MEMBERSBut i t is not only House leaders and the Speaker who informal ly take charge of cer ta in aspects of House business. Private Members too can become engaged in negot iat ions in order to pursue their part icular interests . Their lobbying of other Members in order to secure support for their i tems of Pr ivate Members’ Business is cer ta in ly the most common instance given the usual ly lengthy process as prescr ibed in the Standing Orders that requires pr ivate Members’ i tems to gradual ly and repeatedly work their way to the top of an of f ic ia l l is t , the “order of precedence,” before coming before the House for each step in the process.

The progress and eventual success of an i tem of Pr ivate Members’ Business wi l l natural ly depend on secur ing the support of a major i ty of Members in the House. Since pr ivate Members’ bi l ls or motions are customar i ly the objects of f ree votes – in the par lance of the Commons, they are not “whipped” votes a long party l ines – a pr ivate Member may see his or her b i l l supported by Members from several or even al l part ies. In addit ion, the rules permit two Members wi th i tems in the order of precedence to exchange places. I f th is is carefu l ly arranged, i t is possib le to have a b i l l considered and passed more quick ly than would normal ly be the case. For these reasons, pr ivate Members ’ i tems are excel lent examples of informal , behind-the-scenes negot iat ion and discussion among Members as pr ivate Members drum up support for their legis lat ive projects and possib ly make concessions (perhaps by accept ing proposed amendments) to increase the chances of successful passage.

Pr ivate Members’ consultat ions are not l imi ted to their own pr ivate Members’ i tems. In fact, there are t imes when motions or ig inat ing wi th backbench Members (e.g. for the designat ion of a day in commemorat ion of a part icular h is tor ic event) are adopted by the House, usual ly by unanimous consent. The lobbying that precedes these is necessar i ly focused on other Members and House Leaders both f rom the pr ivate Member ’s own party and from other part ies.

CONCLUSION

The procedures and pract ices of the House of Commons are governed expl ic i t ly by i ts Standing Orders, ru les that provide guidance, st ructure, safeguards for the minor i ty and some assurance that bus iness can be t ransacted fa i r ly and effect ively. As we have seen, there is much that is lef t unsaid in the Standing Orders, much that perhaps must be lef t unsaid, and the work of the House depends vi ta l ly on a number of informal , unwri t ten channels that a l low for negot iat ion, compromise, and gestures of goodwi l l among the Members.”

Dr V.K. AGNIHOTRI ( India) presented the fo l lowing contr ibut ion:

Introduction1. Par l iament occupies a p ivotal posi t ion in democracy. Par l iament is not only the supreme legis lat ive body but a lso a del iberat ive and representat ive body. I t represents the sovereign wi l l of the people and ar t iculates their concerns through var ious procedural dev ices on the f loor of the House for redressal of gr ievances. I t has a mul t i - funct ional ro le in modern day governance. I ts responsibi l i t ies have increased mani fold due to the unprecedented growth and expansion in governmental act iv i t ies. The r is ing expectat ions of the people and their changing needs, demand appropr iate response f rom Par l iament by way of passing new legis lat ions and scrut in is ing governmental pol ic ies and programmes for promot ing the wel fare of the people. The legis lat ive and oversight role of the Par l iament has become more complex and diversi f ied. As a resul t , Par l iaments, al l over the world, are faced wi th tremendous chal lenges to carry out their legis lat ive, f inancial and other business wi th in the t ime at their d isposal. Consider ing the heavy demand on par l iamentary t ime, Par l iaments in many countr ies have devised ru les and procedures, which ensure prudent use of t ime avai lable for t ransact ing legis lat ive business.

2. Planning Chamber business and i ts management wi thin the s t ipulated t ime involves a lot of hard work, dedicat ion and coordinat ion among those who are closely involved with the funct ioning of the House, be i t Presiding Off icer , Leader of the House, Leader of the Opposit ion, the Minis ter of Parl iamentary Af fa i rs , Whips of Government and Opposi t ion part ies, etc . In a par l iamentary form of Government , s ince the execut ive forms an integral part of Par l iament and is col lect ively responsib le to the lat ter, coordinat ion and consensus among these key par l iamentary funct ionar ies assumes specia l s igni f icance for organis ing the Par l iamentary business through formal or informal channels.

3. Our Const i tut ion prov ides that each House of Par l iament has the power to make ru les for regulat ing i ts procedure and conduct of i ts business. Both Houses of Par l iament have devised simi lar ru les of procedure for conduct of their bus iness wi th cer ta in var iat ions as per the const i tut ional ro le of each House. Our Par l iament has kept pace wi th the changing t imes and the demands for faster development and good governance. I t has f ramed ru les and procedures and evolved convent ions and customs to enable Members to ra ise issues of publ ic importance f reely and effect ively wi th in the st ipulated t ime, whi le upholding the high s tandards of par l iamentary conduct. The signi f icance of informal channels in decis ion making and t ime-tabl ing in the context of planning Chamber business has been wel l recognised for the eff ic ient management of precious par l iamentary t ime which holds the key to promoting effect ive funct ioning of the House. This process involves dynamic interplay of the ro les of the key par l iamentary funct ionaries to keep the del iberat ions in the House on the r ight t rack.Parl iamentary Business

4. There are two broad categor ies of business which is t ransacted by the Par l iament – the Government Business and the Pr ivate Members’ Business. The Government business const i tutes the major port ion of the business before Par l iament. Planning of the Government business, therefore, assumes great s igni f icance and i t becomes the responsibi l i ty of the Government of the day to ensure that the par l iamentary t ime for t ransact ing the Government business is wisely and ef fect ively ut i l ised. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha also provide that on days al lot ted for t ransact ion of Government business, that business shal l have precedence and i t shal l be arranged in such order as the Presid ing Off icers of both the Houses may determine, in consultat ion wi th the Leader of the respect ive Houses. The responsib i l i ty of p lanning and coordinat ing Government business has been entrusted to the Minist ry of Par l iamentary Affai rs which works under the di rect ions of the Cabinet Commit tee on Par l iamentary Affai rs, whi le d ischarging th is responsibi l i ty . Except the Quest ion Hour everyday and two-and-a-half hours on Fridays, a lmost the ent i re t ime of Par l iament during the sess ion is at the disposal of the Government for t ransact ing Government business. The Government, however, agrees to prov ide t ime for considerat ion of issues of urgent publ ic importance as demanded by the Members from t ime to t ime and recommended by the Business Advisory Committee of the two Houses whenever required. Such i tems of business inc lude Zero Hour Submissions, Cal l ing Attent ion, Motion of Thanks on the President ’s Address, Short Durat ion Discussion, Special Ment ions, Hal f -an-Hour Discussion, etc.

5. According to the const i tut ional scheme, the President , being the Head of the Execut ive, summons the Indian Par l iament to t ransact such matters as are brought before i t by the Government and prorogues i t af ter the t ransact ion of the scheduled business. As the session of Par l iament is convened mainly to transact the Government business, i t is the prerogat ive of the Government to decide the date of i ts commencement and durat ion. The task of f ixat ion of dates of summoning and prorogat ion of the two Houses of Par l iament is assigned to the Ministry of Par l iamentary Affai rs under the Government of India (Al locat ion of Business) Rules made by the President under ar t ic le 77(3) of the Const i tut ion. Before the commencement of the sess ion of Par l iament, the Minis try of Par l iamentary Affa i rs gets the legis lat ive and non-legis lat ive proposals from al l Minis tr ies of the Government of India for considerat ion dur ing the ensuing sess ion of Par l iament. I t makes an est imat ion of the approximate t ime span of the sess ion by taking into account the volume of Government business to be t ransacted and the debates and discussion l ikely to be in i t iated by Members on a wide spectrum of issues. The Secretary, Minist ry of Par l iamentary Affa i rs accordingly holds a meeting wi th the Secretary, Legis lat ive Department, Ministry of Law to ascertain the ‘ legis lat ive readiness’ in respect of var ious Bi l ls proposed by var ious Minis tr ies/Departments for the ensuing sess ion of Par l iament. The Minister of Par l iamentary Affa irs then convenes a meet ing of Secretar ies and other senior of f icers of the Minist r ies and Departments inter a l ia to pr ior i t ise legis lat ive business, based on the readiness of proposals avai lable and to impress upon them the necessi ty of giv ing pr ior i ty to the f inal isat ion of legis lat ive proposals and other i tems of Government business. The Minister of Par l iamentary Affa i rs, subsequent ly takes review meetings wi th Secretary/senior of f icers of h is Minis try, as and when necessary, before commencement of the sess ion, and on an almost dai ly bas is dur ing the sess ion per iod, and gives such di rect ions, as may be necessary, for expedi t ious and smooth disposal of pending and new Government legis lat ive and other business in the two Houses. After making proper assessment of the Government business, a calendar of Government business is tentat ively drawn up for each session, which is made avai lable to both Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha Secretar iats for c i rculat ion amongst

Members of Par l iament to enable them to have a broad idea about the Bi l ls and other subjects that might come up dur ing the session and to prepare themselves for part ic ipat ion in debates on such mat ters.

6. Int imat ion regarding date of commencement of a session and i ts durat ion is received from the Government through the Minis try of Par l iamentary Af fa i rs . Based on these dates, the Legislat ive Sect ion of the Rajya Sabha Secretar iat prepares a provis ional Calendar of s i t t ings showing Government and Private Members’ Business (Bi l ls and Resolut ions) to be taken up on each day of the si t t ing. L ikewise, the Quest ion Branch also prepares a quest ion calendar showing al lotment of days for answer ing quest ions by the Minis tr ies/Departments and a quest ion chart showing the dates for answering quest ions and the last date of receiv ing not ices of quest ions perta in ing to var ious Ministr ies/Departments. Besides, a comprehensive Bul let in Part- I I is a lso issued through which the Members are informed, inter a l ia, about date and t ime of s i t t ings, date and t ime of bal lot for Private Members’ Bi l ls , Resolut ions and not ices of quest ions and also the procedure regarding submission of var ious not ices etc. Detai led information on the procedure re lat ing to Quest ions is a lso given in the Bul let in. The Provis ional Calendar, Chart showing dates of answering quest ions and the last date of receiv ing not ices of quest ions perta in ing to var ious Minist r ies/Departments are issued to Members, a long wi th Summons, for their information.

7. In order to give Members advance information of the Government business to be transacted by both Houses of Par l iament , the Minister /Minister of State of Par l iamentary Affai rs makes a statement in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha every week regarding the Government business to be taken up in the succeeding week. Besides, the progress of business is constant ly and closely moni tored so that adjustments, i f needed, could be made at short not ice. In actual pract ice, such adjustments are required to be made on a day to day basis. For th is purpose, the Minist ry of Par l iamentary Affa i rs suppl ies the order of Government business to the Secretar iats of both Houses for inc lus ion in the List of Business.Business Advisory Committee8. The ro le of Business Advisory Committee in the matter of a l locat ion of t ime for the business to be t ransacted in the Rajya Sabha assumes cr i t ica l importance. I t is the nodal Committee, headed by the Chairman, Rajya Sabha. The leaders of a l l major part ies are represented in th is Commit tee which consis ts of 11 Members. However, in order to make the Committee as broad based as possible, so that i ts recommendat ions could be acceptable to a l l sect ions of the House, leaders of groups having a strength of f ive or more, which do not f ind representat ion in the Commit tee, are inv ited to attend i ts meet ings as special invi tees. The Leader of the House or Minister(s) in charge of Par l iamentary Af fa i rs are nominated as Members of the Committee. The Leader of the Opposi t ion, i f not a l ready a Member of the Commit tee, is invi ted as a special invi tee. The Commit tee al locates t ime for the discussion of such Government legis lat ive and other business as the Chairman, in consultat ion wi th the Leader of the House, may direct to refer to the Committee. The i tems of business to be t ransacted dur ing Government t ime, part icular ly legis lat ive proposals , are normal ly p laced before the Business Advisory Commit tee for a l locat ion of t ime. The suggest ions made by the Government in that regard are considered by the Committee and the recommendations of the Committee are reported to the House by the Chair in the form of an announcement on the same day on which the si t t ing of the Commit tee is held or the next day. As per the wel l establ ished pract ice, the announcement is t reated as f inal and no formal motion in respect thereof is moved. The recommendations of the Committee, as announced in

the House, are not i f ied in Par l iamentary Bul let in Part- I I for the information of the Members of the House. As regards the transact ion of the Private Members Business, unless the Chairman otherwise di rects, not less than two and a hal f hours of s i t t ing on Friday is a l lot ted for the purpose.

9. Whi le consider ing the al locat ion of t ime to var ious i tems of bus iness, the Commit tee takes into account such factors as the volume and signi f icance of the Bi l l , the interest of Members in a subject, the t ime taken on simi lar matters in the past or in the other House, the need and urgency of a measure to be disposed or d iscussed expedi t iously or otherwise and the tota l t ime at the disposal of the House. No change in the al locat ion of t ime shal l be made, except by the Chairman, who may make such var iat ion i f he is sat is f ied, af ter tak ing the sense of the House, that there is a general agreement for such change.Management of Government Business – Role of Minister(s) of Parliament Affairs10. Management of Government business demands a lot of sk i l l and dexter i ty on the part of the Minister of Par l iamentary Af fa i rs . As the Chief Whip of the party in power, he must ensure the at tendance of Members of h is party as a lso of the support ing part ies, i f any. The ro le of the Government whip has assumed cr i t ical importance in the context of the coal i t ion government , which has emerged a d ist inct feature of our parl iamentary system of government in recent t imes. The dut ies of the Government Chief Whip are onerous as he has to be in c lose and constant contact wi th the Pres id ing Off icers, the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposit ion, Chief Whips and Whips of var ious part ies and groups and the Members. He has to constant ly feel the pulse of the House and appr ise the Leader of the House about the unfold ing si tuat ion in the House.

11. The Minister of Par l iamentary Affa irs, as the Chief Whip of the Government , is assisted by the Ministers of State, drawn from both the Houses, in discharging his funct ions. In the Rajya Sabha, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Par l iamentary Af fa i rs d ischarges the funct ions of the Government Whip. His main responsibi l i t ies inc lude: to decide about the spacing of Par l iament Session, adjust the sessional programme between the two Houses, f inal ise the Government Business in consultat ion wi th the Ministers of the Government of India, ensure that the Government legis lat ive, non- legis lat ive and f inancia l business is t ransacted in accordance wi th the planned schedule, announce weekly Government business, send not ices to Members ( i .e. the Whip) indicat ing the urgency and importance of the business, prepare roster of duty to ensure presence of some Ministers in the House to attend to important work in the Parl iament , assist Members by prov iding them general guidance, information and mater ial , provide l ist of speakers who would speak on Bi l ls and other business in the House to enable the Chair to cal l the Members to speak, suggest names of Members for appointment on var ious par l iamentary committees and other bodies or for inclusion in var ious par l iamentary delegat ions, at tend meet ings of the Business Advisory Committee for discussion and al lotment of t ime for var ious i tems of the Government business etc. The day-to-day funct ioning of Par l iament involves c lose coordinat ion between the Whips of d i f ferent part ies to ensure that the Government business gets through. A large part of these interact ions are informal in nature.

12. The pr inc ipal task of the Government Chief Whip is the arrangement of Government business in the House. He ensures that in spi te of the act iv i t ies of the Opposi t ion, by the end of the session, Parl iament has passed al l the legis lat ions and completed al l other business which the Government has planned for that period. Cooperat ion among the part ies assumes importance to ensure that opposit ion

part ies are g iven a reasonable chance to vent i la te the gr ievances of the people, and the Government a reasonable opportuni ty to get i ts legis lat ions passed in the House. The day-to-day working arrangements and compromises are made through what are cal led the ‘usual channels’ , a par l iamentary phrase which covers the close and informal working re lat ionships between the Whips of d i f ferent part ies. Role of Whips of other Part ies13. In the par l iamentary form of government, whips of var ious pol i t ical part ies are the vi ta l l inks of the internal organisat ion of part ies inside the legis latures. The eff ic ient and smooth funct ioning of legis latures depends, to a considerable extent , on the off ice of the Whip. They are truly the managers of part ies wi th in the legis latures. Each party has a whip or a number of whips, depending upon i ts numerical s trength in the House. Under the Leaders and Chief Whips of Recognized Part ies and Groups in Parl iament (Faci l i t ies) Act , 1998 in respect of Counci l of States, ‘Recognised Party ’ means every party which has a st rength of not less than twenty f ive Members and ‘Recognised Group’ means, every party which has a strength of not less than f i f teen Members. Whips of the opposit ion part ies p lay an important role by keeping their Members informed about important developments relat ing to the business of the House and ensur ing the presence and part ic ipat ion of Members of their respect ive part ies in the House, especia l ly during important d iscussions and vot ing. They play an equal ly important ro le in maintain ing the standard of debates in the Par l iament. They also interact wi th the Presid ing Of f icers and the Secretar iats of both Houses on behal f of their part ies and Members to ensure eff ic ient coordinat ion vis a v is the complex requirements of par l iamentary procedures, pract ices and convent ions. I t may be worthwhi le to mention that a Member who votes or abstains f rom vot ing, contrary to the Whip of the party, runs the r isk of los ing his seat in the House under the Const i tut ion (Fi f ty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, popular ly known as Ant i -Defect ion Act . All India Whips’ Conference14. Given the important ro le of the whips in the planning and conduct of par l iamentary business for ensur ing smooth funct ioning of the Par l iament and State Legislatures, the idea of organising an Al l India Whips’ Conference was conceived to provide the whips an appropr iate forum for per iodical meet ings and mutual exchange of v iews on issues of par l iamentary s igni f icance. The f i rst Al l India Whips’ Conference was held in September 1952 and 15 Conferences have been held so far . The object of convening the Conference was to establ ish a sui table l ink amongst the Whips who are concerned wi th the pract ical working of the legis latures, to d iscuss matters of common concern and evolve standards to strengthen the inst i tut ions of par l iamentary democracy. The Minis try of Par l iamentary Af fa i rs organises th is Conference, which usual ly makes a number of recommendat ions for smooth and eff ic ient work ing of Par l iament and the State Legis latures in the l ight of the exper ience gained by the Whips.

15. I t may be worthwhi le to mention the recommendations made by the 13th Al l India Whips Conference held in 2005 in the context of the management of the par l iamentary business and the consul tat ion between Government and Leaders/Chief Whips. The Conference inter al ia emphasised the need for regular consul tat ion between Government, leaders and whips of the opposit ion part ies for the smooth funct ioning of the legis latures. To strengthen democracy and democrat ic values, the Conference fe l t that a l l concerned should take act ive steps to promote greater interact ion between the Government and chief whips of a l l part ies. Greater understanding can develop i f meet ings between the Minister of Par l iamentary Af fa i rs /Government Chief Whips and Chief Whips of d i f ferent part ies are held at

least on alternat ive days dur ing the session and at least once dur ing every inter-session per iod. An occasional informal meet ing wi th the Pr ime Minis ter /Chief Minister wi l l a lso be immensely benef ic ial to foster greater mutual understanding. I t fur ther emphasised the need for a wel l planned and coordinated effor t to deal wi th the volume and complexi ty of legis lat ive and other business in Par l iament and State Legislatures so that valuable t ime of the House is wel l ut i l ised. The Conference fe l t that notwithstanding any di f ference amongst the var ious pol i t ica l part ies on an issue, i t is in the interest of a l l that the legis lat ive and other business in the House is t ransacted smoothly.Leader of the House16. The Leader of the House is an important par l iamentary funct ionary and exerc ises di rect inf luence on the course of parl iamentary business. The arrangement of the Government business is the ult imate responsib i l i ty of the Leader of the House. However, in actual pract ice, subject to h is approval , the detai ls regarding the Government business are worked out by the Minister of Par l iamentary Affa irs, who is the Chief Whip of the Government as stated earl ier . As per the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha, the Leader of the House means the Pr ime Minister , i f he is a Member of the House, or a Minister who is a Member of the House and is nominated by the Pr ime Minister to funct ion as Leader of the House.

17. The Leader of the House occupies the f i rs t seat in the Chamber at the r ight s ide of the Chair. He is avai lable for consul tat ion to the Presid ing Off icer. Under the rules, he is consul ted by the Chairman in regard to the arrangement of Government business in the House; a l lotment of days or a l locat ion of t ime for d iscussion of the matters referred to in the Pres ident ’s Address; t ransact ion of pr ivate members’ bus iness on any day other than Fr iday, which is normal ly f ixed for pr ivate members’ bus iness; short durat ion discussions; considerat ion and return of a Money Bi l l ; d iscussion on no-day-yet-named motions etc. Besides, Leader of the House is a lso informal ly consul ted by the Chairman in the matter of adjournment or otherwise of the House for the day in the event of death of an outstanding personal i ty , nat ional leader or internat ional d igni tary. As the Leader of the House performs al l encompassing role in the funct ioning of the House, including planning of the business of the House, he is held in h igh esteem by the ent i re House.Leader of the Opposit ion18. In par l iamentary democracy, the ro le of the opposi t ion assumes importance in excor iat ing the Government for i ts fa i lures and lapses. In fact, the Government and the opposi t ion are based on the covenant whereby the minor i ty agrees that the major i ty must govern, and the major i ty agrees that the minor i ty should cr i t ic ise. The Government has the legi t imate r ight to formulate pol ic ies and propose legis lat ive business, including the schedul ing of Par l iamentary session. The opposit ion d ischarges i ts responsib i l i ty of construct ive cr i t ic ism by demanding debates and discussion on important issues. There is thus a popular saying that whi le the Government can have i ts way, the opposit ion should be al lowed to have i ts say. The task of the Leader of the Opposi t ion may, therefore, not be as onerous as that of the Leader of the House, but i t is nonetheless of paramount importance. He, among other th ings, watches for encroachments on the r ights of minori t ies and demands debates on the issues when the Government of the day avoids the par l iamentary scrut iny. In India, the Leaders of the Opposit ion in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha are accorded statutory recognit ion under the Salary and Al lowances of Leaders of Opposi t ion in Parl iament Act, 1977.Private Members Business

19. Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha afford opportuni t ies to Members (who are not Minis ters) to ra ise issues of urgent publ ic importance and vent i la te the gr ievances of the people through various procedural devices l ike Cal l ing Attent ion, Short Durat ion Discussion, Specia l Ment ions, No-day-yet-Named Mot ions, Half -an-Hour Discussion etc. Besides, the Pr ivate Members ’ Bi l ls and Resolut ions are taken up al ternat ively for two-and-a-hal f hours, normal ly on Fr idays. The Cabinet Committee on Par l iamentary Affa i rs determines the Government’s stand on the Pr ivate Members’ Bi l ls and Resolut ions l is ted and put down for considerat ion of the two Houses of Parl iament . In i ts meet ings, the Committee decides whether the Bi l ls & Resolut ions need to be opposed or the Members concerned be requested to wi thdraw the Bi l ls /Resolut ions. In the Lok Sabha, there is Commit tee on Pr ivate Members’ Bi l ls and Resolut ions, which examines and classi f ies al l Pr ivate Members’ Bi l ls according to their nature, urgency and importance af ter they have been introduced and before they are taken up for considerat ion in the House. I t recommends al lotment of t ime to Private Members’ Bi l ls and Resolut ions. The report of the Committee is adopted in the House on the day al lot ted for Pr ivate Members’ Business on a motion moved by the Chairman or any other Member so author ised by him that the House do agree with the report . On adopt ion of the motion, the class if icat ion of Bi l ls and al locat ion of t ime to Bi l ls and resolut ions become an order of the House.

20. Normal ly the business of the House is arranged in the same order in which i t is furnished by the Minis try of Par l iamentary Af fa i rs . This order is not disturbed unless the Chairman is sat is f ied that there is suf f ic ient ground for such var iat ion or there is consensus in the House in the matter . An i tem of business may also be inc luded in the Lis t of Business i f the leaders of part ies informal ly agree. A Lis t of Business or a revised List of Business containing i tems of Government as a lso Pr ivate Members Business is prepared and made avai lable to each Member before the commencement of the si t t ing of the House on that day.Role of Presiding Off icers21. The Presid ing Off icer , being the custodian of the r ights and pr iv i leges of the Members and the House, has an important ro le to p lay in the ef fect ive management of t ime for t ransact ing the business of the House. He interprets the rules, mainta ins the order and decorum of the House and keeps the Members and the del iberat ions of the House on track. The Chairman, Rajya Sabha, has the ul t imate responsibi l i ty in managing the t ime of the House in such a manner that Members get adequate opportuni ty to ra ise matters of publ ic importance in the l imited t ime at the disposal of the House. The Chairman can direct Members, who persist wi th i r relevant submission or make tedious repet i t ions to d iscont inue their speech, so that the precious t ime of the House is ef fect ively ut i l ised for t ransact ing the l isted business.

22. In the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha, there are several prov is ions highl ight ing the ro le of the Chairman in regulat ing the business of the House so that the parl iamentary t ime could be ef fect ively managed. From t ime to t ime, rul ings and observat ions have been made by the Chairman giv ing proper d i rect ions for conduct ing the business of the House. In fact , the Chairman has the author i ty to schedule the business of the House in order to deal wi th the emerging si tuat ions and thereby ensure bet ter t ime management in the House. For instance, the Chairman, having regard to the s tate of business, can direct the days of s i t t ings of the Counci l of States which concludes at such hour as he may direct .Regulating Zero Hour Submissions: Matters Raised with Permission of the Chair

23. Whi le there are several formal par l iamentary devices for ra is ing matters of publ ic interest, Members, however, wish to raise informal ly matters of urgent publ ic importance in the House after the Quest ion Hour. This t ime has been col loquia l ly termed as `Zero Hour’ . As such, there is no procedure prescr ibed in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha to regulate the Zero Hour submissions. However, in order to product ively ut i l ise the scarce par l iamentary t ime as also to afford opportuni ty to a large number of Members to g ive expression to publ ic concerns, a need was fe l t , f rom t ime to t ime, to regulate the Zero Hour submissions. Several in i t ia t ives had been taken by successive Chairmen in the past to put in p lace procedures acceptable to a l l sect ions of the House. These submissions have come to be known as “Matters Raised with Permission of the Chair” .

24. As per the exist ing procedure, a Member who wishes to ra ise a matter of urgent publ ic importance on a part icular day, should g ive not ice of his or her intent ion to the Chairman latest by 10 a.m. on that day and should indicate in the not ice a synopsis of the matter that he or she wishes to raise, just i fy ing therein i ts urgency and importance. The Chairman, on examinat ion and considerat ion of a l l such not ices, may admit them to be ra ised as ‘Matters Raised wi th Permission’ ; these matters wi l l be ra ised af ter the quest ions and laying of papers, i f any, on the Table and before any other i tem in the List of Business is taken up. For not ices admit ted by the Chairman, the concerned Member would be given three minutes to raise the mat ter in br ief . Further, at the end of this per iod of 3 minutes assigned for making the submiss ion and shown on the Electronic Display Board as a count-down manner, the mike is cut of f . Not more than one submission as ‘matter raised wi th permission’ shal l be permit ted on one subject. No Member shal l be al lowed to make more than one submission as ‘matter ra ised wi th permission’ in a week. As decided in the Leaders ’ meet ing taken by the Chairman on 11 March, 2008, not more than ten matters would be permit ted to be ra ised wi th permission on a day.

25. In order to opt imise the output of the Quest ion Hour, and at the same t ime al low Members regular opportuni ty to mention matters of urgent concern wi th the permission of the Chair , the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, d i rected in March 2011 dur ing the Budget Session that such mat ters would be ra ised at 11.00 a.m. I t was decided to shi f t the Quest ion Hour, on an exper imental bas is, to the f i rs t hour af ter lunch. However, i t was subsequent ly decided by the Chairman, in consul tat ion with the leaders of the part ies, that the Quest ion Hour would be restored to i ts or ig inal t iming from 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon from the 1st August 2011 onwards. Meeting of the Presiding Off icers with Leaders of Parties26. Mult i -par ty system has become a regular feature of the composi t ion of both the Houses of Indian Par l iament. At present , as many as th i r ty-e ight part ies are represented in the Lok Sabha and twenty-seven in the Rajya Sabha. Every party , i rrespect ive of i ts numerical strength, demands adequate t ime for part ic ipat ion in par l iamentary del iberat ions. However, in actual pract ice, whi le the bigger part ies get most of the t ime al located to an i tem of business, smal ler part ies and independents have to be content wi th lesser t ime in proport ion to their strength in the House. Therefore, g iven the large number of pol i t ica l part ies, a l locat ing the avai lable t ime equi tably is certain ly not an easy task for the Presid ing Of f icer. Similar ly, par l iamentary del iberat ions are a lso obstructed when Members raise sensi t ive pol i t ica l issues even though they do not form part of the agreed agenda before the House. Disorderly scenes in the House leave the Pres iding Off icer wi th no choice but to adjourn the House, which not only leads to wastage of the valuable t ime of the House but a lso lowers the image of par l iamentary inst i tut ions as wel l as

legis lators in publ ic est imat ion. To address th is problem, there is a pract ice of the Presid ing Off icer cal l ing a meeting of the Leaders of Part ies in the House, on the eve of every session to d iscuss mat ters l ike ly to be ra ised by Members dur ing the Session. I t provides a forum for informal discussions between the Leaders and the Government on the issues agi tat ing the Members and which they are most l ike ly to raise in the House. I t helps in better management of the business of the House.

27. Besides, the Chairman, Rajya Sabha convenes, every morning before the si t t ing of the House, a meeting of Leaders of Part ies to discuss the l isted business of the House as wel l as the matters l ike ly to be ra ised by the Members them in the House. Such meet ings help the Chairman in understanding the mood of the House and determine the pr ior i ty of matters to be ra ised. I t saves the precious t ime that would have been wasted i f those matters are ra ised unexpectedly instant ly on the f loor of the House.Presiding Off icers Conference28. The issues re lat ing to the funct ioning of the Par l iament and State Legislatures, including the planning and management of the business of the House, are per iodical ly d iscussed in the Conference of the Presid ing Off icers of Legislat ive Bodies in India held annual ly. The Conference has emphasised the need for greater coordinat ion among the Presiding Off icers, the Leaders of the Houses and Leaders of the Opposi t ion, and proper regulat ion of the Zero Hour to raise only very ser ious and urgent issues of publ ic importance. I t has also held that there should be more t ime avai lable for non-Government business and two days in a week should be al lot ted for Pr ivate Members Business. Taking note of the reduct ion in the number of s i t t ings of the Par l iament and State Legislatures and f requent d isrupt ions, which derai l the scheduled business, resul t ing in loss of the prec ious t ime of the House, the Conference has emphasised that smal ler States should have at least s ixty s i t t ings in a year and larger States as wel l the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha 100 si t t ings in a year. These si t t ings should also be spel t out in terms of an organised calendar, as far as pract icable, each House decid ing i ts own t imings according to local condi t ions.

29. Some of the suggest ions given by the Vice-President of India and the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, to deal wi th the si tuat ion caused due to the wi l l fu l obstruct ion of the proceedings of the House at the Fourteenth Al l India Whips Conference held at Mumbai in February 2008, deserve serious considerat ion. He said that i f t ime is lost due to d isrupt ions i t should be compensated for , the same day, by si t t ing beyond normal hours. The Chair should take th is up wi th the whips, on a dai ly bas is, incidents of v io lat ions of behavioral norms by Members. He further said that the del iberat ive ro le of Par l iament could be restored by increasing the number of i ts s i t t ings per annum to about 130, in l ines wi th the of US Congress, which remains in Session for 150 days in a year, on an average. Conclusion30. The ro le and responsib i l i t ies of legis latures in modern t imes have increased enormously due to the growth and expansion of developmental and wel fare ini t ia t ives of the Government . The legis lat ive and oversight funct ions of the legis latures have assumed cr i t ica l importance in promoting the wel fare of the people. Consider ing the heavy demand on par l iamentary t ime, p lanning, organis ing and managing the par l iamentary business has become a chal lenging task for the key par l iamentary funct ionar ies. Eff ic ient t ime management has, therefore, emerged as the key to promoting eff ic ient funct ioning of the legis latures. In this context, the signi f icance of formal as wel l as informal channels, involv ing consul tat ion,

negot iat ions and agreements among the parl iamentary funct ionar ies, especia l ly whips of the government and the opposi t ion part ies can have the desired effect on smooth funct ioning of the legis latures. Government business being the main component of the par l iamentary business, the responsib i l i t ies of the Leader of the House and the Minister(s) of Par l iamentary Affa i rs, in p lanning the Government legis lat ive agenda sett ing i t in motion in the Par l iament are enormous, which require a great deal of ski l l and dexter i ty on their part . In c lose coordinat ion with the Presid ing Off icers as wel l as the f loor leaders of the opposi t ion part ies, the Government t r ies to ensure smooth passage of i ts legis lat ive and other business in the scheduled durat ion of par l iament session. This aspect assumes more importance in the context of the reduct ion in the number of s i t t ings of the legis lature to transact par l iamentary business. Given the volume and complexi ty of legis lat ive and other business t ransacted in the legis latures, the need for a wel l p lanned and coordinated effor ts can hardly be over emphasised. Better p lanning and management of the business of the legis latures is , therefore, the outcome of greater coordinat ion amongst the Presid ing Off icers, the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposi t ion and Chief Whips/Whips of the Part ies in the House. I t is also imperat ive for the Members to ensure that whi le part ic ipat ing in debates and discussions, they act wi th sel f- rest ra in and their conduct should not go contrary to the set procedures and establ ished convent ions of the House. The Code of Conduct a lso prescribes certa in do’s and don’ ts for the Members which inter a l ia include that Members must not do anything that br ings disrepute to the Par l iament and affects their credib i l i ty . This assumes s igni f icance when the legis latures face a cr i t ical chal lenge of dec l in ing publ ic t rust and conf idence. The parl iamentary t ime in p lanning and transact ing the business of the House should be opt imal ly ut i l ised, which would go a long way in s trengthening the regime of legis lat ive oversight of the execut ive.

31. Highl ight ing the ro le of Parl iament in the successful funct ioning of democracy, the Pres ident of India, in her address to the nat ion on the eve of the 65th Independence Day, inter al ia said, “Par l iament represents people from al l parts of our country and a broad spectrum of pol i t ica l thought . I ts legis lat ion is an outcome of col lect ive thinking and appl icat ion of minds. The di f ferent shades of opin ion should be channel ised through elected representat ives for the formulat ion of necessary legis lat ion”. The President reminded that, “We have to preserve the democrat ic values of our country and, for this, heal thy convent ions of par l iamentary procedures should be upheld” . ”

Mr. Sadettin KALKAN (Turkey) presented the fo l lowing contr ibut ion :IntroductionSett ing up the Par l iamentary agenda is of v i tal importance for the parl iamentary work. There is a d i rect re lat ion between forming the par l iamentary agenda and the agenda of the government . This fact makes i t compulsory to deeply focus on how to p lan the agenda of the par l iament . Every par l iament has their own method in c lose connect ion wi th the type of their par l iamentary system and in re lat ion with the government . In some cases, the Par l iaments would be in front, whereas in others, the governments have the weight to determine the agenda. There are a lso cases in which the governments and the par l iaments set the agenda together. But in general , the responsibi l i ty rests wi th the government , par l iament, speaker, leaders of the pol i t ica l party groups, advisory or a specia l committee.

Consultative Committee

In the Turkish Par l iament case, as in many others, there is a Consul tat ive (Advisory) Commit tee. The Committee is presided by the Speaker of the Par l iament and composed of the Chairmen or Vice-Chairmen of the pol i t ica l party groups. But on behal f of themselves, the Chairmen or Vice-Chairmen would a lso nominate an ordinary member of the par l iament at tached to their party group. To give br ief ly: out of 550, you have to have 20 Members in order to form a pol i t ica l party group in the Par l iament and current ly we have 4 pol i t ica l groups which may increase or decrease by t ime dur ing the par l iamentary term.

Regardless of their proport ion in the Par l iament, every pol i t ica l group is equal ly represented in the Consul tat ive Committee. The Commit tee is s tated in the rules of procedure but doesn’ t have const i tut ional base. And more, i ts recommendations are not b inding but advisory. However, th is doesn’ t mean that they are d isregarded in the s i t t ings. On the contrary, i t has become a general pract ise to comply wi th the recommendat ions of the Committee and in the plenary sess ions, wi th rare except ions, their recommendat ions are adopted wi thout a change.

The Commit tee has the funct ion of establ ishing dia logue among the groups, which provides reconci l iat ion and regulat ion of the Par l iamentary act iv i t ies. Furthermore, i t is an effect ive organ in determining the parl iamentary agenda, t iming of the si t t ings and important dut ies have been given to the Consul tat ive Commit tee as set out in many art ic les of the Rules of Procedure.

In th is regard, the Committee general ly g ives recommendations on the fo l lowing issues: (not a l l l is ted)

- Not going into par l iamentary recess- Parl iamentary adjournment- Formation of the Bureau of the Assembly and representat ion of the pol i t ica l party

groups in the Bureau- Sett ing the number of the members in the parl iamentary commit tees- Taking advisory decis ion for star t ing immediate del iberat ions on a draft b i l l o f

laws wi th in 48 hours of their submit tal to the re levant commit tees- Taking the decree laws into the agenda of the plenary which are not del iberated

in the relevant commit tees in the given t ime.- Sett ing the t ime schedule of issues regarding the oversight funct ion of the

Par l iament.- Sett ing elect ion dates for :

President of the Republic, The Speaker of the Parl iament , Members of the Supreme Board of Radio and Televis ion, President and Members of the Court of Accounts.

- Changing the order of the draft bi l ls of laws to be debated.- Private agenda

General d iscussion Reports of the Inquiry committees Parl iamentary invest igat ions and the relevant reports Budget Law Reports of the re levant committees set out in the ru les of procedure Presentat ion of the governmental programme, i ts del iberat ions and

vote of conf idence Deliberat ions on the development p lans

- Except ional s i t t ings of the Parl iament which is not declared in advance - Changing the dates and hours of the si t t ings- Changing the durat ion of speeches- Re-del iberat ions of issues in the plenary s i t t ings- Basic laws- Declarat ion of the minutes of the closed sessions- Deliver ing recommendations on the issues that the Speaker asked upon.

The Consul tat ive Commit tee is convened wi thin 24 hours, by the cal l of the Speaker or on the request of a pol i t ica l party group. In the Committee, the recommendations are decided unanimously. In case, there is no consensus among the Members on the matter of subject, the Speaker or the pol i t ica l party groups may separately submit their re lated recommendat ion direct ly to the General Assembly. In that case, i t is taken into agenda and be voted in the plenary s i t t ing.

In the provis ional draf t amendments to the ru les of procedures prepared, the Consul tat ive Commit tee is foreseen to be given greater author i ty and funct ions.Informal talks between the Vice-Chairmen of the Poli t ical Party GroupsBeside the Consul tat ive Committee, the Vice-Chairmen of the pol i t ica l party groups may have informal ta lks among each other dur ing the del iberat ions in the Plenary s i t t ings. They try to reconci le on the issues of conf l icts or a lso speed up to take an important issue into the agenda. Those informal ta lks would a lso be held in the Commit tee level on the issues which the ru l ing and opposi t ion part ies cannot agree. This mechanism is a lso effect ive on agenda sett ing of our Par l iament. ConclusionThe order of the draft b i l ls of laws to be debated in the Plenary sessions are given automatical ly wi thout giv ing a pr ior i ty to any of them. In our case, i t is the Consul tat ive Commit tee to change the order of the bi l ls to take the important ones to the top of the agenda. The Commit tee is a lso determining in set t l ing the content of the agenda. The informal talks among the Vice-Chairmen of the pol i t ica l party groups are also considered as a surplus for solv ing the deadlocks in the legis lat ive process. Needless to say, not only the agenda set t ing and i ts annual schedule are important in gett ing the parl iamentary work eff ic ient but also the mechanisms to handle the draft bi l ls of laws have the same importance. That is to say, i f the Commit tee level is kept short and instead the bi l l is mainly del iberated in the plenary level , that g ives a great burden to the plenary d iscussions and requires a lot of t ime wi th in the annual programme of the par l iament. Therefore, I assume, i t is of h igh signi f icance to seek for more eff ic ient and less t ime consuming procedures for handl ing the draf t b i l ls of laws. Nevertheless, sett ing the agenda stable and enabl ing i ts predictabi l i ty h ighly contr ibutes to the work of the Par l iament , as wel l as to i ts credib i l i ty and transparency wi th g iv ing the publ ic and the c iv i l society the opportuni ty to supervise the agenda. But in other hand, one has to th ink about the possib i l i ty of over load of issues to occupy the agenda for a long term, in which s i tuat ion i t is important to put a mechanism to deal wi th breaking and urgent issues which needs to be handled as a pr ior i ty. In our case, i t is the Consul tat ive Committee.”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr Marc BOSC and al l the members present for their useful contr ibut ions, and opened the debate to the f loor .

Mr A. PAPAIOANNOU (Greece) described the work ings of the bureau of h is Par l iament. Minutes were taken, but not publ ished. There were very few leaks. Decis ions were usual ly unanimous, a l though the usual requirement was for a three-f i f ths major i ty. Independent Members of Par l iament were not represented, and in Greece, part ies had to have at least f i f teen elected Members to be val id ly const i tuted. Dissenters wi th in pol i t ical part ies could also complain that their v iews were not taken into account . Usual ly, however, the system worked wel l . Pr ivate informal meetings were a good way of reaching agreement on content ious issues.

Mrs LUQUIENS (France) said that the French system was simi lar to that in Canada and Greece. There was a conference of Presidents, involv ing the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers, Committee chairs and leaders of pol i t ica l groups; in 2008, the system of a l locat ing t ime had been changed f rom one dominated almost ent i rely by the government, to one more evenly d iv ided between government and other business. In pract ice the system worked f lex ib ly.

Mr NOMBRE (Burkina Faso) said that the system in h is country was also similar to that descr ibed by France and Greece. The Government set the pr ior i t ies through a let ter sent by the Pr ime Minister to the Speaker, but the order in which business was taken was set by a conference of Speakers and Chairmen. Bi l ls emanating from Par l iament had to be sent to the Government for their v iews, and the Government could object.

Mr MANSURA (South Africa) said that his par l iament was more formal than informal in i ts programming of business. This was because of c lose scrut iny by the publ ic and media. There was a calendar for the coming year (a lthough Mr Mansura hoped this might change into a f ive-year programme). There was a formal weekly meet ing of a programming commit tee chaired by the Speaker; this was open to the publ ic and media, who took great interest in i t . There was a technical assessment by House staff of what legis lat ion would be ready for considerat ion. This then went to a c losed meet ing of the chief whips ’ forum, where al l the bargain ing took place. There was then a consensus presented at the formal meeting that took place each Thursday. The Speaker was consul ted at every point .

Mr ALBA NAVARRO (Spain) had read that the one decid ing the business of the House is i ts master . Now, the media were the masters of the House. Par l iament in Spain was in pract ice very informal in i ts decis ion-making processes. Standing Orders could be set aside i f there was a consensus to do so. Informal i ty brought problems, however, for par l iamentary staff , and quest ions around who was ent i t led to attend informal meetings, and what publ ic money could be spent on them.

Mr SOCRATOUS (Cyprus) said that in h is Parl iament , an informal body compris ing the Speaker and party leaders met once a week to decide on the business to be taken. Ministers were somet imes invi ted to expla in government b i l ls . Some Members d id not l ike having an informal body taking decis ions of this k ind.

Mr HAMILTON (Netherlands) said that there were twelve pol i t ical part ies in the two Houses of the States General . The Government had nothing to do wi th sett ing Par l iament’s agenda. A pol i te let ter to the Speaker was the only way of expedi t ing government business. The Speaker of each House decided on the agenda for the plenary. A wise Speaker avoided f ights and sought consensus. A col lege of e lders met weekly, and was of ten consulted. I t was for the re levant committee to decide i f a b i l l was ready for considerat ion in the plenary.

Mr OLLARD (UK) said that in the UK, the Government set the par l iamentary agenda, a lthough in the House of Lords, th is was largely through informal negot iat ion with other part ies and indiv idual Members. A pr inc iple of mutual benef i t appl ied where governing part ies thought that they themselves might soon be in opposi t ion. But this pr incip le was breaking apart in the House of Lords. Some par l iamentary staf f were seconded to work for the Government in the House of Lords to jo in up the dots. In a b icameral par l iament, there was also a need for negot iat ion between the two Houses as to progress of business.

Mr SCHWAB (Switzer land) said that i t was Par l iament ’s duty in his country to set i ts own pace for making progress in business. Government never intervened in the par l iamentary programme, other than discreet ly and dip lomat ical ly. There was no major i ty or opposi t ion in Par l iament, but rather a mul t i -par ty system with f lu id coal i t ions of interest . Both Chambers had the same remit : a l l laws had to be passed by both. This made organising the agenda a more complex matter . Agreement between the two secretar ies general was cruc ia l to smooth progress of business. The two Speakers decided on their own author i ty which draft laws should begin in which Chamber. This was a f inely tuned mechanism that would fa l l apart i f one part were removed.

Mr PAPAIOANNOU (Greece) added to h is ear l ier comments that whi le the Government was not formal ly represented in the process of decis ion-making on the par l iamentary t imetable, the major i ty of those involved in the process belonged to the party of Government. The Government would therefore normal ly get i ts way!

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , said that h is country, Algeria, was exper ienc ing a phase of major pol i t ica l t rans it ion. Informal meetings were extremely important in th is context, to g ive the Speaker a good sense of how pol i t ical opin ions were div ided. I t was not a lways the case that Speakers of the two Houses got on wel l , and th is could cause di f f icu l t ies. Al locat ion of speaking t imes was discussed at informal meet ings of the co-ordinat ion commit tee. He asked Mr Bosc i f speaking t imes in the Canadian House of Commons were l imi ted, and i f so, how.

Mr BOSC (Canada) said that informal arrangements were by their nature extremely fragi le unt i l they were successful . In Canada they tended to depend on unanimous consent . A f ine balance could be easi ly upset by a s ingle Member, perhaps because he had not been given the opportuni ty to speak in a debate, or because his off ice was smaller than he wanted. There were many possib le t ime l imi ts in the Canadian House of Commons. Informal agreements were often aimed precisely at rest r ic t ing speaking t imes to speed up the work of Parl iament . He thanked members for their part ic ipat ion in a useful debate.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr BOSC and other members who had contr ibuted to the debate.

2. Communication by Mr OUM Sarith, Secretary General of the Senate of Cambodia: “The rationale and background conducive to the establishment of the Parliamentary Institute of Cambodia and the strategic development of the Parliamentary Institute of Cambodia”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invi ted Mr OUM Sar i th, Secretary General of the Senate of Cambodia, accompanied by Mr Kim-Yeat DARARITH, Director of the Par l iamentary Inst i tute of Cambodia, to present h is communicat ion, as fol lows:

“The purpose of The Par l iamentary Inst i tute of Cambodia (PIC) is to become a centre of excel lence in par l iamentary development, support ing and enhancing the capacity and improving the performance of the Cambodian parl iament .

The current governance context in Cambodia is of one of a strong execut ive branch and a much weaker parl iament . Whi le the execut ive has been cont inuously strengthened through among others, internat ional assistance, the Par l iament has remained weak due to cont inued l imi ted pol i t ica l understanding of i ts value and ut i l i ty and inadequate technical and f inancia l support avai lable for i ts development.

Both the Nat ional Assembly and Senate’s Strategic Framework and Act ion Plan for Capaci ty Bui lding of the Cambodian Parl iament (2007) and the Strategic Framework and Act iv i ty Plan for Capaci ty Strengthening of Cambodian Senate (2007-2018) out l ine the need for and intent ion to establ ish a par l iamentary inst i tute/centre to support the legis lature. 1.1 Governance DevelopmentThe Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) is committed to a mul t i-party, part ic ipatory democrat ic system and views th is as key to the attainment of the Cambodian Mi l lennium Development Goals (CMDGs).

Since the f i rs t mult i -par ty e lect ions in 1993, there has been a gradual movement towards a society in which ci t izens part ic ipate more in matters of nat ional importance and contr ibute in decis ion-making processes. Developments include:

The emergence of the communes as important dec is ion-making mechanisms under the decentra l isat ion and de-concentrat ion reforms of the RGC;

Signi f icant empowerment in the areas of gender, human r ights and electoral reform;

The peaceful conduct of e lect ions; Movement towards a mul t i-party cul ture; Increased general interest amongst c i t izens in pol i t ica l act iv i t ies; More posi t ive at t i tudes towards pr incip les of t ransparency and accountabi l i ty ; The format ion of c iv i l society organizat ions which can inf luence democrat ic

governance through stronger pol i t ica l awareness and moni tor ing of pol i t ica l and socio-economic trends.

Despite these achievements, there is need for considerable advancement in a number of essent ia l areas:

The execut ive branch cont inues to dominate over other branches of the democrat ic system, including the Par l iament. These branches remain weak, inexper ienced and ret icent in meeting their fu l l mandates.

Overal l awareness of democrat ic r ights and responsib i l i t ies remains low among the populat ion.

Weak publ ic d ia logue and demand for accountabi l i ty by the media is a fur ther constra int .

Bet ter democrat ic pol i t ica l pract ices are emerging at local levels. The f i rst commune counci l e lect ions in 2003, and the subsequent elect ions of d is tr ict and prov incia l counci l lors in 2009 have enabled the establ ishment of local democrat ic bodies, but publ ic and civ i l society part ic ipat ion in decis ion-making remains l imited. Problems

inc lude capaci ty constraints , fear of part ic ipat ion, l imited inst i tut ional development, and insuff ic ient access to information and resource scarci t ies.

Reducing poverty and meet ing CMDG targets depends to a large degree on the abi l i ty of c i t izens and society to organize, voice their needs, increase pressure for pol icy change and moni tor the government’s performance.

To summarize therefore, whi le progress has been made on the inst i tut ions and basic governance structures necessary for democrat ic development , there is a need for more c lar i ty about the nature of democrat ic pract ices/behaviour and the inst i tut ions required which are sui table to the cul ture and state of soc io-economic development in the country . Improved democrat izat ion processes have emerged, however th is progress has yet to be fu l ly t ranslated into st ronger and more broad-based development pract ices and has not resul ted in a more equi table d is tr ibut ion of the benef i ts of growth to the whole populat ion. Developments such as these can only be expected to emerge in an environment where there is an ever- increasing understanding of democrat ic pract ices and r ights , and in which ci t izens are afforded the opportunity to voice their needs and opin ions.

Support for fur ther progress in Cambodia’s democrat ic development is essent ia l to strengthen and evolve key democrat ic inst i tut ions, and their st ructures at nat ional and sub-nat ional levels . Most important is the way in which these bodies encompass wider publ ic part ic ipat ion in decis ion making, and hold decis ion-makers and serv ice providers accountable for their act ions. Progress in the bui ld ing of such an environment requires long-term, cont inuous and consistent commitment .1.2 The ParliamentOversight by strong democrat ic inst i tut ions, of which the par l iament is key, helps governments to achieve higher eff ic iency, bet ter governance and less corrupt ion, and lower f iscal def ic i ts. Par l iamentary development is a lso important to ensure the balance of power between the branches of a democrat ic system – the Execut ive, Legislat ive and Judic iary, which enables the mechanism of checks and balances essent ial to sustainable economic growth and development.

The Par l iament of Cambodia has made progress over the past decade in fu l f i l l ing i ts democrat ic mandate. The capaci ty of Parl iament to review and adopt laws prepared by the Government has been enhanced; MPs and Senators are more responsive to the needs of their const i tuents; and the General Secretar iats of both houses have made progress in developing professional support services to par l iamentar ians.

However, th is progress is st i l l a t an ear ly s tage, and development of processes to increase inst i tut ional strength and ef fect iveness take considerable t ime and cont inuous effor t . Suff ic ient t ime and resources are needed to consol idate these gains and to make progress in democrat iz ing tradi t ional customs and mindsets, to govern di f ferent ly and more effect ively and to improve performance.

Par l iament needs to be given more pol i t ica l space to develop as a legit imate and effect ive br idge between ci t izens and the government, and as an inst i tut ion that can contr ibute to the substance of government alongside i ts ro le in hold ing other e lements of government to account.

Par l iamentar ians acknowledge that they need to fur ther improve their capaci ty and capabi l i ty to p lay their ro les effect ively. The increasing pol i t ica l wi l l for Par l iament to ful ly develop and play i ts const i tut ional role was recent ly ev idenced by Senate

leadership ’s decis ion to undergo an internat ional ly accepted sel f-evaluat ion process designed by the Inter-Par l iamentary Union. This sel f -evaluat ion concluded that there was a need for extensive changes to working processes and working procedures. Amongst the main areas of endeavour and key issues ident i f ied were the fo l lowing:

Improv ing the legis lat ive funct ion of par l iamentarians : Develop a sustainable mechanism that provides subject-matter expert ise to the technical commissions and al l parl iamentar ians, a l lowing them to provide input into laws and pol ic ies more ef fect ively. Improv ing the representat ion funct ion of par l iamentar ians : Further develop publ ic consul tat ion and outreach pract ices and strengthen the Department for Col lect ive Terr i tory and Regions of the Senate (DoCTR) and the Department of Provincia l Const i tut ional Off ices of the Nat ional Assembly (DoPCO) to help par l iamentar ians have a comprehensive understanding of issues facing Cambodian c i t izens and al low them to respond to these issues.

Improv ing the oversight funct ion of par l iamentar ians : Generate an expert hearing mechanism that permits the Parl iament to oversee the act ions of the government and the implementat ion of legis lat ion in a construct ive manner, and oversee the implementat ion of projects funded by donors and implemented by the execut ive.

Balancing gender part ic ipat ion : Adopt an approach by which gender issues are more ful ly understood and integrated into government development , legis lat ion and publ ic budgets.

Based upon the f indings of this sel f-evaluat ion, the Senate leadership requested that an agency be created to assist Par l iament in addressing these important changes. Establ ishment of the Par l iamentary Inst i tute of Cambodia (PIC) is one of a d irect response to th is request. 1.3 Environment Supporting the Establ ishment of a Parl iamentary Support Institut ionA scan of the internal and external environments conducive to the establ ishment of the PIC emphasized the fo l lowing points:External EnvironmentAgreement of Need and Demonstrat ion of Wi l lThere is general agreement amongst al l pol i t ica l part ies and wi th in the Parl iament i tsel f that there is a pressing need for a neutra l body wi th the responsibi l i ty to support and increase the abi l i ty of par l iament to develop and fu l f i l l i ts democrat ic mandate.

Democrat ic Progress While a l l concerned agree that a fu l ly funct ioning par l iamentary democracy wi l l take many years to evolve, progress is d iscernible and there are increasing possib i l i t ies to make progress on several f ronts. In part icular, there is scope to support aspects of research and ski l ls t ra in ing to support par l iamentarians in the performance of their funct ions relat ing to par l iamentary overs ight, considerat ion of legis lat ion wi th in par l iamentary commiss ions and increasing civ i l society input into decis ion-making on nat ional issues, such as the decentral izat ion process.

Government Resources The Government and Parl iament have agreed to prov ide some of the support required for the establ ishment and operat ion of PIC.

Adherence to the Par is Pr inc iplesThe Paris Pr inc ip les on aid effect iveness have fostered a new development archi tecture that of fers addi t ional opportunit ies for the effect ive development of PIC. Par l iament’s oversight mandate provides an inst i tut ional mechanism for implement ing and overseeing measures consis tent with the Par is Pr incip les in terms of donor supported-programs and projects, such as:

Open development p lanning; Increased governmental f inancial management capabi l i t ies; Better moni tor ing and evaluat ion of development resul ts ; Emphasis on human r ights and reducing corrupt ion.

Internal EnvironmentGovernment Approval The government has formally approved the establ ishment of PIC as a non-governmental organizat ion. This approval gives PIC the mandate to contr ibute to strengthen and support the Par l iament in pursuing the speci f ic object ives summarized above.

Governance and Management StructurePIC now has a governing board, is const i tut ing an advisory commit tee and is recrui t ing addi t ional staff .

Corporate Operat ions and Cul tureAs a result of the successful 10-year operat ion of the Cambodia-Canada Legislat ive Support Project (CCLSP), PIC has inher i ted a st rong corporate cul ture and funct ioning organizat ional s tructure. Al though the establ ishment of a new par l iamentary support inst i tut ion wi l l d i f fer in both form and substance from CCLSP, the inst i tut ional lessons and basic organisat ional elements of CCLSP wi l l nevertheless help to ensure that PIC funct ions effect ively through i ts in i t ia l stages of operat ion.

Successful Del iveryPIC wi l l inher i t the legacy of CCLSP, which establ ished a reputat ion for successful del ivery of par l iamentary support . In addi t ion to an establ ished record of partnership-bui ld ing wi th the par l iament, PIC wi l l gain f rom the high-qual i ty and tested capaci ty-bui ld ing tools , techniques and programs produced under CCLSP, which i t can improve and bui ld upon. Furthermore, i t wi l l inheri t a l ibrary of t rain ing manuals and other publ icat ions that contextual ised for the Cambodian par l iament , and readi ly avai lable for use.

The external and internal env ironments have clearly la id a f i rm foundat ion for PIC’s operat ion, providing many st rong reasons why the PIC should be establ ished and which point towards i ts ef fect ive operat ion. However, the main stumbl ing block is that i ts cont inui ty and sustainabi l i ty wi l l remain dependant on external donor support at this stage of i ts development .

2. The Strategic Development of the Parliamentary Insti tute Centre of Cambodia (PIC)The purpose of PIC is to become a centre of par l iamentary development , support ing and enhancing the capaci ty and improv ing the performance of the Cambodian Par l iament. I t wi l l prov ide expert ise, organize workshops, seminars and tra in ing, and assist in the development of management and procedural tools whi le incorporat ing best pract ice and lessons learned. Al l product ions wi l l be contextual ised and produced in understandable language in accordance wi th the needs of the Par l iament.

PIC has a strong precedent of success, being drawn f rom the exper ience of the 10-year Cambodia-Canada Legislat ive Support Project (CCLSP), funded by the Canadian Internat ional Development Agency (CIDA). Essent ia l ly, the formation of th is new Cambodian agency represents an important ‘sustainabi l i ty outcome’ of CCLSP: the creat ion of a permanent independent body to cont inue support for par l iamentary democracy in Cambodia. 2.1 VISION, MISSION AND CORE VALUESThe vis ion of PIC is to become a nat ional leader and regional partner in democrat ic development, specia l iz ing in the s trengthening of representat ive inst i tut ions and par l iamentary leadership.

The miss ion of PIC is to ass is t legis latures in Cambodia and in the wider region in bui ld ing their capaci ty as effect ive democrat ic inst i tut ions; promoting par l iamentary credib i l i ty and accountabi l i ty, and assist ing legis lators in real iz ing their potent ia l for democrat ic leadership.

The core values of PIC are: credib i l i ty, accountabi l i ty, part ic ipat ion, openness, integr i ty, non-discr iminat ion and transparency.2.2 INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAM STRATEGIESA - Institut ional Strategy:In terms of inst i tut ional development, PIC represents the next s tep in evolv ing CCLSP into a permanent fac i l i ty serving the capaci ty development, in format ion and research needs of par l iament, thus t ransforming a 10-year program (the CCLSP) into a sustained and essent ia l component of democrat ic government in Cambodia.

Conceptual ly, PIC represents a common component of democrat ic governmental structures; a publ ic ly f inanced, non-part isan agency, that remains independent f rom the civ i l service, judic iary and execut ive arms of government, yet meets the research, analysis and development needs of each of these.

I t is very important to bear in mind that in the f i rs t f ive-year period the t ransi t ion from programme to sustainable agency wil l be in i ts in i t ial stage. The ent i re transformat ion process wi l l take much longer, and can only progress in step wi th the evolut ion of democrat ic governance in the country. Furthermore, both the inst i tut ional and programming in i t ia t ives of PIC must be very careful ly cal ibrated, balanced and managed so as to foster yet not exceed the rate at which the government is democrat iz ing. This imperat ive, to progress step-by-step and wi th careful del iberat ion, necessi tates the fo l lowing st rategies:

Engage al l pol i t ica l part ies

To be broadly effect ive, PIC must be, and be seen to be, pol i t ica l ly neutra l . I t must engage and reta in the support of a l l pol i t ica l part ies. The development of pol i t ica l part ies is important for a compet i t ive democrat ic system to take root. This was a cr i t ica l foundat ion and plat form used by CCLSP to ensure program credib i l i ty, demonstrat ing that a non-part isan approach to parl iamentary s trengthening is cruc ia l for success. Mainta in ing equity in s trengthening part ies across the pol i t ica l spectrum is essent ia l in bui ld ing mutual respect and the concept of ‘noble opposi t ion’. I t is key to reducing the levels of animosity, rancour and potent ia l ly v io lent radical ism that can occur in matur ing par l iaments.

Internal ly, bui ld the capaci ty of the PIC to serve the needs of par l iament Although CCLSP prov ided the precedent for PIC, bui ld ing PIC as a new inst i tut ion represents a new chal lenge, and is a cul tural and organizat ional evolut ion f rom the roots of CCLSP. Dur ing the ini t ia l years, the management and operat ional aspect of the agency must be cont inual ly assessed and adjusted to meet the changing issues and context for the Cambodian parl iament .

An important part of the inst i tut ion-bui ld ing chal lenge wi l l be assembl ing and tra in ing PIC staff . I t has been argued that insuff ic ient t ra ined and experienced indiv iduals are avai lable in Cambodia. However, the hi r ing exper ience of CDRI has disproved th is argument. I f PIC can of fer compet i t ive compensat ion and benef i ts , i t wi l l be able to h i re sui table and exper ienced professionals local ly. However, upon hir ing appropr iate staf f members, they must a lso be fur ther tra ined/or iented/sensi t ized to work ef fect ively on par l iamentary-centred research, information gather ing and analysis, as wel l as train ing processes sui table for the effect ive del ivery of PIC’s parl iamentary support programs.B - Programming StrategiesProvide par l iamentary s taff t ra in ing and capaci ty bui ld ing. This support component seeks to increasingly professional ize the work of the Par l iament and i ts const i tuent bodies: elected and appointed members of members of parl iament , secretar iat staf f , and commissions. In so doing, i t ensures the foundat ion and structure - the expert ise, research, informat ion and procedures – upon which legis latures and their commit tees can del iberate and make informed decis ions. I t supports the most fundamental bui ld ing blocks of parl iament as an inst i tut ion.

Reinforcing the parl iamentary strengthening strategy wi l l be courses, workshops, study missions, case studies, on-the- job mentoring/coaching and other hands-on methods. The aim is to produce a var iety of learning exper iences that wi l l a l low indiv iduals and teams to increase their abi l i t ies, and applying these new capaci t ies to real on-the-job si tuat ions. In addit ion, and important ly , new approaches wil l a l low par l iamentar ians and secretar iat staf f to observe ro le models and best pract ices and create profess ional l inks and networks wi th other legis latures.

Al ign wi th Parl iament ’s pr ior i ty areas. As a service inst i tut ion, PIC wi l l be largely dr iven by Par l iament’s legis lat ive agenda and nat ional pr ior i t ies. However, as noted below, because of resource constraints and pol i t ica l considerat ions PIC must select f rom the numerous government pr ior i t ies and focus careful ly on certa in issues of re levance, so as to bui ld and mainta in i ts credib i l i ty wi thin the environment of Cambodia’s maturing parl iamentary democracy.

Target key commissions and themes .

In th is ini t ia l phase of development, PIC wi l l be constra ined not only by the pol i t ica l space avai lable to deal with selected issues, but also the human and monetary resources avai lable to create, bui ld and mainta in a st rong agency.

To th is end PIC wi l l focus pr imar i ly on high pr ior i ty and regulatory commiss ions of par l iament; pr imari ly those commissions involved wi th the budget, decentra l izat ion and de-concentrat ion, poverty reduct ion strategies and government accountabi l i ty and regulatory mechanisms. The focus on these commissions may change according to the needs of the parl iament . Also, s ince opposi t ion party members do not s i t on the commissions, they wi l l be act ively invi ted/recrui ted to part ic ipate in PIC act iv i t ies with targeted commiss ions.

Select the most ef fect ive entry points and approaches. In i t ia l ly , PIC cannot be expected to work on al l mandated par l iamentary funct ions. I t must select those funct ions which the government sanct ions, and which PIC management judges to be integral to the inst i tut ion’s cont inued neutra l i ty. I t is a lso essent ial that PIC focus i ts resources on those act iv i t ies that can assist par l iamentary bodies wi th democrat ic development more broadly. Two important examples drawn from the experience of CCLSP are:

- Decentra l ized Publ ic Hear ings - In terms of the work of the Nat ional Assembly and Senate sessions, i t has been observed that there is l i t t le debate on legis lat ion that is tabled by the Execut ive. Current ly, legis lat ion is ‘ rubber-stamped’ by par l iament. This is part ial ly because of members’ ret icence to publ ic ly ‘engage’ the governing party due to the pol i t ical context of the country . However, one of the most ef fect ive tools for sol ic i t ing opin ion and discussing nat ional issues, adding information and increasing understanding, is the holding of publ ic hear ings at local levels. In the regions, par l iamentar ians are accorded considerable respect. Dur ing these hear ings, pol i t ic ians of al l denominat ions meet wi th c iv i l soc iety representat ives and the publ ic . Hear ings are held openly at the provincia l and commune levels and al l pol i t ical part ies pay at tent ion to their resul ts. I f they are held in t imely and wel l -organized manner, these hear ings can inform commission and execut ive decis ion-making. Consequent ly , the hear ings can provide input into legis lat ion presented to the par l iament for approval . Increased numbers of publ ic hear ings, held more widely and effect ively are an important ‘entry point ’ in which PIC wil l p lay a s igni f icant organizat ional ro le.

- Open Expert Hear ings - These are special formal sess ions designed to rev iew var ious sectoral , technical and management issues put before the commissions. During these hear ings, specia l ists/experts are cal led to present their (sometimes varied and opposing) understanding and opin ions on speci f ic issues. They are open hear ings and can be attended by governing and opposit ion party members. Since only governing party members si t on the commissions, Open Expert Hear ings afford opposi t ion par l iamentarians and the publ ic , the opportuni ty to become informed, and to form and express their posi t ions on the key issues of the day. In addi t ion to prov id ing new information and perspect ives, these meetings can be designed to inform the overs ight funct ions of Par l iament. PIC wi l l p lay an important ro le in the organizat ion and conduct of these hear ings, in addit ion to recording and disseminat ing the results to interested part ies. Again, owing to l imi ted resources, PIC wi l l focus at tent ion on select pr ior i ty commiss ions and the overs ight themes/ issues descr ibed above.

Both of these act iv i t ies represent only incremental steps toward fu l l par l iamentary part ic ipat ion in the democrat ic process. However, dur ing CCLSP it is c laimed that they exerted inf luence on the improvement of economic planning, budget ing and account ing, the press and ant i -corrupt ion laws. As an establ ished inst i tut ion serv ing par l iament, i t is expected that PIC wil l fur ther re inforce and improve on the effect iveness of these funct ions.

Employ a d iverse team of experts /mentors. PIC wi l l tap into local , regional and internat ional sources of expert ise. Peer- to-peer learning wi l l take place, for example through the use of former parl iamentar ians and senior parl iamentary staff in program del ivery.

Proact ively ident i fy and col laborate wi th local partners . Local partnerships fostered under CCLSP, including those wi th c iv i l society and internat ional organizat ions, wi l l be used to ensure the appropr iateness of act iv i t ies, to bui ld a broad const i tuency of support for projects and the sustainabi l i ty of resul ts.

Coordinate with other re lated par l iamentary development and governance projects. To opt imize l inkages forged under CCLSP, ef forts wi l l be made to harmonize act iv i t ies with new and t radi t ional development partners, such as UNDP, to avoid dupl icat ion.

Promote knowledge shar ing and disseminat ion . In harmony with the object ives of the Paris Declarat ion on Aid Effect iveness, PIC wi l l seek out and ut i l ize the resources/mater ia l / research performed by others and trans late i t in to a form and language accessible to par l iamentar ians and par l iamentary staf f . PIC wi l l a lso per iodical ly convene forums to d isseminate tools and best pract ices wi th the development and governance community of pract ice, sharing knowledge and exper ience gained in project implementat ion.C - MAIN PROGRAM OBJECTIVES ( IF t ime permits)As noted ear l ier , PIC wi l l program with in three major categor ies of object ives. To:a - Strengthen PIC Institut ionally Consol idate establ ishment of PIC wi th a governance st ructure that meets internat ional s tandards. This represents the pr imary object ive of PIC in i ts f i rst year of operat ion, a longside secur ing funding for i ts cont inued successful operat ion. In the longer term, at tent ion wi l l focus on transformation of PIC into an effect ive publ ic inst i tut ion. An evaluat ion close to the end of the f i f th year wi l l in form the Board’s decis ion whether to cont inue PIC as an NGO or establ ish a more formal and structural l inkage wi th the Par l iament.

Consol idate the programs developed and exper ience gained f rom 10 years of CCLSP This includes the operat ional procedures, t ra in ing formats and manuals, and the avai lable cadre of t rainers and tra ined personnel : the tangible resul ts of CCLSP. However, i t must be recognized that the goal of PIC is to bui ld a funct ioning arm of par l iament as a sustainable inst i tut ion, whi le at the same t ime del iver ing the next stage (post-CCLSP) of ef fect ive parl iamentary support .

Bui ld regional l inkages. PIC wi l l l ink to the community of pract ice in democrat ic and par l iamentary development to share the Cambodian exper iences of ways in which to improve the

qual i ty of governance and the performance of par l iamentary inst i tut ions in the region.

Increase capaci t ies to leverage resources and learning through global partnership bui ld ing . PIC aims to bui ld on l inkages establ ished under CCLSP and increase i ts capacity to partner ef fect ively wi th donors, other internat ional organizat ions and legis latures so as to better leverage resources and learning, and to promote col laborat ion in democrat ic development programming.

Work towards f inancia l sustainabi l i ty . PIC wi l l work towards divers ify ing and stabi l iz ing sources of funding, combining core funding with project /program funding. Funding and resources for workshops and conferences wi l l be d ivers i f ied and sustainable as PIC develops a reputat ion for h igh qual i ty learning products and serv ices. PIC wi l l seek funding sources f rom a var iety of donors commit ted to improv ing governance and democrat ic development in Asia.

Capture a id effect iveness pr incip les . I t must be recognized that the establ ishment of the PIC and del ivery of i ts programs wi l l strongly adhere to the Par is Pr inciples of Aid Ef fect iveness, inc luding:

o Promotion of increased and improved democrat ic governance.o Bui ld ing Cambodian ownership of the country ’s inst i tut ional development and

reforms.o Creat ion of a sustainable local democrat ic inst i tut ion.o Increasing the cohort of special ists tra ined and able to serve the county ’s

needs. o Increasing funding stabi l i ty though diversi fy ing and blending local and mul t i -

donor sources. o Network ing and harmoniz ing programs nat ional ly, regional ly and

internat ional ly in order to share knowledge and best pract ice.b - Improve Legislat ion and ResearchPromote legis lat ive capaci ty bui ld ing and development. PIC wi l l work to increase the capaci ty of Par l iament to p lay i ts legis lat ive, representat ive and oversight funct ions. PIC wi l l both advocate for and act as a proponent of legis lat ive capacity bui ld ing and development and wil l contr ibute to bui ld ing subject -mat ter research on issues ident i f ied by par l iamentary leadership, d isseminat ing f indings through workshops and seminars wi th par l iamentar ians, par l iamentary s taff and other stakeholders to share knowledge and expert ise.

Increase the capacity of research units of par l iament. In order to bet ter support the Par l iament, the capacity of par l iamentary s taff wi l l be improved, through the mentoring of research staff and inst i tut ional izat ion of publ ic consultat ion pract ices. Research is cr i t ica l in help ing MPs and Senators more fu l ly understand legis lat ion, pol icy and issues affect ing the country. At the present t ime, internat ional assistance suppl ies funds for research bodies that are pr imar i ly used by the Execut ive, but there are no such provis ions for bodies used by the par l iament. Train ing, mentoring and study miss ions wil l take place to enable research staff to prepare br ief ings on mat ters of importance to the Cambodian par l iament, and prepare papers on upcoming bi l ls before the Par l iament. c - Increase Outreach Representation and OversightStrengthen l inks between c it izens and legis lature.

There wi l l be an emphasis on the creat ion of avenues for p lural ist ic and part ic ipatory c i t izen involvement in democrat ic dec is ion-making, and the formulat ion and implementat ion of laws. Par l iamentar ians ’ ro le in consul tat ion wi th the publ ic wi l l be developed through publ ic hearings, t ra ining and f ie ld v is i ts, a l lowing par l iamentar ians to obtain information from ci t izens to help make decis ions in the publ ic interest, and to inform c i t izens about government act ion.

Ensure local ownership and develop local sources of expert ise and l ink to avai lable g lobal expert ise. PIC wil l act as a br idging organizat ion between the legis lat ive branch of government and c iv i l society, and wi l l use and expand exist ing t ies wi th local experts and organizat ions to del iver seminars, workshops and tra in ing on pr ior i ty areas ident i f ied by the par l iament . As noted ear l ier, the research staf f work ing/t ra in ing at the PIC wi l l help bui ld and sustain local ownership and capaci ty for democrat ic development. Strengthen gender networks amongst par l iamentar ians and incorporate gender analysis into act iv i t ies. There wi l l be an emphasis on a hol ist ic approach to gender issues, not only focusing on certa in target programs, but more strategical ly through the gender mainst reaming of act iv i t ies, events and t ra in ing. There wi l l be an emphasis on encouraging the part ic ipat ion of women in legis lat ive development and pol icy research.Conclusion:PIC seeks to improve the par l iamentary aspect of governance in Cambodia. To ensure credib i l i ty and buy- in, PIC wi l l engage al l pol i t ica l part ies, pursuing a gender balance in a l l act iv i t ies. I t wi l l col laborate wi th Civi l Society Organizat ions (CSOs) in order to strengthening l inks between civ i l society and the Par l iament. In accordance wi th the Par is Declarat ion on Aid Ef fect iveness, promotion of knowledge sharing and exchange and strategic partnerships wi l l be pursued wi th other democrat ic and good governance in i t ia t ives in Cambodia, as wel l as the Mekong Sub-Region.

Thank you for your attent ion.”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr OUM Sari th for his communicat ion and inv ited members present to put quest ions to him.

Mr DE PELSEMAEKER (Belgium) asked why an inst i tut ion had been set up outside Par l iament to support Par l iament i tself .

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , asked whether the st rategic p lan of the Cambodian Par l iament was in operat ion. He also asked whether the Cambodian Par l iament needed the Government ’s approval to establ ish an inst i tut ion of th is k ind, and why the Government was not support ing the funding of the inst i tute, especia l ly as i t was intended to support other par l iaments in the region.

Ms SURTEES (Austral ia) noted the existence of Par l iamentary Studies Associat ions in her country. These inc luded par l iamentar ians and former par l iamentar ians and par l iamentary staf f , and academics. They held d iscussions on a regular basis, which offered a train ing ef fect for those interested. She wondered i f there was academic input into the Cambodian inst i tute.

Mr DARARITH (Cambodia) (non-member) made clear to Mr de Pelsemaeker that the information made avai lable by the Inst i tute disseminated information along party

l ines in a way that would not be appropr iate for a par l iamentary administrat ion. Over an eight-year per iod, a Cambodia-Canada legis lat ive project had operated. Before sett ing up the inst i tute, they had wanted to prov ide cont inui ty . NGOs had to register wi th the Ministry of the Inter ior, which was why government approval was required. Funding of the Inst i tute was supported by Sweden. Most internat ional aid f lowing to Cambodia had been made avai lable to the Execut ive, not the Par l iament. Set t ing up the inst i tute was an at tempt to f ind a bet ter balance. The inst i tute was an attempt to ref lect Cambodia’s very part icular exper ience of moving to democracy.

Mr OUM Sarith (Cambodia) also st ressed the part icular context of the Cambodian si tuat ion. He wanted to encourage part icular structures to evolve, of which the Inst i tute, i t was hoped, would p lay a part .

Mr DARARITH (Cambodia) said that the Inst i tute was look ing for partnership, and for ways of making others’ research accessib le wi th in Cambodia.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr OUM for h is communicat ion, and Mr DARARITH for h is part ic ipat ion, as wel l as a l l those members who had put quest ions to them. He looked forward to hear ing about the development of the Inst i tute over t ime.

3. Communication by Mr Sadettin KALKAN, Secretary General of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey: “Party Discipline in Polit ical Parties and its effect on the Legislative Process”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invi ted Mr Sadett in KALKAN, Secretary General of the Grand Nat ional Assembly of Turkey, to present h is communicat ion, as fo l lows :

“ In the last couple of sessions that I had the opportuni ty to at tend, the att i tude of the part ies towards their Members and their pressure to comply wi th the party decis ions, were of ten referred and was considered as negat ive. This phenomenon which we can named as the “party disc ipl ine” is a st rong and deeply rooted element in my country and is ef fect ive on the legis lat ive process which made me to th ink about handl ing th is issue. Due to the t ime rest ra int , I wi l l make a short presentat ion and wi l l t ry to g ive more detai ls with your valuable quest ions.

Today, we see that the part ies are inevi table e lements of the pol i t ica l l i fe . In a modern soc iety, democracy cannot be implemented wi thout the means of the part ies. That is why, c lassical democrac ies which are prevai led by mul t iparty pol i t ica l l i fe are cal led the “part ies’ democracy” or the “part ies’ state” . This is mainly due to the main funct ions of the pol i t ica l part ies which in short would be l isted as; uni f icat ion based upon common interest , e lect ing the state leaders and pol i t ica l recrui tment, using the pol i t ica l power, overs ight and cr i t ic ism, being a means to part ic ipate into pol i t ics and faci l i ta t ing the par l iamentary work. Those funct ions obviously necessi tate an organized work and disc ipl ine. Based on these funct ions, the part ies become the faci l i ta tors of di rect part ic ipat ion to pol i t ica l l i fe in the process of democrat isat ion. Though there is no consensus over, the concept of the party d iscip l ine is a real i ty of the part ies` democracy. That is why I bel ieve i t would be better to democrat ise i t rather than denying.

Coming to Turkish case of the Par l iamentary system, the pol i t ica l part ies exert great ef for ts to manage unity among their party group wi th in the Par l iament for the

legis lat ive and overs ight purposes. Those effor ts are ref lected on the process star t ing f rom the law making to the adopt ion of the draf t bi l l o f laws. That is to say, party d iscip l ine contr ibutes to the qual i ty and quant i ty improvement of the legis lat ive and overs ight funct ion of the Parl iament . The concrete resul t of th is phenomenon is val id especial ly in the prev ious term of the Turkish Par l iament. Dur ing the term, 548 laws are adopted, almost 20.000 parl iamentary quest ions are answered and 15 inquiry committees are establ ished. As seen, both the ru l ing and the opposi t ion part ies have great ly taken part in the legis lat ive and oversight act iv i t ies wi th the posit ive effect of the party discipl ine.

Party d iscip l ine is a lso v i ta l for the sustainabi l i ty of the governments in the coal i t ion governments. I f the part ies cannot enable inter-d isc ip l ine and there occurs constant d isagreements wi th rarely reached consensus, that makes the coal i t ion governments not durable. The governmental programme formed by the coal i t ion part ies only makes sense i f there is a d iscip l ine among. Rather than only having a majori ty in the Par l iament, the stabi l i ty of the discip l ine is based on enabl ing a moderate d iscip l ine on the given major i ty. A party which cannot succeed in having th is , wi l l have dif f icu l t ies in passing the laws from the Par l iament which may lock the legis lat ive act iv i t ies.

Party d iscip l ine is a lso an important means for the pol i t ica l part ies to implement their campaign promises once they are e lected. The ru l ing part ies are expected to perform in l ine with achieving those promises given to their e lectorate. They are a lso expected to work in the f ramework of their party`s programmes and ru les of procedures. In this manner, party d isc ip l ine is required to keep the MPs in l ine with the views of the party and to ensure their support .

Some outcomes of th is argument for a major i ty or coal i t ion party would be:

- Giving vote of conf idence to the government they const i tuted.- Giving support to the draft bi l ls of laws which are in l ine wi th the

governmental programme and elect ion promises.- Not making aggressive-unconstruct ive cr i t ic isms towards the governmental

and party pol ic ies. (members are a lways welcomed to cr i t ic ise and oversight the government , here the state of the cr i t ic ism is indicated.)

- Not act ing such as an opposi t ion party member towards their own party and government .

- Compl iance wi th the party group decis ions taken wi th major i ty.

Whi le party d iscip l ine seems to be inf luent ia l on the legis lat ive process, one tends to feel i f i t c lashes wi th the spir i t of democracy. That is to e laborate i f par ty d iscipl ine vs democracy. F irst of a l l , i t is not a general ly accepted argument to form a direct corre lat ion between the inter-party democracy and the democracy of the pol i t ica l system. Hence, i t wouldn`t be pol i t ica l ly correct to ident i fy inter-party democracy with the overal l democrat ic pr incip les of the state system.

I assume, party disc ip l ine which is pract iced wi th in i ts l imi ts and f ramework, is not foreseen to contradict wi th democracy. On the contrary, i t would be required to enable inter-party democracy. Because, in a state of chaos where there is high level of disagreements and where party members pract ise their own agenda, that would resul t wi th lesser indicat ions of democracy with in the party.

Almost a l l the part ies in the Turk ish Par l iament have c lauses of vot ing discip l ine in their part ies` ru les of procedures, in order to accelerate the legis lat ive act iv i t ies. Those kinds of c lauses are set to enable unity in del iberat ions and vot ing in the plenary sessions and to take support for the party nominates regarding the committees membership. But this doesn’ t mean to suppress the v iews of the members; d i f ferent opin ions are rather presented and discussed before forming the party v iew towards a b i l l of law.

Concluding my words, I would be l ike to stress that democracy is a regime of inst i tut ions and requires the engagement of publ ic to the publ ic governance in an organized and act ive manner. The main mediators to enable that are the pol i t ica l part ies. And strong part ies requires st rong organisat ion. Strong organisat ion requires d iscip l ine. Therefore, party discipl ine wi l l be the basis of this s trong organisat ion. Part ies wi thout d iscip l ine wi l l boost personal interests rather than party programmes and that wi l l resul t wi th i r responsib i l i ty of the members towards their part ies. I ts outcomes would be problematic and slow legis lat ive system, short term governments or governmental cr is is.

On the other hand, party disc ipl ine should only be used as a means to implement the party programme rather than int imidat ing the inter-party opposi t ion. Having said th is, one needs to add that, par ty members should engage in the format ion of the party pol ic ies but once the party pol icy is formed together wi th the contr ibut ion of a l l the members, the members are expected to respect i t .

As a result , wi th al l the given assumptions, I bel ieve, a sense of d iscip l ine which wi l l not harm inter-party democracy wi l l be a surplus for the par l iamentary system.

I wi l l be very p leased to hear your v iews and pract ices of your Par l iaments.

Thank you for your interest .”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr Sadett in KALKAN for his communicat ion and inv ited members present to put quest ions to him.

Mr BOSC (Canada) asked about the ro le of the party caucuses in deal ing wi th internal d issent. In some part ies in Canada, the party leader s igned or refused to s ign nominat ion papers for candidates in e lect ions, even s i t t ing Members, showing the degree of party d iscip l ine that existed.

Mr HAMILTON (Netherlands) asked whether Mr Kalkan saw a ro le for parl iamentary staff in promoting discip l ine in part ies. He hoped the answer was no.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, ment ioned a si tuat ion in Algeria, in which the leader of the Alger ian Workers’ party , a Trotskyist party, had demanded that her members pay hal f their salary into a party fund. Over t ime, hal f her MPs had lef t the party . She subsequent ly suggested that MPs should not be al lowed to leave the party for which they were elected. In a bi l l current ly before the Nat ional Assembly, there was a sect ion which would have al lowed a party to deprive any of i ts members of their mandate. This proposal had caused uproar. He asked Mr Kalkan what would happen in Turkey i f a Member did not want to fo l low party instruct ions.

Mr KALKAN (Turkey) said he had taken up th is issue because i t had arisen at the sessions he had prev iously attended. His personal opin ion was that pol i t ica l part ies were elected to implement a part icular pol i t ical programme. They therefore had a

r ight to impose disc ipl ine on their members to pursue the implementat ion of th is programme. Members who consistent ly opposed their party ’s programme were less l ikely to be re-elected. They could be removed f rom their party, but not f rom par l iament.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr KALKAN for his communicat ion, as wel l as a l l those members who had put quest ions to h im.

4. Nominations for the post of President of the ASGP

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , announced that two candidates had been nominated for the post of President of the Associat ion: Mr BOSC (Canada) and Mr MONTERO (Uruguay). An elect ion would therefore need to be held at 11.00 am the fo l lowing day. Each of the candidates would have an opportuni ty to present himsel f immediate ly before the elect ion.

The si t t ing rose at 4.45 pm.

THIRD SITTINGTuesday 18 October 2011 (Morning)

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, in the ChairThe sitting was opened at 9.00 am

1. Preliminary remarks Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , reminded members of the arrangements for the elect ion of the President of the ASGP. He also updated the Associat ion on progress towards publ icat ion of a Global Par l iamentary Report by the IPU and UNDP.

2. Orders of the day Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, announced a number of proposed changes to the Orders of the Day:

the addi t ion of a presentat ion by Mr Anders JOHNSSON, Secretary-General of the IPU, to the morning’s business,

the removal of Mr SVINAREV’s communicat ion f rom the fo l lowing day’s business, at h is request, owing to h is unavoidable absence,

the reinstatement of a communicat ion on “Exchange of Informat ion between Government and Par l iament” , which Mr HAMILTON would present on behal f of h is col league Mr BAKKER, joint ly wi th another communicat ion al ready scheduled for the fol lowing day.

The Orders of the Day, as amended, were agreed to.

3. New members Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, said that the Secretar iat had received two requests for membership which had been put before the Execut ive Committee and agreed to. These were:

Mr. Roberto A. Proll Deputy Secretary General of the Nat ional Assembly of Panama

Mr Issa Kanga Secretary General of the Nat ional Assembly of Niger(replac ing Mr Moussa Moutar i )

The new members were agreed to.

4. Communication by Dr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI, Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha of India: “Suspension of a Member from attending proceedings of the House”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, 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:

“Discipl ine and decorum are of cr i t ica l importance for smooth funct ioning of par l iamentary democracy. Any departure or deviat ion f rom the establ ished norms of conduct by the Members tends to erode the image and credib i l i ty of par l iamentary inst i tut ions in the eyes of the people. Whi le Members have to remain sensi t ive and responsive to the publ ic opinions and interests, they are also expected to adhere to par l iamentary et iquette and high standards of behaviour whi le conduct ing themselves inside and outside the legis lature. Dissent is a democrat ic norm but i t should be expressed with in the l imi ts prescr ibed by par l iamentary procedures. I t is only through construct ive and persuasive advocacy of people ’s demands and expectat ions that the purpose of Par l iament in promot ing the wel fare of the people can be real ised.

Art ic le 105 of the Const i tut ion of India inter al ia provides the powers, pr iv i leges etc . , inc luding freedom of speech and vote of the Members inside the Par l iament wi thout subject ing them to scrut iny of courts, but subject to, among other th ings, to the ru les and standing orders regulat ing the procedure of Par l iament. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Counci l of States provide for penal provis ions in case of disorder ly conduct by the Members. However, these penal provis ions are invoked by the Presiding Of f icer in except ional c i rcumstances only. Whenever these provis ions have been used against an err ing Member, i t has been done wi th a great sense of anguish by the Presiding Of f icer, who is entrusted wi th the responsibi l i ty to regulate the proceedings of the House and to uphold i ts digni ty. Rule for Withdrawal of a MemberThe business of the House is governed not only by the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Counci l of States, but a lso the ru l ings as wel l as the direct ions f rom the Chair and convent ions of the House. According to these rules, the Chairman has var ious opt ions to deal wi th breaches of d iscip l ine and decorum in the House. There is a specif ic ru le for the wi thdrawal of a Member. Thus, Rule 255 states, “The Chairman may direct any Member whose conduct is in h is opin ion gross ly d isorder ly to wi thdraw immediate ly f rom the Counci l and any Member so ordered to wi thdraw shal l do so for thwi th and shal l absent himsel f dur ing the remainder of the day’s meet ing”. Naming of a Member by the ChairmanThe Rules also prov ide for suspension of a Member through ‘naming of a Member’ by the Chairman. Thus Rule 256 provides:

“ (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 l ful 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 . ”

There have been instances when Members, who persistent ly caused disrupt ions, have been suspended from attending the proceedings of the House. The f i rs t Member to be so suspended, on a motion moved by a Member, was Shr i Godey

Murahari , who was suspended after the Chairman named him on account of h is ‘grossly d isorderly ’ conduct in the House. He was suspended for the remainder of the session on 3 September 1962. He was physical ly removed by the Marshal of the House.

Again, on 24 July 1974, the Deputy Chairman named Shr i Raj Narain for purposely obstruct ing the proceedings of the House. The Minister of State in the Department of Par l iamentary Affai rs moved a mot ion for the suspension of the Member for the remainder of the session. The mot ion was adopted. When he refused to leave the House, the Marshal was cal led and the Member was removed. Thereaf ter, the House cont inued with i ts proceedings. At the end, the Minister in the Department of Par l iamentary Affai rs moved a mot ion that Shr i Raj Narain may be suspended f rom the service of the House for the rest of the day and his suspension for the remainder of the session, as resolved ear l ier by the House, may be terminated. The motion was adopted and, on the next day, Shr i Raj Narain was permit ted to make a statement on the incident.

More recent ly , on a Mot ion moved by the Minister of State in the Minist ry of Par l iamentary Affai rs and adopted by the House on 9 March 2010, seven Members were suspended f rom the service of the House for the remaining part of the 219th Session. However, on a mot ion moved by the Minister of Par l iamentary Affa i rs and Water Resources, and adopted by the House on the 15 March 2010, the suspension of four of the Members f rom the serv ice of the House was terminated. On two Motions moved subsequent ly by the Minister of State, the suspension of two other Members was terminated on 23 Apri l and 28 Apri l 2010, respect ively. The suspension of remaining one Member was cont inued t i l l the end of the Session.

There are occasions when the Chair categorical ly and fervent ly te l ls the concerned Member that i f he/she does not mend his/her behaviour, Rule 255 or 256, as the case may be, would be invoked. For instance on 29 August, 2011, whi le conduct ing the proceedings of the House during the Quest ion Hour, Hon’ble Chairman caut ioned a Member, who was not paying heed to h is repeated pleas to remain quiet, and warned him not to force the Chair to invoke Rule 255 (Withdrawal of Member) .Unethical Coduct Leading to SuspensionApart f rom acts of d isorderly conduct wi th in the prec incts of the House culminat ing in suspension, unethical conduct of a Member, that compromises the dignity of the Par l iament outs ide the precincts of the House, can also invi te suspension. The Code of Conduct for Members of Rajya Sabha inter a l ia provides that ‘Members are expected to mainta in h igh standards of moral i ty, digni ty, decency and values in publ ic l i fe . ’ Rule 297 of the Rules of Procedure states that, “Where i t has been found that a Member has indulged in unethical behaviour or there is other misconduct or that the Member has contravened the code/ru les, the Committee on Ethics may recommend the imposi t ion of one or more of the sanct ions, v iz. censure, repr imand, suspension from the House for a speci f ic per iod and any other sanct ion determined by the Committee to be appropr iate” .For instance, on 13 December 2005, the House adopted the motion for considerat ion of the recommendations of the Commit tee on Ethics as contained in i ts Fi f th Report . As a consequence, Dr. Chhat trapal Singh Lodha was suspended from the House on grounds of having been caught on tape accept ing money for ask ing quest ions, pending the presentat ion of the f inal report of the Commit tee. Making an announcement in the House on this issue, the then Chairman of Rajya Sabha cal led i t a matter of great concern and anxiety for a l l Members. He announced:

“The Par l iament is the pi l lar of d igni ty for the democracy. The digni ty of democracy can remain safe and digni f ied only i f the digni ty of Parl iament i tsel f remains intact….The House wil l have to contemplate ser ious ly on how to mainta in the integr i ty and credibi l i ty of the Parl iament and in case i ts d igni ty is harmed in any manner, how to protect i t ef fect ively. ”

Rules of Suspension in the Lok SabhaThe norms of ethical behaviour for Members of the Lok Sabha have been adequately provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha, Direct ions by the Speaker and in the convent ions, which have evolved over the years on the basis of recommendations made by var ious Commit tees in their reports. This was stated by the Committee on Ethics of the Lok Sabha in i ts First Report adopted by the House on 16 May 2002. The Committee on Ethics a lso made certa in recommendations of general eth ical pr inc ip les, which Members should abide, and which are not based on the Rules and Procedure, Direct ions of the Chair or convent ions and precedents. For example, i t recommended that Members must ut i l ise their posi t ion to advance general wel l -being of the people. They should mainta in h igh standards of moral i ty, d igni ty, decency and values in publ ic l i fe .

The ru le for wi thdrawal and suspension of Members for d isrupt ing the House in the Lok Sabha is s imi lar to the ru le in the Rajya Sabha. Rule 373 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha states that the Speaker may direct any Member whose conduct is, in h is opin ion, grossly d isorderly to wi thdraw immediate ly f rom the House, and any Member so ordered to wi thdraw shal l do so for thwi th and shal l absent h imsel f dur ing the remainder of the day’s s i t t ing. Under Rule 374, the Speaker 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 House by persistent ly and wil l fu l ly obstruct ing the business thereof . I f a Member is so named by the Speaker, the Speaker shal l , on a motion being made for thwi th put the quest ion that the Member (naming him) be suspended from the service of the House for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session. However, the House may, at any t ime, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension should be terminated. The ru le fur ther s tates that a Member suspended under th is ru le shal l for thwi th wi thdraw f rom the precincts of the House.

There have been several instances when these ru les have been invoked. Dr. Datta Samant was di rected to withdraw from the House on 11 May 1988 for persistent ly interrupt ing the proceedings. Ajay Biswas was suspended f rom the service of the House for the remaining part of the Eighth Session of Eighth Lok Sabha on a motion moved by the Minister of Par l iamentary Affa i rs on 29 July 1987 and adopted by the House. The suspension was revoked wi th immediate effect on 30 July 1987 on a motion moved by the Minis ter of Parl iamentary Af fa i rs and adopted by the House.Automatic Suspension of a Member in the Lok SabhaUnlike in the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha has a provis ion for the automat ic suspension of a Member for serious disorderly conduct or d isrupt ions. Rule 374A, which was incorporated in 2001, states:

“ (1) Notwi thstanding anything contained in Rules 373 and 374, in the event of grave disorder occasioned by a Member coming into the wel l of the House or abusing the Rules of the House pers is tent ly and wi l l ful ly obstruct ing i ts bus iness by shout ing slogans or otherwise, such Member shal l , on being named by the Speaker, stand automatical ly suspended from the service of the House for f ive consecut ive si t t ings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less:

Provided that the House may, at any t ime, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.

(2) On the Speaker announcing the suspension under this Rule, the Member is immediate ly to withdraw from the precincts of the House.”

This Rule pr imar i ly a ims at doing away wi th the requirement of moving a motion and i ts adopt ion for secur ing suspension of a Member f rom the serv ice of the House. Under th is Rule, merely the naming of the Member by the Speaker is enough to secure his suspension for f ive consecut ive si t t ings or remainder of the session, whichever is less. However, this rule has not been invoked in the Lok Sabha so far .Follow up Action on Suspension of MembersFollowing the suspension of a Member, there are certa in consequences which fo l low and remain in force dur ing the per iod of suspension. The Member cannot enter the Chamber, the Inner Lobby and the Gal ler ies of the Rajya Sabha. He stands suspended from the si t t ings of the Par l iamentary Committees and fora of which he is a Member. Not ices of meet ings and tours to be held dur ing the per iod of suspension are not to be issued to h im. He cannot vote at elect ions to Committees or Bodies, which are held during the per iod of his suspension. No i tem is put down in the List of Business in the name of the suspended Member.

Further, no not ice tabled by him is acceptable during the period of suspension. Not ices tabled by a Member pr ior to h is suspension are not admit ted or included in the List of Business or Lists of Quest ions or L ists of Amendments in respect of Bi l ls etc. I f the l ist of Quest ions, incorporat ing the quest ion(s) of the suspended Member has already been pr inted, the quest ion(s) is/are s tamped as ‘CANCELLED’ and the Minist ry/Ministr ies concerned is/are informed accordingly. However, a suspended Member cont inues to receive salary but he is not ent i t led to the dai ly a l lowance for the per iod of h is suspension, i f suspended f rom the serv ice of the House for the remainder of the Session. This is because the Member ’s stay at the place of duty cannot be regarded as ‘ residence on duty’ under sect ion 2(d) of the Salary, Al lowances and Pension of Members of Par l iament Act , 1954. He is, however, ent i t led to dai ly al lowance, i f suspended for a speci f ied per iod dur ing a Session.Follow-up Action in the Various Sections/Branches of the SecretariatIn order to ensure that the above ment ioned provis ions are enforced, various Sect ions/Branches of the Rajya Sabha Secretar iat are obl iged to take certa in fo l low-up act ions. The responsib i l i t ies of var ious concerned Sect ion/Branch are br ief ly out l ined in the fo l lowing paragraphs.

Table Off ice

Immediately af ter a motion is moved and adopted in the House for suspension of a Member, the Table Of f ice issues a ci rcular informing al l concerned about the suspension of the Member from the service of the House for the per iod speci f ied. I t ment ions that the Member cannot enter the Chamber, the Inner Lobby and Gal ler ies of the Rajya Sabha dur ing the per iod of suspension. Simi lar ly , when the suspension of a Member is terminated, the Sect ion issues another c i rcular informing al l concerned regarding the terminat ion of the suspension. The Table Off ice also ensures that the suspended Member ’s name is not inc luded in the l ist of speakers for part ic ipat ion in d iscussions etc.

Parl iament Secur i ty Service

The Parl iament Secur i ty Service has the pr imary responsib i l i ty of ensur ing that the direct ion of the Chair regarding suspension of a Member is implemented wi th immediate ef fect. I ts duty is more funct ional than procedural . In case of a suspension, the Secur i ty Of f ice assists the Chair in mainta in ing order in the House, as and when summoned. In case suspended Member refuses to wi thdraw f rom the Chamber, defying and disobeying the di rect ion of the Chair , Marshal(s) is /are summoned to remove him/her phys ical ly f rom the Chamber wi thout causing any injury. The securi ty personnel deployed in the Chamber, Inner Lobby and Gal ler ies are a lso br iefed and directed that no suspended Member should be al lowed entry in these places.

Commit tee Coordinat ion Sect ion

The Commit tee Coordinat ion Sect ion is concerned wi th act ion consequent to the suspension of a Member v is-à-vis h is Membership of Par l iamentary Commit tees/Bodies. The Sect ion issues a c ircular s tat ing that the concerned Member stands suspended from the s i t t ings of Par l iamentary Committees/fora of which he is a Member, dur ing the per iod of h is suspension; that not ices of meet ings/ tours to be held dur ing the per iod of suspension are not to be sent to h im; and that he is not a l lowed to vote at e lect ions to Committees/Bodies held dur ing the per iod of h is suspension. However, communicat ion regarding si t t ings or tours or Par l iamentary Commit tees/si t t ings of Forum scheduled to take place after the expiry of the per iod of suspension may be sent to him during the period of h is suspension. The sect ion sends a communicat ion regarding the guidel ines of the ci rcular to the Lok Sabha Secretar iat (LSS) for their in formation wi th reference to Joint Committees of the two Houses. L ikewise, LSS is again informed when the suspension of the concerned Member is terminated.

Quest ion Branch

There are no specif ic prov is ions in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Counci l of States to regulate Quest ions in the Rajya Sabha of Members in the event of their suspension from the service of the House. However, as the r ight to ask/put Quest ions is avai lable to Members only, a Member loses the r ight to part ic ipate in the business of Quest ions in any manner, during the period of his suspension. Accordingly, the Quest ion Branch ini t ia tes the fo l lowing act ions consequent to the ci rcular issued by the Table Off ice:

Al l Not ices of Quest ions, Short Not ice Quest ions and not ices for Hal f -an-Hour Discussion of the suspended Member are not considered t i l l the terminat ion of h is suspension.

Quest ions l isted against the name of the suspended Member in Starred/Unstarred l ists are treated as cancel led and the word ‘CANCELLED’ is stamped on them. These Quest ions are a lso deleted f rom the index of the Quest ions l ist .

In the Unstarred l ists, i f the name of the suspended Member appears as clubbed wi th other Members, i t is deleted by s tr ik ing out the name manual ly.

Al l the Minist r ies/Departments, in whose name the Quest ions of the suspended Member are l is ted, are informed te lephonical ly and an errata to th is effect is a lso issued immediate ly, ask ing them not to send the answers of such Quest ions.

In case the l is ts of Quest ions are at the pr int ing stage, the Quest ions of the suspended Member are removed from the l ists and his name is a lso deleted i f i t is c lubbed wi th other Members.

However, a l l these act ions are rev iewed as soon as the suspension of the Member is terminated.

Bi l l Off ice

The suspension of a Member f rom the service of the House, whether for a day or for a per iod of t ime, depr ives him of the opportuni ty to introduce Bi l l (s) or to move a Motion for considerat ion of Bi l l (s) , i f l is ted in h is/her name on that day or dur ing the per iod of suspension. Even the not ice for leave to introduce a Bi l l or any not ice for any s tage of legis lat ive business is a lso not enter ta ined. The Bi l l Off ice removes the name of the Member f rom the List of Business of the day on which such Bi l l (s) are scheduled to be int roduced or moved for considerat ion by the suspended Member. No separate Bul let in or Circular is , however, issued by Bi l l Of f ice to that ef fect .

Legislat ive Sect ion

The Legis lat ive sect ion ensures that on the suspension of a Member, the not ices of the concerned Member, i .e. Special Ment ion, Matters Raised wi th the Permission of Chairman, Cal l ing Attent ion, Short Durat ion Discussion, Resolut ions and Motions, are treated as wi thdrawn and are not included in the concerned l is t(s) . Accordingly , h is name is deleted f rom the l ist of not ices. Besides, not ices given by a suspended Member for ra is ing mat ters of urgent publ ic importance are not enter ta ined during the per iod of h is suspension.

The dilemma of the Chairman/SpeakerThe subject of indisc ip l ine, including display of d isrespect for the author i ty of Presid ing Off icers, d isturbances, disrupt ions and other serious acts of misconduct in Legislatures and future st rategies to improve the si tuat ion has been discussed in the Presid ing Off icers ’ Conferences in India. Pres id ing Of f icers have been unanimous in their v iew that the tendency to show disrespect to the Chair and to v io late the rules and convent ions, indulg ing in undigni f ied behaviour, forcing adjournments of the House and not permit t ing the Quest ion Hour and debates and discussion, were matters of serious concern warrant ing deep introspect ion. I t has also been emphasized that order ly and digni f ied conduct of the Legislators, both inside and outside the Chambers, is a pre-requisi te for the smooth and effect ive funct ioning of par l iamentary system.

In any democrat ic debate, passions tend to run high and decibels get louder, of ten leading to chaos and disrupt ions in the House. Such del icate s i tuat ions usual ly require sensi t ive handl ing f rom a percept ive and astute Chairman or Speaker. In the event of d isorder ly conduct by Members in the House, i t is imperat ive for the Chair to be guided by the need to mainta in his/her own digni ty , the dignity of the Off ice of the Chair as wel l as decorum in the House. Therefore, the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the House, apart f rom var ious Rul ings and convent ions, have vested enough powers in the Off ice of the Chairman/Speaker to enable them to d if fuse tense s ituat ions and ensure that decorum is mainta ined. For instance, there is a ru l ing of the Chair , given in July 1987, regarding the suspension of a part icular Member from the House. Admonishing the Member for his unruly behaviour, the Chair asked the Member to wi thdraw from the House. When the Member d id not abide by the di rect ion of the Chair, the Chair asked the Minister of State for Par l iamentary Affai rs to move a motion under the ru les for the suspension of the Member. The House unanimously resolved that the Member may be suspended for a week f rom the House. Suspension of a Member is thus not the arbi t rary decis ion of

the Chairman or the Speaker but an act carr ied out by the authori ty bestowed on him by the House. Ul t imately, i t is again the House, on a motion being moved, which can terminate the suspension of a Member from the proceedings of the House. ConclusionWhile pr iv i leges are avai lable to Members to enable them to perform their par l iamentary dut ies wi thout any let or hindrance, they also entai l certain obl igat ions, and digni f ied conduct is one of the pr imary obl igat ions of the Members. Suspension of a Member f rom the House for a long per iod would appear unfair , and i t would appear as i f the whole const i tuency is being punished for the conduct of a Member. However, as representat ives of the people, Members are obl iged to mainta in h igh standards of disc ipl ine and decorum in the House. The rule of suspension is a necessary sel f-correct ing procedure to make Parl iament an effect ive inst i tut ion of democracy. Funct ioning of Par l iament is the very basis of a democrat ic structure, upon which the whole const i tut ional system rests. Therefore, care has to be taken that nothing, e ither by act ions wi thin the precincts of the House or outs ide, erodes publ ic conf idence in the credib i l i ty of the inst i tut ion of Par l iament, thereby weakening the grand edi f ice of democrat ic pol i ty .”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr AGNIHOTRI for h is communicat ion and invi ted members present to put quest ions to h im.Mr CAVERO (Spain) asked i f members suspended from the Rajya Sabha also had their a l lowances and pay suspended, and asked in addi t ion i f there was any opportuni ty for appeal against the Speaker ’s decis ion.

Mrs LUQUIENS (France) said that there was a str icter range of sanct ions avai lable in France than in India, though a h igher threshold for exercis ing them. Suspension of a member was rare. I t had happened once in 1984, when Members had spoken insul t ingly of the President of the Republic , and again in 2010, when a Member had caused a dis turbance dur ing a publ ic , broadcast meet ing. For any suspension of more than two weeks, there was also a f inancia l sanct ion on the Members concerned.

Mr LAURENCE SMYTH (UK) , explor ing the areas to which a suspension might be considered to apply, ment ioned the case of a Member of the House of Commons suspended for an eth ical breach, who had asked i f he could meet a Minister on behal f of his const i tuents dur ing his per iod of suspension. He also asked whether suspension in India “ for a session” meant a year, or a shorter per iod.

Mr BELLEN (Phil ippines) asked how a vote would take place on a proposal to suspend a member i f i t was not passed unanimously. In the Phi l ippines Senate, a member could be suspended only for d isorderly behaviour. The sanct ion was decided by a committee on eth ics after some considerat ion, not on the spot immediate ly after the al leged offence. A two-th i rds major i ty was necessary to suspend or expel a member.

Mr ZVOMA (Zimbabwe) asked about whether r ights other than attendance, such as salary, were also suspended. The Supreme Court in Z imbabwe had ru led that a member ’s salary was a const i tut ional r ight .

Mr AGNIHOTRI (India) c lar i f ied that members in India received a dai ly al lowance for at tending si t t ings, which was not paid dur ing a per iod of suspension. Salar ies cont inued to be paid, however. There were three dist inct sessions in India every year. There was no appeal against the Speaker, who was the highest author i ty. An

appeal to the Chair or an apology was possible, however. Suspension in India was also only an occasional occurrence. Disrupt ion was often inst igated by pol i t ica l part ies, rather than because indiv idual members wanted to cause trouble. The House decided whether to suspend a Member for d isrupt ing proceedings. A vote could take place ei ther by voice, or by e lectronic ro l l -cal l vote.

Mr KALKAN (Turkey) asked i f a Member who had been elected but not been sworn in was subject to any k ind of penalty in the Indian context, and i f he received a salary in th is s i tuat ion.

Mr AGNIHOTRI (India) said that a Member star ted to receive his salary on elect ion, but could not part ic ipate in proceedings wi thout being sworn in. He could in theory s i t at home and be paid for f ive or s ix years.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, thanked Mr AGNIHOTRI for h is communicat ion, as wel l as a l l those members who had put quest ions to h im. He added that Mr Agnihotr i and his Speaker c lear ly had their work cut out in keeping order in the Rajya Sabha.

5. Presentation by Mr Anders JOHNSSON, Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union

Dr Hafnaoui Amrani, President, welcomed Mr JOHNSSON and expressed the Associat ion’s honour at hav ing the opportuni ty to l is ten to him.

Mr JOHNSSON said that the IPU wanted to benef i t f rom a close work ing relat ionship wi th the ASGP, and that i t was his aim to be as transparent and informative as possible.

The IPU’s draf t s trategic plan had benef i ted from close to 100 pages of amendments from geopol i t ica l groups and others. There had been two fu l l days ’ d iscussion in the IPU Execut ive Committee in September. The current version of the text was structural ly s imilar to that c i rculated in Panama in Apr i l , but the detai l had changed. Internal contradict ions had been removed: the plan no longer ta lked about strengthening democracy. Outcomes and goals had also been removed, on the basis that they needed to be set out more clear ly in the annual programme. The text in some areas, such as work on HIV/AIDS, had been strengthened. The text was st i l l not perfect, but the exerc ise of revis ing i t had led to a great deal of learning. The text now set out a common ambit ion for the IPU, and provided three strategic d irect ions: (1) to help parl iaments become bet ter inst i tut ions, (2) to a l low par l iaments to perform more effect ively in terms of the internat ional agenda, and (3) to improve the IPU’s internal organisat ion and how i t communicates and holds i tsel f accountable. The IPU’s membership was being invi ted to adopt the plan by consensus.

The IPU’s budget was being reorganised in l ine with th is s trategy. The IPU did not expect to have the resources ful ly to implement the s trategy from the start . There would need to be a gradual process, which would involve sett ing pr ior i t ies. I t had become clear in Panama that the budget needed to be reduced, by between 7 and 10 per cent. Suggest ions for cuts had s ince been analysed. Some cost-sav ing measures had already been introduced: there had been staff reduct ions, and some more senior people had been replaced by more junior staf f . The costs of the New York off ice had been reduced, and there had been reduct ions in postage, t ravel and print ing costs – leading in tota l to a 5.3% reduct ion in the regular budget. But there

had also been a reduct ion in those parts of budget funded f rom voluntary sources. At the current session in Bern, the IPU Execut ive Committee had made clear that i t wanted to see fur ther budgetary reduct ions.

The IPU would f in ish the current year wi th a surplus of c lose to hal f a mi l l ion Swiss francs, f i rst because of a favourable miscalculat ion of the US dol lar exchange rate, and second because of staff turnover. But Mr Johnsson did not want to put th is surplus towards the fo l lowing year ’s budget costs, because i t would lead to a temporary reduct ion in members ’ contr ibut ions which would swi f t ly have to be reversed: th is would be pol i t ica l ly impossib le. The IPU needed therefore to ident i fy act iv i t ies to cut immediate ly , and these would have to be act iv i t ies which were not funded f rom voluntary sources.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , noted the signi f icant d i f ferences between the two versions of the IPU’s strategic plan. The IPU would clearly need to make di f f icu lt cuts, which would be hard to match wi th an ambit ious st rategy. He thanked Mr JOHNSSON and the IPU internat ional secretar iat for their ef fect ive col laborat ion dur ing his t ime as President of the Associat ion, and wished him the best for the future.

6. Communication by Mr Kamal MANSURA, Secretary to the National Assembly of South Africa: “Attendance policy for Members of Parliament: The South African experience”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invi ted Mr Kamal MANSURA, Secretary to the Nat ional Assembly of South Afr ica, to present his communicat ion, as fo l lows:“A road long travelled Since 2001 our Parl iament has been grappl ing wi th establ ishing of leave/attendance pol icy for members.

The journey has been long and arduous. We are now on the 13th d iscussion document on the subject and no one seems in a hurry to f inal ise the matter .

The discussion star ted wi th talk ing about “ leave” for members and evolved to “at tendance pol icy” for members.

There is general agreement that part ies should control their members ’ absence f rom plenary or committee meetings. In th is regard i t must be remembered that the elect ion of our members is based on the proport ional representat ion system. We therefore vote for a pol i t ica l party rather than for an indiv idual .Statutory basis for sanctions in respect of absences The basis for sanct ions in respect of members’ absence from par l iamentary work is contained in two separate p ieces of legis lat ion:

(1) The Remunerat ion of Publ ic Off ice Bearers Act provides that the payment of salar ies and al lowances of members “ is subject to the ru les and orders” of the House. The Act provides the basis for deduct ions from members’ salar ies for absence f rom par l iamentary work.

(2) Our Const i tut ion prov ides that a member loses membership i f that member is absent wi thout permission in c i rcumstances for which the ru les and orders prescribe loss of membership.

The ru les current ly do not make such provis ion.Working condit ions of membersMembers have mul t ip le funct ions, including sett ing norms, standards and regulat ions and overseeing del ivery through their parl iamentary work and being accountable to the electorate and faci l i ta t ing publ ic part ic ipat ion through their const i tuency work and party pol i t ica l work through their pol i t ical party of f ices and st ructures.

However they are required to be at the seat of Par l iament in Cape Town dur ing par l iamentary session per iods which spans almost the ent i re year. During par l iamentary const i tuency periods and often over weekends members, as nat ional representat ives of the people, are required to t ravel to their a l located const i tuencies, which may not necessar i ly be the same as their permanent place of res idence.

Members are thus often required to spend considerable per iods away from their fami l ies in conduct ing their par l iamentary work both nat ional ly and internat ional ly.Key principles Parl iament should not deal with leave for members. I t is the party that regulates leave. Parl iament however insists on a certain minimum standard for at tendance of members at p lenary s i t t ings and committee meetings.

Every member has a dual responsib i l i ty to the party and to Par l iament.

The at tendance system should take into account that members work over weekends and late into the evenings, most ly in respect of party work.

Par l iament should therefore have an attendance pol icy which al lows for non-attendance as specif ied in the ru les. This should be based mainly on a leave pol icy administered by the party but lodged wi th Par l iament for record purposes.

Part ies should publ ish leave reports for specif ied per iods.

Minimum standards regarding absences should be set to a l low for sanct ions as provided for in legis lat ion.

A framework should be developed which l ists areas around which part ies may grant leave. This would ensure uni formity and consistency among part ies.

The at tendance pol icy should balance the needs of part ies wi th those of Par l iament.

In the context of Par l iament’s needs, considerat ion should be given to sanct ions to ensure members’ at tendance.SanctionsAbsence f rom plenary s i t t ing: Deduct ions – i f absent for 15 consecut ive si t t ing days, wi thout leave of the House, an amount of R500 to be deducted f rom a member ’s salary for each day in excess of the 15 days.

Loss of seat – i f absent for 30 consecut ive days, wi thout leave of the House, the member loses his/her seat in the House.

Unanswered: How is leave of the House obtained? Should the House grant leave wi thout knowing reasons? Should a mul t i -party committee process leave appl icat ions? Absence from committee meetingsThe dynamics are d i f ferent for each party as the size of the party p lays a ro le.

I f absent for three consecut ive meet ings without leave of the chairperson/commit tee, the member should be discharged f rom the committee and f ined.Quorum requirementsThis part of the draft pol icy is based on the pr incip le that part ies have an obl igat ion to ensure that Par l iament and i ts committees are able to funct ion by taking the decis ions required.

Fai lure by part ies should resul t in some form of sanct ion being imposed against the offending party. Detai ls of sanct ions are st i l l being developed.Party guidelines in granting leave

The draf t pol icy provides that part ies mainly control leave for their members. However for the sake of t ransparency, part ies should publ ish at least annual ly detai ls of leave granted to their members.

The party must keep proper records of leave. While Parl iament should be a pr ior i ty, the nature of their dut ies is such that i t

is essent ial for members to be away from Parl iament , wi th permission, to attend to their voters/const i tuencies, their party, in terest groups and to represent Par l iament at workshops, seminars and on local and internat ional v is i ts .

They must be able to take leave for personal reasons such as i l lness, bereavement, materni ty or paterni ty, study etc

No hol iday should be granted as th is is bui l t in to the annual par l iamentary programme ( last two weeks in December and 1st week of January.)

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr MANSURA for his communicat ion and inv ited members present to put quest ions to him.

Mr KOO (Republic of Korea) asked about the discip l inary process in the South Afr ican Par l iament where Members were absent without permission, part icular ly where suspension and salary deduct ions were in considerat ion. In Korea, Members were personal ly responsib le for at tending Par l iament, rather than the part ies to which they belonged. The Speaker and Committee Chairs could approve requests for absence, but only for cer ta in statutory reasons, such as attending internat ional assemblies and fami ly i l lness. Members could not request leave of absence to carry out const i tuency act iv i t ies, but g iven that the salary deduct ion imposed for unauthorised absence amounted to only around 15 US dol lars per day, the punishment was l i t t le more than symbol ic.

Mr AGNIHOTRI (India) said that under the Const i tut ion of h is country, a Member who was absent wi thout permiss ion for more than 60 days could have his seat dec lared vacant . Those ask ing for leave of absence of more than ten days dur ing a

session needed to have the House’s permiss ion. The Par l iament’s websi te included data on Members’ at tendance records.

Mr BYAZA SANDA (Congo) said that in h is country, at tendance was required. I f a Member in h is country was absent for more than one quarter of the si t t ings in a session, their seat became vacant. Where Members were absent from two consecut ive si t t ings wi thout just i f icat ion, they could a lso be excluded. Nonetheless, the House was sometimes inquorate when a vote came to be taken. The Bureau took decis ions on whether an absence could be just i f ied, not the pol i t ica l part ies. But pol i t ica l networking of ten prevai led over legal considerat ions. He asked Mr Mansura who decided on suspension or other sanct ions for absence.

Mr NOMBRE (Burkina Faso) said that in h is country, the rules on attendance were much more lenient. At tendance at commit tee meetings was compulsory, but not in the plenary. One pol i t ic ian had decided to boycott the business of the House. The Bureau proposed as a resul t to wi thhold his al lowances, and to amend the rules to deal wi th th is type of s i tuat ion. But the court said that such an amendment would be unconst i tut ional .

Mr SCHÖLER (Germany) asked about the prospects in South Afr ica for sanct ioning pol i t ica l part ies where they were part ly responsib le for non-attendance. In Germany i t would be hard to f ind a legal basis for such a sanct ion.

Mr MANSURA (South Africa), answering Mr Koo, said that there were no addi t ional sanct ions proposed. The paper before the Associat ion was a d iscussion document. The Indian experience was construct ive. Responsibi l i ty for suspending a Member was the main unanswered quest ion in South Afr ica. I t might be awkward to get the House to decide i f personal considerat ions were involved. There was no legal basis yet for sanct ions involv ing pol i t ica l part ies, but there was broad th inking that the party owed a responsibi l i ty to the Par l iament.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr MANSURA for his communicat ion, as wel l as a l l those members who had put quest ions to h im.

7. Presentations by candidates for the post of President of the ASGP

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , invi ted the two candidates for the post of President of the ASGP to make a br ief presentat ion for no more than f ive minutes. Mr Montero (Uruguay) would go f i rs t fol lowing the drawing of lots.

Mr MONTERO (Uruguay) said that he had been a lawyer s ince 1994, and had begun his par l iamentary career in 1995 as secretary to an MP. He had f i rst part ic ipated in the Associat ion’s meet ings in 2001. He had been a member of the Execut ive Commit tee for s ix years, the last three as Vice-President. I f elected, he would cont inue the act iv i t ies of his predecessors, a iming to widen membership, especia l ly in Lat in America, and to improve co-operat ion wi th the IPU.

Mr BOSC (Canada) ment ioned his 10 years’ act ive part ic ipat ion in the work of the ASGP. He and Mr Montero had ‘grown up’ together on the Execut ive Committee. He thought that the Associat ion’s main benef i t lay in the shar ing of exper ience between i ts members, and i f elected, he intended to bear th is in mind in making the Associat ion’s meetings, and informal gather ings, as product ive and useful as

possible. He would want to encourage al l those attending sessions to part ic ipate act ively. He saw general debates as a good development. He hoped to reach out to countr ies not current ly act ive in the Associat ion to encourage them to do so, and to mainta in good re lat ions wi th s ister organisat ions and the IPU.

8. Election to the post of President of the ASGP Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , opened the elect ion for the post of Pres ident of the Associat ion. The arrangements were supervised by him, the two Joint Secretar ies, and Mrs SA CARVALHO (Portugal) , former President .

The Associat ion proceeded to vote.

Results of the vote:

Number of votes cast : 84

Marc BOSC, Depu ty C lerk o f the House o f Commons o f Canada 62Jose Pedro MONTERO, Secreta ry Genera l o f the House o f Representa t i ves o f U ruguay

20

Absten t ions 2

No inval id votes.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , congratulated Mr Marc BOSC on his elect ion as next Pres ident of the ASGP.

The si t t ing rose at 11.30 am.

Presentation at the start of the tour of the Swiss Parliament building by the Secretary General of the Swiss Federal Assembly, Mr Christoph LANZ: “The Swiss Political System – the Structure and Tasks of the Federal Assembly”

President and col leagues,

I should l ike to thank the Ardent Ensemble under the di rect ion of Patr ick Secchiar i for their musical introduct ion, and am looking forward to hearing two further p ieces by them at the end of our tour.

We are now in the chamber of the Nat ional Counci l , one of the two chambers that make up the Swiss Parl iament . I should l ike to take this opportuni ty to g ive you a br ief out l ine of the Swiss pol i t ica l system.

Switzerland is a democracy. Along wi th other c iv i l r ights such as vot ing on speci f ic issues, the people elect the members of the Nat ional Counci l and the Counci l of States every four years. The next e lect ions wi l l take place th is coming Sunday, which means that you have come to Switzer land at a very interest ing t ime f rom a pol i t ica l point of v iew.

The Swiss Par l iament, a lso known as the Federal Assembly, comprises two chambers – the Nat ional Counci l and the Counci l of States. This can be explained by Switzerland’s federal st ructure. The Nat ional Counci l is the people’s chamber, and

i ts 200 members are e lected us ing a system of proport ional representat ion. The Counci l of States comprises 46 members, two represent ing each canton, regardless of i ts s ize or populat ion. In th is way a balance is ensured between the cantons wi th a larger populat ion, which are often more important f rom an economic point of v iew, and the smaller cantons.

Unl ike in many other countr ies wi th a two-chamber system, the Nat ional Counci l and the Counci l of States enjoy exact ly the same r ights . Each law must be passed by both chambers, in precisely the same form.

So what does the Federal Assembly do exact ly? I t is the legis lat ive body, i t supervises the Government and the federal administrat ion, i t approves the federal budget and the f inancia l s tatements, i t is involved in foreign pol icy – namely through approving internat ional agreements – and i t e lects the seven members of the government as wel l as the Supreme Court judges and a few other h igh-ranking off ic ia ls.

I would l ike to say a l i t t le more about the elect ion of the Government. The seven members of the Federal Counci l , or Government, are elected by the Federal Assembly, dur ing a joint sess ion of the two chambers, for a f ixed per iod of of f ice of four years. Dur ing this four-year per iod, a Federal Counci l lor cannot be voted out of of f ice. This is one of the reasons behind the high level of stabi l i ty in the Government, and indeed the country as a whole, s ince, even i f a major i ty of Members of Par l iament re ject a Bi l l drawn up by the Federal Counci l , the Government is not obl iged to resign. Unl ike other par l iaments, a vote of conf idence is never held in Switzer land.

The Swiss Par l iament is an act ive par l iament. This means that i t regular ly modi f ies proposals submit ted by the Government, both in basic terms and in the detai l . Before an issue is discussed in a plenary session, i t is examined by a Commit tee. During th is process hear ings are held involv ing the Government member responsib le for the issue in quest ion, people from the federal administ rat ion and experts in the f ie ld, and subsequent ly a decis ion is taken on how the proposal wi l l be put to the relevant Counci l .

Many members of the Nat ional Counci l and the Counci l of States have another job, bes ides their work as a Member of Par l iament. They therefore pursue their careers as doctors, farmers, lawyers, businessmen, teachers, for example, a l though with reduced hours. This is made possib le by the fact that the Nat ional Counci l and the Counci l of States si t for only 12 weeks a year, a three-week session being held every quarter . In between, the Standing Commit tees hold their meet ings. I t is a considerable chal lenge for a Member of Par l iament to reconci le a ‘normal ’ career wi th h is or her dut ies in Par l iament.

Debates held in the Nat ional Counci l and the Counci l of States are open to the publ ic. Any member of the publ ic can fo l low the debates from the publ ic gal lery of e i ther chamber. They are also shown l ive on the internet. The media have access to the two chambers, and report dai ly on what is happening in Par l iament. This is considered essent ial for the Swiss populat ion to exercise their democrat ic r ights.

The dut ies of the Parl iamentary Serv ices include ensur ing that Members of Par l iament can fu l f i l their const i tut ional tasks to the best of their abi l i ty. This means the impeccable preparat ion and organisat ion of Committee and Counci l meet ings, adv is ing var ious bodies and Members of Par l iament, provid ing top qual i ty technical

aids, in part icular with regard to information technology, and proact ive publ ic relat ions. I consider mysel f very lucky that my col leagues, members of the direct ion and the staff of the Par l iamentary Services work so hard to fu l f i l this aim.

Al though the pol i t ica l system in your country may be somewhat di f ferent f rom ours, you, Ladies and Gent lemen, and the Parl iamentary Services that you run, no doubt have simi lar dut ies to ours. I am look ing forward to ta lk ing to as many of you as I can, and exchanging ideas wi th you. I am sure we can al l learn something f rom each other for the benef i t of our own par l iaments.

I do hope you enjoy your stay in Bern. This afternoon we shal l be taking you on an excursion westwards, to the French-speaking part of Switzer land.

Before we go to lunch, I should l ike to invi te the President of the ASGP, Dr. Amrani, to say a few words. We shal l then be treated to two more pieces of music.

Thank you.

FOURTH SITTINGWednesday 19 October 2011 (Morning)

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, in the ChairThe sitting was opened at 10.00 am

1. Nominations for the post of Vice-President of the ASGP

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , announced that two candidates had been nominated for the post of Vice-Pres ident of the Associat ion: Dr AGNIHOTRI ( India) and Dr SCHÖLER (Germany). An elect ion would therefore need to be held at 12.00 pm. Each of the candidates would have an opportuni ty to present himsel f immediate ly before the elect ion.

2. New member Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , said that the secretar iat had received a request for membership which had been put before the Execut ive Committee and agreed to. This was:

Ms. Nataša Komnenić Deputy Secretary General of the Par l iament of Montenegro

The new member was agreed to.

3. Communication by Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER, Deputy Secretary General of the German Bundestag: “Rules for the use and misuse of research facilities in Parliament”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invi ted Dr Ulr ich SCHÖLER, Deputy Secretary General of the German Bundestag, to present h is communicat ion, as fo l lows:

“Today, most par l iaments (at least in Europe) have their own research serv ices, even i f they di f fer enormously as far as their s ize, human resources and competences are concerned. From the perspect ive of par l iamentary history, many of these services evolved out of what were or iginal ly l ibrary departments. Once these l ibrar ies ex is ted, there came to be demand for them to be used in a meaningful fashion. In the past , parl iamentar ians would look th ings up for themselves in books, d ic t ionar ies and commentar ies in order to f ind answers to pol i t ica l or legal quest ions, but they do not have the t ime to do th is today. Moreover, par l iamentar ians’ personal s taff , in those par l iaments where members are lucky enough to have such staff , are of ten busy deal ing wi th other tasks: organising const i tuency work, preparing appointments and speeches, etcetera.

This is why i t cer ta in ly made sense, and is expl icable as a histor ical process, for the l ibrar ies that were al ready in existence to gradual ly bui ld up teams of staf f that , as i t were, would br ing together the hardware of the books wi th the software of the knowledge contr ibuted by these employees so as to prov ide sol id ly founded academic support for their parl iaments and assist them in their decis ion-making processes. This made a great deal of sense for yet another reason: In the major i ty

of our states and systems of government, the execut ive has excel lent human resources at i ts d isposal in the var ious specia l ist sect ions wi th in i ts minist r ies, human resources that, in th is respect , are far superior to those of any parl iament . Even i f we accept that good, trust ing cooperat ion between the execut ive ( the government) and the legis lat ive (par l iament) does in fact take place in many cases, i t is one of the noblest funct ions of a par l iament to scrut in ise i ts country ’s government . I f i t is to be capable of doing th is as ef fect ively as possible, an in-house staff of wel l t ra ined academics wi th the broadest possible range of expert ise is indispensable.

Between 80 and 100 people, including about 50 highly-qual i f ied members of staff responsib le for producing expert opinions, work in the Research Services Directorate, which performs this funct ion at the German Bundestag. The Directorate is subdivided into 11 research sect ions, as they are known, each of which deals with substant ive issues that fa l l wi th in the jur isdict ions of several special ist minis tr ies. Several thousand enquir ies are answered every year by th is par l iamentary ‘ th ink tank’ . Depending on the needs of the ‘customer ’, the service provided can vary tremendously in qual i ty and scale. Sometimes, a l l that is needed is a quick, precise answer to a speci f ic quest ion. Somet imes, a request comes in for expert research into a complex topic that may well take several weeks to complete.

As the t i t le of my paper suggests, apart f rom the great and undisputed benef i ts of fered by our research faci l i t ies, problemat ic cases that are not easy to deal wi th do ar ise f rom t ime to t ime as wel l . I would l ike to look at one or two examples in order to explore in a l i t t le more depth the ru les we have put in p lace to govern the use of the Research Services. The most spectacular case of abuse came to l ight this year and wi l l undoubtedly have been picked up by the media in other countr ies – at least in Germany’s neighbours. What happened? In the spring of 2011, the German Defence Minister , Kar l -Theodor zu Gut tenberg, the most popular pol i t ic ian in the country at that t ime according to the opin ion pol ls, had to resign, part ly due to the improper use of documents produced by the Research Services of the German Bundestag.

In the ear ly years of the last decade, he had commiss ioned a number of expert opin ions from the Research Services on foreign pol icy topics – something he was perfect ly ent i t led to do, just l ike any other Member. His requests were certa in ly consistent wi th his work in the Committee on Foreign Affai rs, and there was absolute ly no reason for them to be chal lenged. The ru les say the research they commission must a id Members in the exercise of their par l iamentary mandates . However, long passages f rom these expert opinions eventual ly found their way into zu Gut tenberg’s own doctoral thesis , which was being wri t ten over the same per iod, wi thout the sources being acknowledged adequately. A committee establ ished special ly by the universi ty that had awarded him his doctorate judged that this was impermissib le plagiar ism. In consequence, he was str ipped of h is doctoral t i t le .

I t should therefore be evident that a Member of the German Bundestag is not at l iber ty to decide how they wish to use an expert opin ion produced by the Research Services. Our ru les st ipulate that the content of an expert opin ion is the responsib i l i ty of the authors involved. The decis ion about whether such a document may be handed over to the Member who ordered i t is taken sole ly by the author ’s immediate superior , the head of the div is ion. Since i t therefore remains the responsib i l i ty of the indiv idual researcher, the text does not become an off ic ia l document of the German Bundestag. How could i t be otherwise? Par l iament’s v iews on a speci f ic issue can only be determined by means of a decis ion voted on in the

plenary chamber. At the same t ime, however, th is provis ion ensures the author is a lso protected under copyr ight law. Without their consent , an expert opin ion cannot be publ ished or disseminated (this was another rule broken by our former Defence Minister because he fa i led to apply for permission to publ ish the texts) . Since i t is , nonetheless, a document drawn up in an of f ic ia l capaci ty, the author’s copyr ight is complemented by the copyr ight that l ies with their ul t imate employer, the Pres ident of the German Bundestag. As the person responsible for this part of the Administrat ion, I decide on appl icat ions for the publ icat ion or disseminat ion of such documents on his behal f .

The kind of case that comes up far more f requent ly than the sort of thing I have been ta lk ing about is encountered when a Member wishes to use the contents or resul ts of an expert opinion for their press work. Of course, i t carr ies considerable weight with the publ ic i f a pol i t ic ian can c la im their pol icy or legal ideas are backed up by an expert opin ion from the Bundestag’s Research Services. Occasional ly, though, we st i l l experience si tuat ions in which a Member of the German Bundestag orders an expert opinion – qui te possib ly request ing that the commission be handled conf ident ia l ly –, only for us to f ind i ts contents quoted at lengths in a newspaper or magazine just a day af ter i t has been del ivered. This is def ini tely not permiss ib le. When th is happens, i t is necessary to make i t c lear to the Member who ordered the work that they have commit ted an inf r ingement of copyr ight law by disclosing the document in this way. Frequent ly , however, there is another problem we f ind ourselves having to grapple wi th. Again and again, part icular ly when i t comes to pol i t ica l ly controversia l quest ions, the media convey the impression that a text is an off ic ia l statement of the Bundestag. For example, someone wi l l say, ‘A report f rom the German Bundestag comes to the conclus ion that the draft b i l l presented by the Federal Government on topic X, Y or Z is contrary to the const i tut ion. ’ What would actual ly be correct would be to say that a special ist work ing for the Research Services of the German Bundestag has arr ived at th is opinion – but then, of course, the headl ine would not be near ly as exci t ing.

In order to f ind solut ions for as many of the problems associated wi th the draft ing of expert opinions as possib le, we have adopted, as I ment ioned, a set of systematic rules. These ru les are la id out in the Guidance for the Research Services Directorate, as i t is t i t led, which is at tached to the wr i t ten text of my paper. 1 1 I hope i t wi l l be useful to some of you in your own work. Final ly, however, I would l ike to ta lk about yet another qui te fundamental aspect of the Research Serv ices ’ dut ies, the quest ion: What does such an expert opin ion need to be l ike? In abstract terms, the answer is : I t must be equal ly useful for every Member of the German Bundestag, regardless of the par l iamentary group or tendency to which they belong. I can star t to expla in the impl icat ions of th is by expressing i t in negat ive terms. To put i t concisely : We do not produce expert opinions that say what Members want to hear. Nor do we describe a problem in a speci f ic f ield or a legal problem f rom the point of v iew or for the purposes of a s ingle par l iamentary group – which means, fur thermore, that we do not wr i te draft b i l ls for indiv idual par l iamentary groups. Rather, the under ly ing pr incip le of our work is that a l l aspects of the quest ion raised or the complex of problems thrown up should and must be i l luminated as comprehensively as possib le in the t ime that is avai lable. In seeking to do this , we do not carry out or ig inal research or academic work. Rather, the parl iamentary Research Services funct ion as what could be termed an inter face between academia and the wor ld of pol i t ics. We base our expert opin ions on the research resul ts that are accessib le in d if ferent academic d iscip l ines, discuss and weigh up the var ious

11 This document is available on the ASGP website on the Past Meetings page.

and, in many cases conf l ict ing, standpoints , and attempt to trans late them into forms that wi l l be product ive for pol i t ica l decis ion-making processes. Only once the var ious di f ferent s tandpoints have been detai led and given due considerat ion is the author a lso al lowed to draw conclusions that ref lect their personal opinions, i f this has been requested. In summary, i t can be said that the research work conducted by our Administrat ion has gained ever more in s igni f icance over the last few years, and is great ly valued by the Members and par l iamentary groups of the German Bundestag.

Thank you for your attent ion!”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Dr SCHÖLER for h is communicat ion and inv ited members present to put quest ions to him.

Liam LAURENCE SMYTH (UK) ment ioned his responsib i l i ty for copyright in the House of Commons. The House had recent ly adopted a form of ‘by at tr ibut ion’ l icence, modelled on the Creat ive Commons l icence. The House of Commons Library was highly respected and very c lear about the kinds of enquir ies i t could not help wi th, such as requests for schoolwork.

Mr NINI ABINO (Ethiopia) asked how much of the information held by the Bundestag research service was accessib le to the publ ic.

Mr CAVERO (Spain) asked whether br ief ings prepared at the in i t ia t ive of the German research service were ever more useful to some pol i t ica l part ies than others.

Mr BELLEN (Phil ippines) asked how the conf ident ial i ty of the work of the research service was ensured.

Mr MANSURA (South Afr ica) di f ferent iated between research prov ided to al l Members and that provided to speci f ic pol i t ica l part ies. Governments sometimes suggested in h is country that certa in papers were not appropr iate ones for Par l iament to have produced.

Dr SCHÖLER (Germany) said that more work was needed on copyr ight for the Internet , as opposed to paper. Where there was any doubt about the use to which research would be put , Members of Par l iament were asked to s ign a form conf i rming that i t would be put to an appropr iate use. Some research information was made avai lable on the Internet, at Dr Schöler ’s discret ion. Some of the papers publ ished had been wri t ten at the research serv ice’s own ini t ia t ive. Sometimes th is had led to quest ions in the Counci l of Elders, but the work of the service was widely respected. The research service did not conduct research for indiv idual pol i t ica l groups. Papers commissioned by indiv idual Members could be provided for their own sole use i f they wished for up to four weeks.

Dr Hafnaoui Amrani, President , thanked Dr SCHÖLER 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 T K VISWANATHAN, Secretary General of the House of the People (Lok Sabha) of India: “Meeting the information needs of Members in Parliament”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invi ted Mr T K VISWANATHAN, Secretary General of the House of the People (Lok Sabha) of India, to present h is communicat ion, as fo l lows:

“ In modern democracies, the range, magni tude and complexi ty of the act iv i t ies of Par l iaments the world over have increased mani fo ld in terms of quant i ty as wel l as qual i ty – be i t the law-making, contro l l ing the f inances, overseeing the governmental act iv i t ies or holding the Execut ive accountable. Today, Parl iament is seen not merely as an inst i tut ional arrangement but as a forum whose success depends largely on eff icacy, accountabi l i ty and responsiveness to the people. The members of Par l iaments are not only required to prov ide pract ical solut ions to people’s problems but a lso to work for the fu l f i lment of their hopes and aspirat ions. Focus is on qual i ty of l i fe in tune wi th g lobal standards.

Over the years, there has been a momentous evolut ion in internat ional re lat ions, which are no longer l imi ted to tradi t ional dip lomacy. A r is ing t rend in the domain of internat ional pol i t ics as wi tnessed in recent years is the role of par l iamentary d ip lomacy. Act ions to honour the commitments assumed in internat ional and regional fora demand involvement of Par l iaments and par l iamentarians as many issues addressed by Par l iaments at nat ional level have internat ional d imension. Many internat ional organizat ions such as the Inter-Par l iamentary Union (IPU), the Commonwealth Parl iamentary Associat ion (CPA), Associat ion of SAARC Speakers and Par l iamentar ians, etc. , are making commendable contr ibut ions towards enhancing the ro le of par l iamentary community on issues of g lobal and regional concern. Yet another mode on increase is the Par l iamentary Exchange Programmes inc luding bi lateral v is i ts of Par l iamentary Delegat ions between the countr ies. As a resul t of a l l these, there has been an except ional increase in parl iamentary act iv i t ies making the Par l iaments and the members assume onerous responsib i l i t ies. How effect ively the Par l iament and i ts members p lay their role largely depend on the extent to which qual i ty information and dia logue permeate par l iamentary act iv i t ies. That being so, the members of Par l iament need to be wel l in formed of var ied nat ional and internat ional developments so as to fu l f i l l their dut ies effect ively and ably.

Since the Government is the single largest custodian of authent ic and complete information about the affa i rs of a nat ion, the members of Par l iament have to re ly heavi ly on Government Departments for informat ion. Every Parl iament has evolved i ts own pract ices and procedures with a v iew to assert ing i ts r ight to know or have access to such information. To cal l for informat ion f rom the Government is considered to be one of the most important powers of Par l iament and the par l iamentar ians. A wel l -known and the most ef fect ive mechanism being the device of Parl iamentary Quest ions which is an important tool through which the members have the r ight to e l ic i t in format ion f rom the Execut ive on a variety of matters affect ing the nat ion and the publ ic. However, in v iew of the present day scenar io, the scale and scope of informat ion services required by the members of Par l iaments have r isen. I t cal ls for a wide var iety of inputs and techniques at their disposal so as to meet the chal lenges of contemporary scenar io. Hence, Par l iaments the wor ld over are faced with the need of wel l -organized informat ion management systems so as to meet the mul t i far ious requirements of the members of Par l iament.Information Management for Members in Indian Parl iamentIn the Indian Par l iament , the year 1921 was a mi lestone insofar as information management is concerned. I t was in th is year that a smal l L ibrary was set up in the then Centra l Legis lat ive Assembly for the use of members. After the country

achieved Independence in 1947, the demands on Library star ted mul t iply ing. Resultant ly , an independent and comprehensive Library Service was envis ioned not merely as a reposi tory of books, legis lat ive debates and par l iamentary papers, but a lso for provid ing an up-do-date and object ive s tore-house of knowledge on which members could draw upon. The year 1950 saw the beginning of a systemat ic expansion of Par l iament L ibrary 's col lect ion, both quant i tat ively and qual i tat ively. A Members' Reference Service was also const i tuted wi th in the newly establ ished Research and Reference Branch.

During the last s ix decades, the Library as wel l as the Research and Reference Services for the members of Par l iament have gradual ly developed into what is now cal led the Par l iament L ibrary and Reference, Research, Documentat ion and Informat ion Service, more fami l iar by i ts acronym LARRDIS. Even though LARRDI Service is a part of the adminis trat ive set-up of the Lok Sabha Secretar iat , i t serves members of both the Houses of Par l iament and funct ions, by and large, on a subject -sect ion-cum-desk-of f icer system. The object ive is to ensure the development of necessary special izat ion and expert ise coupled with d iversi f icat ion of exper ience and interchange-abi l i ty of desks wi th in the broad subject areas. LARRDI Service is present ly div ided into the fo l lowing funct ional d iv is ions:

Library Divis ion Members' Reference Div is ion Research and Information Div is ion Press and Publ ic Relat ions Divis ion Audio Visual and Telecast ing Div is ion Parl iamentary Museum and Archives Div is ion Bureau of Par l iamentary Studies and Train ing (BPST)

The LARRDI Service is a lso integral ly associated wi th the computer izat ion services of the Lok Sabha Secretar iat .Parl iament LibraryParl iament L ibrary is one of the r ichest reposi tor ies of information sources for the use of members of Parl iament . The Library caters to the information needs of the members of Par l iament and other users pr imar i ly by way of issuing books, reports , etc. , and at tending to on-the-spot references. At present, i t has holdings of more than 1.27 mil l ion volumes of pr inted books, reports, governmental publ icat ions, U.N. reports, debates, gazet tes and other documents. Around 86 Indian and foreign newspapers and 472 journals and periodicals in Engl ish, Hindi and other Indian languages are being received regular ly in the Par l iament L ibrary.

A Library Committee is const i tuted every year by the Speaker, Lok Sabha wi th the Deputy Speaker as the ex of f ic io Chairman, f ive members f rom the Lok Sabha nominated by the Speaker and three members from the Rajya Sabha nominated by the Chairman of Rajya Sabha. The funct ions of the Commit tee are: to consider and advise on such matters concerning the Par l iament L ibrary as may be referred to i t by the Speaker from t ime to t ime; to consider suggest ions for the improvement of L ibrary; and to ass is t members of Parl iament in fu l ly ut i l iz ing the services provided by the Library. The Commit tee in a way acts as a l ia ison between the members of Par l iament and the Parl iament L ibrary. I t encourages members to make suggest ions for the development of Library and i ts Reference Service. The Committee also advises the Speaker on matters pertain ing to select ion of books, f raming of ru les, future p lanning, etc.

For the purpose of reference and research by the members of Par l iament, the Gazettes and Debates (G&D) Sect ion of Par l iament L ibrary mainta ins debates of Centra l Legislat ive Assembly, Const i tuent Assembly (Draft making), Const i tuent Assembly (Legislat ive), Prov is ional Par l iament, Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Assembl ies and select fore ign Par l iaments, authent icated Documents, Reports, Papers la id on the Tables (LTs) of both the Houses of Par l iament and Gazet tes not i f ied by the Government of India and the Governments of various States from t ime to t ime. The data of LTs is a lso avai lable on Internet f rom the Fourteenth Lok Sabha onwards.

The Acts and Bi l ls Sect ion preserves and mainta ins the records of the Const i tut ion of India, Centra l and State Acts, Centra l and State Government Rules, Ordinances promulgated, Government and Pr ivate Members' Bi l ls , Reports of the Select/Joint Commit tees, Al locat ion of Business Rules, Foreign Acts, etc. The copies of a l l the Centra l Acts s ince 1841 are preserved and necessary correct ions are carr ied out regular ly as and when the Acts are amended.

The Documentat ion Sect ion , set up in 1975, is pr imar i ly responsib le for locat ing, col lect ing, c lass ify ing and indexing of al l the useful l i terature and art ic les appear ing in newspapers, books, periodicals , etc. , received in the Par l iament L ibrary. The t i t les are sui tably annotated and arranged under a specia l ly devised subject-wise classi f icat ion scheme and fed into the ‘LIBSYS’ sof tware. These are ret r ievable through the Home-Page of Par l iament of India under the icon ‘Par l iamentary Documentat ion’ s ince June 1998.

The Press Cl ippings Sect ion , set up in 1956, col lects important and up-to-date news i tems, edi tor ial comments and ar t ic les on developments in the legis lat ive, pol i t ica l , economic, soc io-cul tural , scient i f ic and technological f ie lds. The c l ippings are taken from 18 Engl ish and 12 Hindi newspapers publ ished from var ious parts of the country . Press Cl ippings are maintained in proper sequence according to a specia l ly dev ised classi f icat ion scheme based on the Dewey Decimal Classi f icat ion Scheme. Selected Press Cl ippings ( in Engl ish) on issues of topical in terest can be retr ieved through c lassi f icat ion number and subject keywords f rom the computers connected in Local Area Network in the Par l iament House Complex.

Micrographics are an indispensable part of information technology for bet ter management of L ibrary and Information Services. A Microf i lming Uni t was set up in 1987 as one of the important Branches of LARRDI Service with the acquis i t ion of latest avai lable models of microf i lming equipments and anci l lar ies. The microf i lms of var ious important documents of const i tut ional and par l iamentary interest may be read through the microf i lms reader-cum-pr inter insta l led in the Uni t . Members' Reference ServiceThe Members' Reference Service organizes disseminat ion of factual, object ive and latest information to the members of Parl iament wi thin the t ime st ipulated by them. Apart f rom Session per iod, the Service caters to the information needs of members dur ing inter-Session per iod as wel l . Informat ion requirement of a member is arranged keeping in v iew his/her mul t ip le-funct ional ro les as a legis lator , as a member of a Parl iamentary Committee or of a Par l iamentary Delegat ion vis i t ing abroad or as a delegate at Internat ional Par l iamentary Conference/Seminar, etc. In order to ensure supply of information to members wi th in the st ipulated t ime, the Members' Reference Service is broadly d iv ided into var ious subject based Desks such as Agr icul ture and Consumer Af fa i rs ; Labour, Employment and Rural Development ; Economic and Financia l Af fa i rs ; Industry and Investment;

Parl iamentary and Pol i t ica l Af fa i rs ; Internat ional Affai rs and Defence; Human Resources; Socia l Affai rs; and Legal and Const i tut ional Affai rs. The Members' Reference Serv ice broadly performs the funct ions including:

Supply of on-the-spot information to members from publ ished documents; Collect ion and disseminat ion of latest information, factual data, stat ist ics,

etc. in response to members ' wr i t ten reference requisi t ions; Preparat ion of reference notes on important topics; Preparat ion of b ib l iographies on important subjects ; Preparat ion of Background Notes, Information Bul let ins, Fact Sheets and

Informat ion Folders on topical issues; Maintenance of Study Boxes on topical issues in ant ic ipat ion of the

information needs of members; and Updating and pr int ing of var ious regular publ icat ions from t ime to t ime.

The Service caters to the informat ion needs of members both in Engl ish and Hindi as per their choice. Members' Assistance Desks have been located in the Par l iament House and the Par l iament L ibrary Bui ld ing. Members may hand over the wr it ten requisi t ions indicat ing clearly and precisely the speci f ic points on which information is desired. They also have the opt ion to convey their requirements over telephone or d irect to the off icers in the Members' Reference Service.

Research and Information Service The Research and Information Div is ion meets research and information requirements of the members of Parl iament . The Divis ion is d iv ided into the special ized funct ional Wings or Sect ions ident i f ied by the subjects handled by each, such as: Economic and Financia l Af fa i rs Wing; Educat ional and Scient i f ic Af fa i rs Wing; Journal of Parl iamentary Informat ion (JPI) Sect ion; Legal and Const i tut ional Af fa i rs Wing; Par l iamentary Affa i rs Wing; Pol i t ica l Affa i rs Wing; Pract ice and Procedure Uni t ; Socia l Affai rs Wing; and Who's Who Cel l .

The task of Research and Information Divis ion is to keep the members of Par l iament wel l - in formed of current developments, both nat ional and internat ional , in various f ie lds by br inging out brochures, information bul let ins, background notes, fact sheets, etc. which carry object ive information. The Divis ion is a lso entrusted wi th special assignments such as preparat ion of a large number of speeches, br iefs, presentat ions, reports, resolut ions and memoranda for the use of Hon’ble Speaker/Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha and the Indian Par l iamentary Delegat ions at good-wil l v is i ts to other countr ies or at various Internat ional Parl iamentary Conferences/Seminars/Study-Groups/Regional Conferences held under the auspices of the Inter-Par l iamentary Union ( IPU) and the Commonweal th Par l iamentary Associat ion (CPA), the Associat ion of SAARC Speakers and Par l iamentarians, the Conferences of the Commonwealth Speakers ’ and Presiding Off icers and other Conferences such as World Conferences of Speakers of Par l iaments, General Assembly of the Asia-Paci f ic Par l iamentar ians’ Conference, Asia and Paci f ic Par l iamentar ians’ Conference on Environment and Development (APPCED) and var ious other events. Research input is also provided for various Conferences/Occasions held at nat ional level .

The Research and Information Div is ion br ings out regular per iodicals for the use of members of Par l iament such as the Journal of Par l iamentary Information (Quarter ly): The Digest of Centra l Acts (Quarter ly) : The Digest of Legis lat ive and Const i tut ional

Cases (Quarter ly) : and the IPG Newsletter (Quarter ly) . The Div is ion also br ings out books and publ icat ions on important issues of par l iamentary interest which includes the renowned treat ise, Kaul and Shakdher's Pract ice and Procedure of Parl iament . Computerized Information ServiceThe Parl iament of India has taken signi f icant s teps in developing Information Technology to ass ist par l iamentar ians in the ef fect ive d ischarge of their dut ies. For the purpose of introducing automation in Par l iament L ibrary, the computer-based information retr ieval system named Par l iament L ibrary Informat ion System (PARLIS) was star ted in December 1985 wi th the help of the Nat ional Informatics Centre (NIC). Later , a l l the databases were converted into fu l l text databases in Web format and were made avai lable onto the Par l iament of India Home Page http: / /par l iamentof india.n ic . in

Since 15 March 1996, the Par l iament of India Home Page has become an important source of informat ion and reference tool for members of Parl iament . At present, separate websi tes of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are being mainta ined by the respect ive Secretar iats and are l inked onto the Par l iament of India Home Page. Major components of par l iamentary information avai lable are wi th regard to present and former members; Business of the House, Bul let ins and Resume of Work done dur ing each Session; Quest ions; Debates; Content and text of Government /Pr ivate Members Bi l ls introduced in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and Ti t le-wise, Members/Ministry-wise, category-wise search opt ions; Committees’ informat ion wi th regard to their composi t ion, subject selected, b i l ls referred, s i t t ings, schedules, study tours, reports presented and act ion taken statements on act ion taken reports ; information about the Secretar iat , etc .

In addi t ion to the above, the Vir tual Tour of Par l iament House and Par l iament L ibrary, general information about Par l iament, Rules of Procedures and Conduct of Business, Direct ions by the Chair, Government of India Manual on Parl iamentary Work and Government Instruct ions on deal ings wi th M.Ps are a lso made avai lable on the Home Page. Besides th is, 24 hours Lok Sabha TV webcast, i ts schedule, important v ideo cl ippings are avai lable onto the Home Page. L inks to Legis lat ive Bodies in India; other Par l iaments; Inter Par l iamentary Union; Commonweal th Par l iamentary Associat ion; President of India; Prime Minister ; Minist r ies; States and UTs; Elect ion Commission; Indian Courts ; High Courts and Supreme Court have also been prov ided. A separate Homepage has been developed for the Lok Sabha Speaker, which inter a l ia contains the prof i le of the present Speaker, her pol i t ical and personal achievements, ro le of the Speaker, events attended, speeches and press releases. Apart f rom th is, the prof i les of al l the former Speakers along wi th their respect ive terms of of f ice are also avai lable in this sect ion. In yet another endeavour, the act iv i t ies of Par l iament L ibrary have been automated by us ing an indigenously developed commercia l sof tware package 'LIBSYS'. The 'LIBSYS' is an integrated l ibrary appl icat ion web enabled software package cover ing almost a l l the funct ions of Par l iament L ibrary. The l ibrary database can be accessed on Internet by the members of Parl iament . A Digi ta l L ibrary has been developed wherein the members can access reference books, yearbooks, reports, at lases, e-journals, d i rector ies, etc. As per provis ion of Computer Equipment (Legis lature Party in Lok Sabha and Of f icers) Rules 2009, Pol i t ica l Part ies which have been al lot ted accommodation in Par l iament House Complex are ent i t led to have one Desktop, one UPS, one Printer and Internet connect ion by the Secretar iat . Under the Financial Scheme of Purchase of Computers as approved by the Hon’ble Speaker, which came into effect f rom 31 July 2009, the members of Par l iament (House of the People) have been

provided fac i l i ty to procure computer and other per ipherals under the prescr ibed range. Intranet and E-mail Services In order to fac i l i ta te shar ing of data and access Internet, a h igh speed Local Area Network (LAN) has been la id in the Parl iament Complex. The independent Local Area Network (LAN) of the three bui ld ings and recept ion off ices is connected wi th each other through Optical Fibre Cables for provid ing high speed connect iv i ty . The computer connect iv i ty to outside wor ld including Internet is being provided through Nat ional Informat ics Centre Network known as NICNET. The NICNET also connects a l l the Centra l Ministr ies/Departments, State Capi ta ls, important inst i tut ions and al l the Dis tr ic t Headquarters of the country. Al l the Users have been provided access to Internet. E-mai l Messaging Serv ice wi th the domain name (sansad.nic. in) is a lso avai lable to a l l the members of Par l iament and Off icers/Sect ions of the Parl iament Secretar iats.Bureau of Parliamentary Studies and TrainingPart icular ment ion may be made of the Bureau of Par l iamentary Studies and Train ing (BPST) establ ished in 1976, which is a lso entrusted wi th the task of provid ing inst i tut ional ized opportuni t ies to the members of Parl iament for systematic tra in ing, or ientat ion in various discipl ines of par l iamentary processes and procedures. The Bureau also organizes Seminars and Workshops for the members so as to enable them to have deeper and broader understanding of complex nat ional and global issues. Under the Lecture Series for Members of Par l iament, the Bureau organizes lectures by experts on subjects of topical in terest for the benef i t of members of Par l iament. The lectures are organized on contemporaneous themes in order to help them to comprehend var ious dimensions of the subject matter . At such lectures, the members get an opportuni ty to share views wi th the experts f rom diverse f ields in India as wel l as abroad, inc luding from var ious internat ional bodies. In order to assis t the par l iamentarians in d ischarging their dut ies effect ively such as const i tuency management funct ions, of f ice automation act iv i t ies, personal information management , communicat ion with State Legislatures and other organizat ions, access of Internet and e-mail , etc. , Computer Awareness Programmes are organized by the Bureau to enable them to make opt imum use of computer faci l i t ies prov ided to them by the Secretar iat . Parl iamentary ForumVarious Par l iamentary Forums consist ing of members of Parl iament have been const i tuted in the Indian Par l iament wi th a v iew to equipping the members of Par l iament wi th information and knowledge on speci f ic issues of nat ional concern and in ass is t ing them to adopt a resul t -or iented approach towards the issues. These Forums prov ide them opportuni t ies to come together and discuss the issues wi th i ts wider ramif icat ions. As of now, there are Par l iamentary Forums on Water Conservat ion and Management; Youth; Chi ldren; Populat ion and Publ ic Heal th; Global Warming and Cl imate Change. The Forum on Disaster Management is in process of formation. At these Forums, members get an opportuni ty to have an inter face wi th experts , c iv i l society, NGOs, etc. The Forums also organize lectures and presentat ions by experts. Such interact ions enable the members to effect ively art iculate their v iews on issues concerning the people and to p lay a proact ive ro le in addressing the problems on the f loor of the Par l iament . Thus, i t has been the constant endeavour of the Par l iament of India to make suff ic ient arrangements towards meeting information needs of the members of Par l iament in order to enable them to fu l f i l l their tasks and dut ies effect ively .”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr VISWANATHAN for h is communicat ion and invi ted members present to put quest ions to h im.

Mr LAURENCE SMYTH (UK) part icular ly admired the feature on the Indian Par l iament websi te which informed vis i tors which Members of Parl iament had their b ir thdays that day.

Mr ZVOMA (Zimbabwe) said that his Par l iament’s information serv ice was much more act ive in gather ing i ts own research data than previously, to avoid the need for data to be provided by Ministr ies.

Mr KOO (Korea) asked about the di f ference between the members’ reference service and the research and information service in the Lok Sabha, and the number of staff in the par l iament’s l ibrary.

Mr VISWANATHAN (India) expla ined that the l ibrary research service prepared general research papers whi le the members ’ reference service answered Members’ speci f ic quest ions. The l ibrary was the largest service in the Lok Sabha, with near ly a th i rd of i ts 2,800 staff . Dist r ibut ion of IT equipment to Members had made communicat ions easier. But the use of 18 of f ic ia l languages made that task harder. In answer to Mr Zvoma, there was a Right to Information Act in India which made i t hard for Government Departments to wi thhold information.

Dr Hafnaoui Amrani, President , thanked Mr VISWANATHAN for h is communicat ion, as wel l as those members who had put quest ions to him.

5. Communications by Mr Geert A HAMILTON, Secretary General of the Senate of the States General of the Netherlands: “Exchange of information between government and parliament” and “The Dutch Senate: a paperless parliament”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invi ted Mr Geert A HAMILTON, Secretary General of the Senate of the States General of the Nether lands, to present two communicat ions, as fo l lows:

“Exchange of information between government and parl iament

Members of Par l iament are constant ly gathering, processing and producing information. They al l l ive in their own ‘sphere of information’, consis t ing of d i f ferent sources, among which the of f ic ia l documents from government, nat ional media, personal contacts and connect ions wi th c iv i l society. A pol i t ic ian depends on useful information. ‘ Informat ion is power because i t ’s the substance of which decis ions are made. ’ (Witherspoon). This lecture starts wi th recent developments in the Nether lands and wi l l elaborate on recent research on the information posi t ion of par l iament. I wi l l conclude wi th a short internat ional compar ison and suggest ions for improvement .Recent developments in the NetherlandsOver the past ten years several innovat ions were int roduced in the par l iamentary process, such as the ci t izens' in i t iat ive, the r ight of a qual i f ied major i ty of 20% to apply for an emergency debate and the considerat ion of EU-matters at an ear ly stage. In 2007, the House of Representat ives s tarted a process of parl iamentary

sel f- ref lect ion, under the leadership of the President of the House. This resul ted in the House drawing up i ts own agenda for the future and i ts own inquiry agenda, and led to extended ass is tance to MPs.

But st i l l there are problems and imperfect ions. A recent study of Dutch par l iamentary inquiry over the past twenty- f ive years indicates a recurr ing pattern of misinformation from government to par l iament. The information defects vary from provid ing fa lse information, inaccurate information, incomplete information, vei led information, misleading informat ion, and an overf low of information. From t ime to t ime informat ion is kept behind closed doors by stat ing that i t concerns classi f ied information. Exist ing pol icy a l ternat ives and possib le r isks are scarcely communicated. Expl ic i t quest ions f rom members of par l iament are frequent ly answered in vague or mul t i - interpretable terms. The pract ice of par l iamentary quest ions can be summarized in an aphorism:

Asking the r ight quest ions is an ar t , get t ing the r ight answers is a mercy.

There is a s igni f icant information asymmetry between government and par l iament. A minister has, depending on the size of h is department, a few hundred to several thousand of f ic ia ls and pol icy-makers work ing for h im. He can cal l in the advice of several adv isory boards and planning agencies and has a substant ia l budget for h ir ing external expert ise. Compared to high government off ic ials and ministers, members of par l iament are very l imi ted in support f rom their staf f .

There is a lot to say about the performance of parl iament i tself . Par l iament sometimes fa i ls to ful f i l i ts supervisory task and overs ight dut ies and displays s igns of short- term memory. Parl iament frequent ly lets pol i t ical considerat ions prevai l over moni tor ing and reviewing governments’ pol ic ies. Coal i t ion part ies are bet ter and ear l ier informed by the department; in th is respect opposi t ion part ies are d isadvantaged. Consensus and gaining a parl iamentary major i ty that supports the cabinet is most of the t ime considered to be more important than a strong information posi t ion of par l iament as a whole.

This is problematic because knowledge and information are considered key factors for the innovat ive capaci ty of an organizat ion. Scholars l ike Wil lke and Weick note that the main d i f ference between innovat ive organizat ions and non- innovat ive organizat ions, between "best performers" and "bad performers" l ies in the way knowledge is organized and the extent to which i t is shared wi th others in- and outside the organizat ion. The ex is t ing informat ion arrangements between government and par l iament hamper the innovat ive capaci ty of publ ic administrat ion.Restricted contacts MPs and civil servants Since 1998 contacts between Dutch MPs and civ i l servants are rest r ic ted. Civ i l servants can only prov ide information of a publ ic and factual nature. In the percept ion of many c iv i l servants th is is an iconic not ion: ‘Thou shal l not communicate wi th MPs’ . According to some MPs the current interpretat ion of minister ia l responsibi l i ty leads to a systematic smothering of ideas from administrators. According to them there are no compel l ing reasons to exclude the ideas of of f ic ia ls and civ i l servants, or regarding them as untouchable in the publ ic debate. Dutch par l iament is putt ing more and more pressure on government to wi thdraw or loosen the instruct ion on rest r icted contacts between MPs and c iv i l servants.

International comparisonDuring the years 2007-2009 the Dutch Par l iament organized a process of so-cal led ‘par l iamentary sel f- ref lect ion’ . ECPRD research shows that in near ly two th i rds of the responding countr ies (n=30) there had been some process of par l iamentary sel f -ref lect ion dur ing the last f i f teen years. The most important innovat ions and f indings consist of four main topics.

(1) Evaluat ion and accountabi l i ty . An important conclusion of several par l iamentary committees is that more attent ion is necessary for the evaluat ion of pol i t ica l dec is ions and the implementat ion of pol ic ies. Qui te a number of par l iaments have, in the past few years, sharpened their evaluat ion funct ion, in order to scrut in ize the work of the government more effect ively.(2) Par l iamentary minor i ty r ights . Strengthening minor i ty r ights , d irect ly or indirect ly, inf luences the information posi t ion of opposi t ion part ies. In some countr ies minor i t ies have the r ight to ini t ia te a par l iamentary inquiry . In other countr ies a qual i f ied minor i ty can order an independent invest igat ion by the par l iamentary research body or organize a hear ing. (3) Interact ing with the civ i l soc iety . In the per iod of research, several par l iaments exper imented wi th forms of interact ion with the civ i l society. This often involved forms of consul tat ion of the organized civ i l society; i t a lso encouraged ci t izens to voice their ideas on speci f ic issues. Through interact ion wi th society , parl iament is informed about the problems, ideas, and preferences that ex is t amongst the electorate. (4) Future commiss ions. Eventual ly, there is growing interest in the impact of pol ic ies and legis lat ion on future generat ions. Some par l iaments have decided to set up parl iamentary committees deal ing with future developments. These Committees on the Future are in a re lat ively ear ly s tage of development , but i t seems inevi table that i t af fects the informat ion exchange wi th sc ience and society.

There is a lot more to say about this. I could e laborate on the impl icat ions of the so cal led wiki - leaks si tes, or on access to commissioned research. But t ime runs out. Here I focused on Par l iament’s relat ion wi th the Execut ive power. Parl iament can break through the select ive informat ion monopoly of government by demanding equal access to informat ion. On pol i t ics one can argue, but the under ly ing information should be adequate. I thank you for your attent ion.

Annex 1 Innovations in western parl iamentsOutcomes of the ECPRD researchIn the per iod from 2007-2009 a number of quest ions about par l iamentary self -ref lect ion were presented to par l iamentary research and information departments in other countr ies, through ECPRD's network. ECPRD stands for European Centre for Par l iamentary Research and Documentat ion, a knowledge network of par l iamentary research and information departments "The ECPRD acts as a channel for requests for information whenever one par l iament would l ike to know more about pract ice and pol icy in other countr ies."

A process of par l iamentary sel f- ref lect ion is by no means except ional . About 65% of the respondents answered that in their country some kind of par l iamentary self -ref lect ion had taken place over the past 15 years. The substant ive agenda of these sel f- ref lect ion programmes var ied from country to country. In some cases the ref lect ion programme focused on the funct ioning of parl iament as the people 's

representat ion. This type of sel f- ref lect ion is about the re lat ionship between the voters and those elected, more in part icular about the relat ionship between representat ive and part ic ipat ive democracy. In other cases, the sel f- ref lect ion process concentrated on the re lat ionship between par l iament, as the legis lat ive power, and the government, as the execut ive power. In these cases, the system of checks and balances was subject to debate, for instance, as wel l as the extent to which parl iament actual ly manages to scrut in ize the work of the government. In other cases, the whole range of issues was deal t wi th, including fundamental ref lect ion on the future of par l iamentary democracy, as wel l as more pract ical proposals to change the meet ing schedule or the rules of procedure of the par l iaments in quest ion. For instance, in Belg ium, in the second hal f of the 1990s, a number of working groups was set up to d iscuss such issues as the funding of pol i t ica l part ies, the desirabi l i ty of referenda and the re lat ionship between the ci t izens and their pol i t ica l inst i tut ions. In October 2006, the Danish par l iament (Folket ing) organised a conference of people 's representat ives, c iv i l servants, pol i t ica l scient ists and lawyers. The theme of the conference was the informat ion posit ion of par l iament v is-à-vis minis ters, and the r ight to ask quest ions in part icular .

In Germany, several adaptat ions to the posi t ion and the working methods of the German par l iament (Bundestag) were implemented, inc luding new rules concerning the ro le of the Bundestag in decis ion making about the deployment of German troops in war zones. Moreover, new arrangements were agreed wi th regard to the cooperat ion wi th the government in EU-matters. The ru les for par l iamentary inquiry committees were rev iewed as wel l .

In Sweden, par l iament (Riksdag) set up several reform commit tees over the past 15 years. They produced reports carry ing such prosaic t i t les as: "Reforming the Work of the Riksdag" (1993), "The Riksdag Facing the 21st Century" (2001) and "The Riksdag in a New Age" (2005). Key themes of th is ref lect ion process were the management and the organisat ion of par l iament, the budgetary process, the fo l low-up and evaluat ion of legis lat ion and the considerat ion of EU-related subjects .

In Israel , the last four pres idents of parl iament strongly advocated an independent posit ion of Knesset towards the government. Over the past 10 years, a l l the presidents of Knesset each managed some process of sel f- ref lect ion or another.

parl iamentary self -ref lect ion

parl iamentary self -ref lect ion in part

no parl iamentary self - ref lect ion

Aust r ia XBe lg ium XBosn ia and Herzegov ina

X

Croat ia XCzech Republ ic XDenmark XEston ia XEuropean Par l iament XF in land XFrance XGermany XGreece XIs rae l XI ta ly XLi thuan ia X

Macedon ia XNether lands XNorwayPo land XRuss ia XSerb ia XSlovak ia XSpa in XSweden XSwi tzer land XTurkey XUn i ted K ingdom XUni ted Sta tes X

Figure 6.4 Par l iamentary sel f- ref lect ion in western democracies between 1990-2010

What fo l lows is a summary of the internat ional compar ison, c lustered along these key themes:

Evaluat ion and accountabi l i ty Parl iamentary minori ty r ights Interact ion wi th society Commit tees on the future Assistance to par l iamentar ians

Evaluation and accountabil itySome reforms re late to the improvement of the evaluat ion and accountabi l i ty ro le of par l iament. A key conclusion of several parl iamentary reform commit tees is that more attent ion should be paid to the evaluat ion of decis ions. The Swedish Riksdag, for instance, concluded that "a specia l funct ion should support the committees in their work with fo l low-up and evaluat ion."

In 1999 a programme was introduced in Denmark under the name of " law survei l lance", a imed at moni tor ing and evaluat ing the implementat ion and the effects of new laws af ter three years. As a ru le, every year one law per minist ry is subject to moni tor ing, on which occasion organisat ions, implement ing bodies and stakeholders are asked to express their exper iences wi th the law in quest ion.

Some years ago, the Riksdag in Sweden created a structure to st rengthen the evaluat ion funct ion of i ts committees. Since then, an average ten par l iamentary evaluat ions on key pol icy issues are held every year, resul t ing in evaluat ion reports to be discussed by the Riksdag.

The House of Commons has a dual commit tee system. Standing committees are set up ad hoc and focus on the management of the law making or pol icy making process. Their way of operat ing is marked by a great deal of monism: party d iscip l ine is enforced by the s trong posi t ion of the so-cal led "whips". Besides, there are "select commit tees". These are permanent commit tees, set up along the l ine of the government departments they scrut in ize. They focus on scrut in iz ing the government 's pol icy. Members of a party in government wi l l take a much more cr i t ica l and independent stand in a select commit tee than they can afford to do in s tanding committees. This is general ly accepted as proper behaviour. In select committees exper iments have been carr ied out wi th "v ideo ev idence from selected groups in c iv i l society" .

In 2006, the French par l iament carr ied out a large-scale reorganizat ion of i ts own administrat ion. The main idea behind th is was the growing importance of moni tor ing and scrut in iz ing legis lat ion and i ts implementat ion. In France, act iv i t ies in the f ie ld of legis lat ion and scrut iny were str ict ly separated unt i l recent ly. A key part of the reform is the support of the people's representat ion by six large thematic uni ts: " legal af fai rs; cul tural and social quest ions; economics and scient i f ic assessment; publ ic f inances; European affa i rs, defence and internat ional af fai rs. "

In I ta ly, par l iamentary inquiry is considered to be one of par l iament 's strongest tools. Most inquiry commit tees are composed of members of both the I ta l ian House of Representat ives and the Senate. When carrying out a par l iamentary inquiry they have the same competences as the judic iary. Par l iamentary inquiry is most ly ret rospect ive, wi th the effect of measures being examined afterwards. Par l iament can also decide to do fact f inding in advance (" indagin i conoscit ive"). The standing committees of par l iament have the r ight to do so, which can be exercised when scrut in iz ing bi l ls or pol icy programmes. In hearings ministers, c iv i l servants, experts and other stakeholders can be heard about the proposal in quest ion. The aim of these hear ings is to gather information which could be useful for a better pol i t ica l judgement of the issue at stake.

A couple of years ago, Accountabi l i ty Day was introduced in the Dutch par l iament. On that day, the cabinet has to account for i ts pol icy over the past year and for the real isat ion of the aims of the cabinet 's pol icy. After a somewhat troublesome star t Accountabi l i ty Day gradual ly seems to develop into a tool which enables the House of Representat ives to better carry out i ts duty to scrut in ise the work of the government.

In Apr i l 2007, the Belg ian Federal Par l iament, composed of the Senate and the House of Representat ives, set up a parl iamentary committee focusing on the evaluat ion of laws (“Wet tot opricht ing van een Par lementair Comité belast met de wetsevaluat ie”) . The commit tee is composed of members of the House and the Senate. The commit tee evaluates how legis lat ion that has been adopted at least three years before works out in actual pract ice. Ci t izens, government bodies or par l iamentar ians can apply for such an evaluat ion. The committee may cal l in experts . The committee can also carry out an inquiry into the government body in quest ion. Moreover, every year the committee receives the annual reports of the Prosecut ion Off ice on the problems courts meet when interpret ing and implementing laws.

The new Swiss const i tut ion grants parl iamentary commit tees the r ight to any information they need to carry out their dut ies. This const i tut ional pr inciple is fur ther e laborated in legis lat ion. Parl iament can decide independent ly which information i t needs to scrut inize the work of the government , whereas before i t was up to the government to decide about that. " Insbesondere wird für d ie Oberaufs icht festgeschrieben, dass neu der Kontrol leur und nicht wie b isher der Kontro l l ier te darüber entscheidet, welche Informat ionen für e ine wirksame Kontro l le benöt igt werden." Moreover, the new const i tut ion expl ic i t ly commissions parl iament to moni tor the implementat ion of new government measures, or to make sure that such veri f icat ion takes place.

The aim of the introduct ion of the so-cal led "Kernzei tdebat te" is to ensure that key themes in German pol i t ics are thoroughly discussed on a regular

basis . These debates are held on Thursday ("Donnerstags-Debatte") , they take four to s ix hours on average and are broadcast l ive. In pr inc ip le, no other of f ic ia l meet ings are held dur ing these debates.

Parl iamentary minori ty r ightsA basic pr incip le of democrat ic rule of law is that minor i t ies are respected. In several par l iaments the r ights of parl iamentary minor i t ies have been codi f ied and l inked to the use of a set of scrut iny tools.

In Israel , Knesset has a relat ively independent posi t ion. Members of coal i t ion part ies are supposed to support the cabinet, but nevertheless a culture of some " int ractabi l i ty" ex is ts. The lack of strong party d iscipl ine gives Knesset a relat ively strong posi t ion. In 2000, Knesset set up i ts own enquiry department , staf f ing 30 invest igators at the moment. In some cases the department cooperates wi th univers it ies and knowledge centres. Every committee and every s ingle member of parl iament has the r ight to apply for an inquiry .

In Germany, a qual i f ied major i ty of 25% of the members of a par l iamentary committee can decide to hold a publ ic hear ing, in which stakeholders ' organizat ions and experts can be heard. Every year, an average of 75 publ ic hear ings are held.

In Denmark, several minor i ty r ights ensure that the voice of opposi t ion part ies is heard as wel l . A two-f i f ths minor i ty in Folket ing can apply for a debate on a certa in issue. Once a b i l l has been adopted, a one th i rd minori ty in Folket ing can request that a referendum be held. Delegat ion of powers to internat ional author i t ies, such as the EU, requires a f ive-sixth majori ty in Folket ing. I f there is only a s ingle majori ty, and the government wants to mainta in the proposal, i t can be put before the people in a referendum.

The developments in Norway are part icular in the sense that th is country has a long t radi t ion of minor i ty cabinets. The number of staff support ing par l iamentar ians has been extended. Opposi t ion part ies in part icular make use of their enquiry services. In 1993, the parl iament of Norway set up the "Standing Commit tee on Scrut iny and Const i tut ional Af fa i rs" in order to strengthen par l iament 's ro le in the f ie ld of scrut iny. A qual i f ied minor i ty of one th i rd of the members of th is committee can decide to carry out an inquiry. Meanwhi le, t radi t ion has i t that a member of the opposit ion chairs this committee. The establ ishment of the commit tee largely contr ibuted to strengthen par l iament 's scrut iny ro le. A one th i rd qual i f ied minor i ty is enough to hold a "publ ic hear ing".

In the Nether lands, the so-cal led emergency debate has been introduced, which can be appl ied for by a one-f i f th minor i ty in the House of Representat ives. (The " thi r ty members ru le". ) Al though some part ies frown at the mul t i tude of these debates and their "wheezy" character, par l iament decided in 2007, af ter evaluat ion, to cont inue the emergency debate.

The parl iament of Bosnia and Herzegovina has an independent inquiry department , which is equal ly accessib le to a l l the representat ives. A request f rom the opposi t ion to carry out a fur ther enquiry is general ly honoured; no par l iamentary majori ty is needed.

Interaction with society

During the research per iod, several par l iaments carr ied out exper iments wi th some form of interact ion wi th c iv i l soc iety. This of ten involved forms of consul tat ion wi th inst i tut ions of organised civ i l society, but a lso engagement of c i t izens in the process of pol i t ica l considerat ion which takes place in par l iament.

In Denmark, the committees of Folket ing organise around 150 conferences or open consul tat ions every year, which ci t izens can attend and in which representat ives of social organisat ions can part ic ipate.

In Sweden, inquiry committees are set up regular ly before important pol i t ica l dec is ions are made. I t has become standard pract ice that representat ives of t rade unions, employers and other stakeholders jo in such parl iamentary inquiry commit tees. An average 15% of the members of these "Commissions of Inquiry" represent interest groups.

In Li thuania, Seimas can set up so-cal led preparatory working groups. Not only members of Seismas, but also representat ives of author i t ies, socia l organisat ions and experts can hold a seat in these working groups.

The Norwegian par l iament can di rect the government by law to e laborate legis lat ion in a d ia logue wi th re levant stakeholders in c iv i l society. An example of th is is the regulat ion of account ing ru les. The Norwegian Par l iament, "Stort inget" has di rected the government to elaborate these ru les in a d ia logue wi th the nat ional account ing organisat ion.

In Austr ia, a l l b i l ls are subject to a so-cal led "general examinat ion procedure". Al l departments must f i rs t send their proposals to a l l re levant stakeholders for comment, such as universi t ies and other re levant organisat ions. Subsequent ly , an amended proposal is submit ted to par l iament, together wi th a l l the comments and suggest ions f rom stakeholders. A simi lar procedure is in p lace in Sweden and Denmark, among other countr ies.

Sweden has i ts "Par l iamentary Ombudsmen". The Riksdag appoints four of these "Par l iamentary Ombudsmen". I t is a pol i t ical ly neutra l inst i tut ion which sees to i t that the author i t ies carry out their dut ies in accordance wi th the legal provis ions. They can star t an invest igat ion on quest ions or complaints from ci t izens.

In the Uni ted Kingdom the " th ink tanks" p lay an interest ing ro le. Al though most th ink tanks, such as the Inst i tute for Pol icy Studies and Demos, are aff i l iated with a pol i t ical party, they take an independent posit ion. The "Better Government Ini t ia t ive" is a group of inf luent ia l former pol i t ic ians and experts . They carry out research and make recommendations to s trengthen par l iament 's independent posi t ion towards the cabinet.

In Germany a popular in i t iat ive was launched recent ly, cal led "abgeordnetenwatch.de", an internet plat form which is run outs ide par l iament. Ci t izens can ask quest ions to their representat ives and the answers given by the members of the Bundestag, the regional "Landtage" and the European Par l iament are accessib le for every v is i tor . The mot to of the plat form is "wei l Transparenz Vertrauen schaf f t" . This in i t iat ive is s imi lar to the Br i t ish "Lords of the Blog" which is run by the Hansard Society.

Committees on the futureThere seems to be growing interest in the effects of legis lat ion and pol icy making on future generat ions. Over the past few years, several par l iaments decided to set up par l iamentary commit tees on future developments.

In Israel the "Commission for Future Generat ions" was set up on the basis of a process of par l iamentary sel f- ref lect ion.

In 2006 the "Parlementar ischen Berat für nachhal t ige Entwicklung" was establ ished in Germany. This par l iamentary advisory committee on sustainable development deals wi th the impact of g lobal isat ion on future generat ions. The committee operates beyond the l imi ts of the separate special ist committees and checks the " future-proofness" of legis lat ion. The committee also contr ibutes to the s tructur ing of pol i t ics for the coming generat ions.

In the 1990s a "Committee for the Future" was set up in Finland. The committee discusses future-re lated issues and advises the specia l ist committees on future-re lated aspects of pol icy and legis lat ion. Specia l at tent ion is g iven to the socia l impact of new technologies. At i ts establ ishment the commit tee del iberate ly chose to take an innovat ive approach towards science and technology. This approach can be explained by the fact that the economy of Fin land was in deep depression in that per iod. Issues to be deal t wi th in the next par l iamentary per iod include: "g lobal chal lenges of food product ion", "part ic ipatory content product ion" and " taboos of the wel fare model , sacred misconcept ions". The commit tee also exper imented with a "v i r tual commentary porta l" , where ci t izens could comment on issues the commit tee was deal ing wi th.

Annex 2 - Contact between parliamentarians and government department officialsThe arrangements in var ious countr ies wi th regard to contacts between par l iamentar ians and government department of f ic ia ls show big d i f ferences. Every country has i ts own const i tut ional system, i ts own pol i t ica l history and i ts own cul ture. In some countr ies a c lose symbiot ic re lat ionship between par l iamentar ians and government department off ic ials exists, whereas in other countr ies their relat ionship is more l ike that between "natural enemies". Some smal ler countr ies do not have any arrangement at a l l as to the contacts between c iv i l servants and par l iamentar ians.Countr ies can be div ided into two groups wi th respect to the arrangement of contact between parl iamentar ians and civ i l servants. In the f i rs t group of countr ies such contacts are normal ly al lowed. Par l iament can also hear c iv i l servants in a hear ing, in order to gain more informat ion about intended pol icy.As a ru le, in the second group of countr ies contacts between par l iamentar ians and civ i l servants are not a l lowed, as th is could conf l ict wi th the minister ia l responsib i l i ty . In a formal par l iamentary inquiry , however, c iv i l servants can be heard. Parl iament 's powers are extended in such cases.

Examples of countr ies with a "b ig-hearted" arrangement are:

I ta ly. Department of f ic ia ls may provide information on technical aspects of pol icy issues. Moreover, they can be heard in so-cal led "fact- f inding enquir ies".

Austr ia. Al though contacts take place v ia a minister formal ly, an extensive pract ice of exchange of information between par l iamentar ians and civ i l servants has developed.

Germany. The German system has strong monist ic character ist ics , wi th government and par l iament sometimes closely entangled. Most ministers are a lso members of par l iament. Besides, there are close contacts between (pol i t ica l ly appointed) c iv i l servants and members of par l iament. In some cases th is even leads to a par l iamentary quest ion and the government 's answer, or a government proposal and the pol i t ica l reply in a par l iamentary debate, being wri t ten by one and the same person.

The Uni ted Kingdom has a more dual commit tee system. "Select Committees" special ize in scrut in iz ing the government 's pol icy. They have the r ight to quest ion c iv i l servants in publ ic and they f requent ly make use of th is r ight . As a ru le, indiv idual members of the opposi t ion cannot contact c iv i l servants d irect ly to gain information and advice. Yet, the UK has a remarkable arrangement, al lowing the opposi t ion access to information before an elect ion: "Dur ing the per iod before an elect ion, the Opposi t ion Shadow Cabinet are a l lowed to make contact wi th c iv i l servants d i rect ly in order to d iscuss pol icy and organisat ional issues."

In the Uni ted States of America there are frequent contacts between Congressmen and c iv i l servants. Every committee of the House of Representat ives or the Senate organizes tens to hundreds of hear ings each year, in which representat ives from companies, stakeholders ' organizat ions or c iv i l servants are heard.

In Norway, contacts normal ly take place via the minis ter in charge. However, c iv i l servants can be heard in hearings. Moreover, in format ion can be gained from par l iament 's administrat ion. "More of ten a staf f member of Parl iament contacts the relevant level in the Ministry. This is not considered to be a problem – in fact, the Parl iament rel ies on such contacts for i ts work."

In Finland, c iv i l servants are mainly heard as experts: "Minis ter ia l c iv i l servants are regular ly consul ted in their capaci ty as experts at hearings arranged by the commit tees of the Eduskunta and committee members can ask them quest ions about the matter under del iberat ion."

In Estonia, members of Ri ig ikogu can contact c iv i l servants d irect ly . Requested informat ion is seldom refused.

In Switzer land, there is much informal contact between parl iamentar ians and civ i l servants: "A member of par l iament may at any t ime contact a c iv i l servant , ask h im or her quest ions or ask for information."

Examples of countr ies that are more restr ict ive when i t comes to contact between MPs and civ i l servants are:

Portugal. Civ i l servants can be invi ted to g ive ev idence, but "they must require the author isat ion of the respect ive minister to take part in Commit tees proceedings".

Spain is very restr ict ive in th is f ield: "Al though there is not an expl ic i t prohibi t ion of contacts between Members of Spanish Par l iament and civ i l servants, in pract ice th is k ind of contact is ext remely rare."

In the Nether lands, former pr ime minister Wim Kok's "ukase" st i l l appl ies, which is broadly considered as a qual i f ied ban on contact between MPs and department of f ic ia ls . Members of coal i t ion part ies maintain informal contacts wi th government departments, members of opposi t ion part ies to a much lesser extent.

The Belgian arrangement is s imi lar to that of the Nether lands. Contact normal ly takes place v ia the minister . Civ i l servants can be heard in case of a par l iamentary inquiry. In a l l other cases the minister 's consent is required.

In Poland, MPs have access to any classi f ied information. "MP’s are a l l ent i t led to access to the classi f ied information on the force of law." However, i t is di f f icu l t for an MP to contact c iv i l servants: "Civ i l servants employed in minist r ies avoid contacts wi th par l iamentar ians, in order not to be accused of favouring certa in pol i t ica l part ies."

Romania has an except ional form of government , in the sense that a specia l minister is in charge of " the Department for Relat ion wi th Par l iament" . Informat ion to par l iamentar ians is prov ided by th is minis try.

No unambiguous conclusions can be drawn f rom th is internat ional compar ison. The actual pract ice is more vague and var ied than the above-ment ioned div is ion suggests. There are good reasons to p lace the posi t ions of the various countr ies on a cont inuum rather than in the above-ment ioned c lusters. However, a cont inuum would a lso lead to new def in i t ion problems, such as the quest ion how to balance the formal arrangement and the informal pract ice. Moreover, essent ial di f ferences occur wi th in a country , in terms of the per iod monitored and in terms of d if ferences between members of the government or cabinet involved.”

Sources:ECPRD research on par l iamentary sel f- ref lect ion (2007-2009) Enthoven, G. (2011), Hoe verte l len we het de Kamer? Een empir isch onderzoek naar de informatierelat ie tussen reger ing en par lement, Eburon, Del f t ”

“The Dutch Senate: a paperless Parl iamentOn 13 September 2011 the Senate of the Dutch Par l iament star ted to d ist r ibute i ts meet ing documents to i ts 75 Senators by tablet computer. At the s tar t of the f i rst session after the summer recess, the Senators each received an iPad wi th an appl icat ion (App) designed especia l ly for the Senate. The Members of the Senate can use th is modern communicat ion tool to consult and manage the complete information f low of calendars, legis lat ive b i l ls , par l iamentary correspondence and other meeting documents.

With that , the Senate of the States General took the s tep to swi tch completely to the dig i ta l prov is ion of information. Al though several par l iaments throughout Europe are work ing on the fur ther d igi t isat ion of their documents, the Dutch Senate is the f i rst to complete ly swi tch to meetings which are fu l ly based on the use tablet computers by parl iamentar ians.

In doing so, the Senate is breaking wi th an almost 200-year history of d istr ibut ing bi l ls , le t ters f rom the government, reports and other meeting documents in pr inted form. Al l of th is post generated thousands of pages of pr inted matter per Senator per week, which had to be del ivered to the homes of the Senators by courier unt i l now. And s ince nat ional par l iaments have been al lowed to state their opinions on pol icy proposals of the European Union, the amount of par l iamentary post has grown even further. From now on, the 75 Senators wi l l be able to v iew al l documents d irect ly on their iPads and add notes to meet ing documents. The calendar ' l inks' d irect ly to the nat ional and European f i les. Senate continues to takes the lead in digital innovation

The Senators received the iPads, which wi l l remain the property of the Senate, at a special meet ing pr ior to the f i rst regular p lenary meeting fo l lowing the summer recess. At th is occasion the introduct ion of the tablet computer was marked as a def in ing moment in the his tory of the Senate. The Senate which is housed in a h is tor ical 17th century bui ld ing at the 'Binnenhof ' in The Hague, is somet imes burdened with a ' 'dul l ' image, but besides qual i ty and meticulousness, t ransparency and work ing eff ic ient ly are held in h igh regard. This is why the Senate has cont inued to take the lead in the Dutch government c i rcui t when i t comes to dig i ta l in formation provis ion and rapid communicat ion. The Senate was also quick to introduce new communicat ion tools in previous decades, such as making par l iamentary papers avai lable v ia the Internet in 1994, and launching a user-f r iendly website in 1997. The websi tes of the Senate have won awards on several occasions for their excel lent accessib i l i ty.

The Pres ident of the Senate G.J. (Fred) de Graaf launched the new working procedure wi th two off ic ia l acts. First , he unvei led a work of art by ar t ist Jos van den Berg and graphic designer Cees van Rut ten. I t concerns a rel ief , cut f rom pieces of g lued par l iamentary papers. The creat ion is cal led Pre-iPad Parl iament , and marks the t ransi t ion from the pr inted order of the meet ing to the dig i ta l form. He then of f ic ia l ly launched the new Senate App.Reliable and sustainableThe introduct ion of the iPad was preceded by carefu l preparat ions, which included the development of software for the eff ic ient management of calendars and complete b i l l dossiers. The decis ion was based part ly on considerat ions concerning sustainabi l i ty and cost ef f ic iency. Pract ical advantages, such as eff ic ient recordkeeping and cont inuous updat ing of calendars and f i les also played an important ro le.

The Senate developed the system in cooperat ion wi th the 'Knowledge and Operat ions Centre for Off ic ia l Government Publ icat ions' (Kennis- en Explo i tat iecentrum Off ic ië le Overheidspubl icat ies) (a d iv is ion of ICTU) and PDC Informat ion Archi tecture. The appl icat ion i tsel f was designed and del ivered by a contracted ICT serv ice prov ider. The App was tested thoroughly dur ing the summer recess. This showed that the electronic publ icat ion of par l iamentary papers is ef f ic ient, dependable and re l iable. Wire less communicat ion is supported by the 21 Wi-Fi t ransmit ters located in the his tor ic Senate bui ld ing as of ear ly September.With the system, which is now operat ional , the Senate want to take a f ront posi t ion in the appl icat ion of technology in the context of the paper less government . The int roduct ion of the tablet computers and the development of the App are associated wi th an investment of €148,000. Much of th is amount wi l l be recouped in the f i rst year through a fundamental reduct ion in the costs of pr int ing and cour ier serv ices for the Senate. These amount to €142,686 (pr ice level 2010). In t ime, the savings on the Senate 's overheads can increase even fur ther.The Senate of The Nether lands is interested in exchanging exper ience wi th other par l iaments on the use of e lectronic devices as a replacement of paper f lows.”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr HAMILTON for his communicat ions and invi ted members present to put quest ions to h im.

Dr AGNIHOTRI (India) said that iPads had been introduced in the Rajya Sabha in July, with cer ta in papers sent e lectronical ly to Members on a dai ly basis.

Mr WICKHAM (United States) (non-member) said that the US House of Representat ives had in January taken the step of al lowing iPads into the Chamber. He asked i f the iPads in the Dutch system had a dedicated secur i ty funct ion, and what steps had been taken to ensure the dig i ta l archiv ing of documents.

Mr OLLARD (UK) asked how far the documents deposited for post- implementat ion rev iew were actual ly used in pract ice. He also asked what s teps had been taken to ensure the secur i ty of the electronic system put in p lace.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , asked i f al l of the Senators used the iPad or not. The Alger ian experience was that only 10% of senators used the computers provided to them.

Mr HAMILTON (Netherlands) said that there were no new important secur i ty r isks posed by provid ing par l iamentary documents on iPads. Al l the documents had already been placed on the Internet. I t was just a quest ion of br inging these documents together in a handy place. The iPads were the only computers Members could br ing into the Chamber. I f an iPad was lost, i t was password protected. But the only information on the iPads that was conf ident ia l were the personal notes and e-mai ls made by a Senator . I t was a necessary gadget for Senators to access par l iamentary papers, so they used i t . Senators could not use i t for f r ivolous act iv i t ies: they could only put apps on i t wi th the permission of the par l iamentary ICT service. Al l parl iamentary documents had been elect ronical ly archived s ince 1995. Al l papers dat ing back to 1815 were now on a specia l websi te. Members ’ abi l i ty to access precise information onl ine about the previous year ’s budget a l lowed for more informed debate and quest ioning in discussions on the upcoming budget. There was only one Senator who had objected to the iPads, but he had been brought round wi th the help of h is wi fe within a month.

Dr Hafnaoui Amrani, President , thanked Mr HAMILTON for h is communicat ions, as wel l as those members who had put quest ions to h im.

6. Presentations by candidates for the post of vice-President of the ASGP

Dr Hafnaoui Amrani, President, invi ted the two candidates for the post of President of the ASGP to make a br ief presentat ion for no more than f ive minutes. Dr Schöler (Germany) would go f i rst fo l lowing the drawing of lots.

Dr SCHÖLER (Germany) explained that he was a lawyer and pol i t ica l scient is t by profess ion. He had worked in the Bundestag since 1998. In addit ion, he was a professor of pol i t ica l science. He had been a part ic ipant in ASGP meetings since 2004. His current term on the Execut ive Commit tee was due to expire in Apr i l 2012. This was a rare opportuni ty to elect a German-speaking person in a German-speaking town. I t was also an opportuni ty to elect someone who was perfect neither in French nor Engl ish. He hoped to encourage other non-nat ive Engl ish and French speakers to part ic ipate more act ively. He thought that one way of making the Associat ion’s del iberat ions more fru i t fu l would be to put more emphasis on why indiv idual par l iaments organised their act iv i t ies in the part icular ways they did.

Dr AGNIHOTRI (India) said that he had been secretary general for four years. Before that he had been the permanent secretary in the minist ry of par l iamentary affa i rs. He had also been a judge, and so had worked in a l l three arms of a

democrat ic system. He was an act ive member of the ASGP. As secretary general of an upper House, he had introduced more than 100 new in i t ia t ives, including the use of ICT, and the revamping of the parl iamentary websi te. He hoped to ident i fy and pursue innovat ive ideas i f e lected. He saw scope for enriching the body of knowledge about procedures and systems in co-operat ion with other Par l iaments, using al ready avai lable resources, and for greater use of ICT in promoting the Associat ion’s work. The Associat ion needed to be able to expla in to the IPU the content and value of i ts work. He also intended to learn a l i t t le more French.

7. Election to one post of Vice-President of the ASGP Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , opened the elect ion for the post of Vice-President of the Associat ion. The arrangements were supervised by him, the two Joint Secretar ies, and Mrs SA CARVALHO (Portugal) , former President .

The Associat ion proceeded to vote.

Results of the vote:

Number of votes cast : 72

Vivek AGNIHOTRI , Secre ta ry Genera l o f the Ra jya Sabha o f Ind ia 35Ul r ich SCHOLER, Depu ty Secre tary Genera l o f the German Bundestag 37Absten t ions 0

No inval id votes.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , congratulated Dr Ulr ich SCHÖLER on his e lect ion as Vice-President of the ASGP.

The si t t ing rose at 12.20 pm.

FIFTH SITTINGWednesday 19 October 2011 (Afternoon)

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, in the ChairThe sitting was opened at 2.30 pm

1. Presentation by Mr Martin CHUNGONG and Ms Kareen JABRE on recent developments in the Inter-Parliamentary Union

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, welcomed Mr CHUNGONG and Ms JABRE and inv ited them to make their presentat ions.

Mr CHUNGONG gave the f loor to h is col league Ms JABRE, manager of the IPU’s gender partnership programme.

Ms JABRE made the fo l lowing presentat ion:

Mr CHUNGONG said that fast -moving developments in the Middle East, wi th the ‘Arab Spr ing’ , had raised awareness that the IPU needed a rapid response mechanism to react to s imilar developments in a t imely way. He mentioned a request f rom the Parl iament of the Cook Is lands for more informat ion on internat ional comparators on how par l iaments themselves were held accountable, part icular ly in terms of their spending. There had been support f rom ASGP members for the Palest ine Legislat ive Counci l pro ject, which was to begin short ly. Secretar ies general would be asked to make their expert ise avai lable.

There had been a delay in publ icat ion of the Global Parl iamentary Report , because more research had been required than orig inal ly envisaged. He hoped that secretar ies general would contr ibute to the expert review of the draf t report that would take place in December.

The IPU’s working methods had been reviewed by an external consul tant. The IPU was moving towards resource-based management , and aimed to measure better the impact of i ts act iv i t ies around the world. The IPU was, of course, under pressure to reduce i ts budget.

Mr CHUNGONG thanked Dr AMRANI for his co-operat ion over the prev ious three years, and said that he looked forward to working closely wi th Mr BOSC.

Mr LAURENCE SMYTH (UK) congratulated the IPU on an excel lent sourcebook, which would prove a valuable resource. He thought that only through print ing on paper could certain documents be opt imal ly inf luent ia l , and was concerned that budgetary reduct ions might make th is more di f f icu l t in future.

Mr DINGANI (South Afr ica) asked i f the study had picked up on threats to the promotion of gender equal i ty, in part icular fa i lure to prepare women suff ic ient ly for pos it ions of leadership.

Ms JABRE agreed wi th Mr Dingani on the need to prov ide capaci ty-bui ld ing for female par l iamentar ians af ter their e lect ion, not just to support them in gett ing elected in the f i rst p lace, but also pointed to a lack of understanding in many Par l iaments of what gender mainstreaming meant in pract ice. Inst i tut ional capaci ty-bui ld ing could a lso therefore be necessary.

Mr ZVOMA (Zimbabwe) ment ioned that the women’s caucus in h is Par l iament, a l though well -supported, tended to preach only to the converted, rather than reaching out to the male ‘culpr i ts ’ . He asked for observat ions on th is phenomenon.

Ms JABRE said one of the chal lenges caucuses faced was how to jo in up with Par l iament’s other work. Some caucuses also had men as honorary members, Rwanda for example.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, said that he was impressed by the impressive and commit ted work carr ied out by Ms Jabre and her team. He mentioned a draft law being studied in Alger ia under which 33% of seats would be reserved for women. The ASGP also gave thought to the place of women wi thin par l iamentary administrat ions. He stressed the importance of the IPU’s work in other North Afr ican countr ies.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, thanked Mr CHUNGONG and Ms JABRE for their presentat ions. He thanked the IPU for i ts co-operat ion over the three years of h is mandate. He hoped that this co-operat ion would cont inue to st rengthen over the years to come.

2. Election of two ordinary members of the Executive Committee Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , noted that the deadl ine for nominat ions for two ordinary members of the Execut ive Committee of the Associat ion had passed at 12.30 pm. Two nominat ions had been received: Ms. Mar ie-Françoise PUCETTI (Gabon), and Mr Geert Jan HAMILTON (Nether lands). The Pres ident dec lared that Ms PUCETTI and Mr HAMILTON were accordingly e lected as ordinary members of the Execut ive Committee by acclamation.

3. General debate: The concept of an activist Parliament Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, inv ited Mr Zingi le DINGANI, Secretary to the South Afr ican Par l iament, to open the debate.

Mr Zingile DINGANI (South Africa) spoke as fol lows:

“Let me f i rst ly thank you for the opportuni ty to prov ide introductory remarks to th is important topic.

South Afr ica’s h istory of racial oppression and the denia l of human r ights are wel l documented. In the free and democrat ic society we fought so hard to establ ish, we based our st ruggle on the pr incip le contained in the f i rst c lause of the Freedom Charter of 1955 where i t states: “The people shal l govern” .

At the dawning of the new democrat ic age for South Afr ica, our Const i tut ion was crafted in such a way that i t sought to heal the div is ions of the past and establ ish a society based in democrat ic values, socia l just ice and fundamental human r ights.

The South Afr ican Const i tut ion today lays the foundat ion for a democrat ic and open society in which government is based on the wil l of the people and every c i t izen is equal ly protected in law. In draft ing our Const i tut ion, ensuring equal soc ia l and pol i t ica l inc lusion in society, was of utmost importance. As such, our Const i tut ion provides the pol i t ica l and legal structure to guarantee and protect a l l human r ights and puts in p lace mechanisms through which governance based on the wi l l of the people is ensured.

An act iv ist Par l iament cal ls for an approach in which Par l iament interacts wi th and responds to the needs of the people. This means that the programmes of Par l iament should be dr iven by the people and should be for the people. This is a central tenant for Par l iament as an inst i tut ion mandated to ensure both representat ive and part ic ipatory democracy.

In the South Afr ican Par l iament th is has been given impetus through the v is ion of our Par l iament :

“To bui ld an effect ive people's Parl iament which is responsive to the needs of the people and that is dr iven by the ideal of real is ing a better qual i ty of l i fe for a l l the people of South Afr ica” .

Parl iaments should be the vehicle through which people and civ i l society at large are reached. In th is regard the terms “people’s parl iament” and “act iv is t par l iament” should be seen as mutual ly re inforcing constructs .

In recent meetings the Afr ican Nat ional Congress (ANC) has also come out in support of the concept of an act iv ist par l iament when i t stated the fol lowing:

“Legislatures and the ent i re legis lat ive arm of the State are to be treated as an act iv ist ’s forum. The ANC has committed i tsel f to an act iv is t Par l iament and Legislatures that put the interests of a l l South Afr icans f i rst , especia l ly the poor, as i t per forms i ts const i tut ional responsibi l i t ies as a Nat ional L iberat ion Movement and governing party. . .The Legis latures must be fel t by the people. They must be vis ib le through their representat ives and have a meaningful impact upon the l ives of the people so that they can pract ical ly feel and see in pract ice the concept of “ the People shal l govern” that the Freedom Charter spoke of in 1955. To achieve th is there is a need to have a “Peoples Par l iament” and Par l iamentary Const i tuency Of f ices that are used as spr ingboards for community outreach work. These of f ices must be the hubs for advice, the engine rooms for d iscussion and centres where communit ies can receive l i terature and informat ion to become informed. . .” Parl iaments should be seen not only as the guardians of democracy, but must also shape and give meaning to democracy. Parl iaments are the centra l inst i tut ions of democracy that represent the hopes and aspirat ions of the people. Par l iaments must ensure transparency, responsiveness and accountabi l i ty of government to the people.

In South Afr ica, our Const i tut ion, speci f ical ly mandates Par l iament to faci l i tate publ ic involvement in i ts legis lat ive and other processes. Publ ic part ic ipat ion is both an obl igat ion and a powerfu l tool to ensure an inc lusive process that strengthens democracy.

A core funct ion for Par l iament is a lso to mainta in oversight of Government on behal f of our people. I t is Par l iaments that must hold government to account for the achievement of their development commitments, to ensure that these commitments are tru ly ref lected in nat ional p lans and pol ic ies and in the nat ional budget. The overs ight funct ion of par l iaments is the most important power that we have to ensure and ass is t our governments to meet their commitments to the people.

Par l iaments must ensure that a l l execut ive organs of state are accountable to i t and that i t mainta ins overs ight of the nat ional execut ive author i ty . Par l iaments must therefore ensure that they conduct their mandate of conduct ing oversight and ensur ing accountabi l i ty in such a manner that the needs of ordinary people are represented whi le service del ivery is enhanced.

South Afr ica has adopted legis lat ion which gives par l iament the abi l i ty to effect changes to the nat ional budget. We intend to use th is oversight tool to ensure that our Government’s pol ic ies a l low for suff ic ient expendi ture to ensure the improvement of the qual i ty of l i fe of a l l our people.

Chal lenges of inequal i ty, poverty, increased joblessness, c l imate change, migrat ion, food secur i ty and f inancia l turmoi l face al l countr ies today. These chal lenges require Par l iaments to intensi fy their ef forts to become act iv ists for change. In this regard they must g ive voice to the people in the advancement of both representat ive and part ic ipatory democracy. Our Par l iaments can not be a place of sta le debate wi thout br inging about meaningful change for the people they represent .

An act iv ist Par l iament, however, a lso needs people and c iv i l society to be act iv ist in their own r ight . This act iv ism requires devot ion to pr inc iples of egal i tar ianism, and partnership with the people, who are included as co-decis ion makers, co-planners, co- implementers, co-moni tors and co-evaluators of the laws and projects that are meant to change their l ives for the bet ter.

As we have wi tnessed, sweeping changes in the wor ld have been brought about by the cal ls for democrat ic accountabi l i ty f rom ordinary people who demand that their voices be heard and that they are governed in an accountable and transparent way.

A strong civ i l society which funct ions in support of the democrat ic pol i t ica l order may be seen as a way in which democracy can be upheld. The development of a democrat ic cul ture where the r ights of a l l people are protected, discr iminat ion is e l iminated and people act ively exerc ise their c iv i l r ights can be a catalyst to uphold the democrat ic pr incip les we al l hold dear.

This , however, a lso g ives us the responsibi l i ty to ensure that our Par l iaments provide not only for publ ic part ic ipat ion, but a lso for publ ic educat ion that promotes democrat ic values, respect for the ru le of law and fosters tolerance and inclusiv i ty wi th in society.

In th is regard the South Afr ican Par l iament has embarked on a process of establ ishing Par l iamentary Democracy Off ices which act as satel l i tes of the nat ional Par l iament. We also regular ly hold programmes to “ take Parl iament to the People” speci f ical ly in deep rural areas. We also have various sector Par l iaments that look speci f ical ly at the mat ters of concern to the youth, women or the disabled.

I t is my view that an act iv ist Par l iament should seek to correct in just ice, to put the interests of the people we serve f i rst , most specif ical ly the poor, to be vis ib le and to have a meaningful impact on the l ives of people.

Par l iaments must ensure that they cont inue to emerge as agents for change, as true act iv ists in the ful f i lment of their representat ive, legis lat ive and oversight roles. I hope that in our d iscussion today we wi l l be able to further e laborate on the concept of an act iv is t Par l iament , to set out what we consider to be the attr ibutes of such a Parl iament and to debate our p lace in ensur ing the real isat ion of th is ideal.

I thank you.”

Mr Constantin DAN VASILIU (Romania) presented the fo l lowing contr ibut ion:

“MOTTO: The opposi te of an act iv is t par l iament is not an inact ive par l iament, i t ’s an indi f ferent par l iament. The opposi te of an act ive civ i l society is not a passive civ i l society; i t ’s an indif ferent c iv i l society .I . Indifferent parliament versus activist parl iament A par l iament which is not representat ive of the pol i t ica l wi l l , of the socia l d ivers ity and of the ethno-demographic real i t ies, which is not act ive and effect ive in i ts const i tut ional funct ions at local , nat ional and internat ional level and which is not accountable to the ci t izens i t represents, wi l l never be able to act as an engine of democracy and socio-economic development of a country.

On the other s ide, no act iv ist par l iament can exis t wi thout an act iv is t c iv i l society. Why act ive c i t izenship? Because I have no doubt, a parl iament wi l l never t ransform into an act iv ist par l iament by i tsel f but only through a mul t idimensional interact ion wi th the civ i l society. In th is regard, the ci t izens should be both encouraged and supported to cont inue to exercise their democrat ic r ights and c iv ic dut ies after the Elect ion Day and to remain concerned and fu l ly engaged in the pol i t ica l dec is ion-making process and in shaping the present and the future of their country.

Otherwise, pol i t ic ians wi l l cont inue to complain about the apathy of the civ i l society and c it izens wi l l cont inue to ta lk about inef f ic ient governance or about par l iament as an unnecessary, cost ly and corrupted state inst i tut ion, b l ind and deaf to the aspirat ions and to needs of the people i t const i tut ional ly represents. An indi f ferent parl iament and an indi f ferent c iv i l society may lead only to stagnat ion and even to an economic and socia l involut ion of a country.I I . Romania : towards a more activist Senate “In the exercise of their mandate Deputies and Senators shal l be in the service of the people.”

Since the fa l l of the communist d ictatorship twenty-two years ago, Romania faced complex chal lenges re lated to i ts t ransi t ion to democracy, to the market economy and to i ts European and Euro-At lant ic integrat ion.

None of these would have been achieved wi thout a permanent d ialogue between par l iament and a c iv i l society which has become bet ter organized and increasingly involved in the country ’s major economic and pol i t ica l issues.

At present, the c iv i l society representat ives may be audi t ioned, upon their request, by various decis ion-making and work ing structures of the Senate. The pet i t ions and

other documents or proposals submit ted by them are forwarded to the re levant special ized committee(s) , for examinat ion. According to their own ru les of procedure, the standing commit tees invi te the representat ives of c iv i l soc iety to part ic ipate to their s i t t ings.

Unfortunately, despi te these facts , especia l ly over the past few years, the publ ic t rust in s tate inst i tut ions and especia l ly in Parl iament has dramatical ly eroded. And, I assume you would agree wi th me, th is is a far more serious threat to democracy than a loss of conf idence in one or in another party or pol i t ic ian. In response, the Senate has s igni f icant ly increased i ts ef forts to develop a legal f ramework and to establ ish c lear procedures enabl ing a more consistent re lat ion wi th the ci t izens. Each rev is ion of the Rules of Order and of the Procedures of the Senate represented a new opportuni ty to a lso improve the tools for the legis lat ive - c iv i l society interact ion and for the parl iamentary control over the Government. At the same t ime, wi th the v iew to create the premises both for a correct inst i tut ional sel f-evaluat ion and for an object ive evaluat ion by the civ i l society of the extent to which Senators fu l f i l l the obl igat ions deriv ing f rom their parl iamentary mandates, an utmost importance is at tached to the cont inuous increasing of the transparency of the Senate’s act iv i t ies – senators and par l iamentary administ rat ion.

A recent development a long th is path is the adopt ion by the Standing Bureau, in June 2011, of the Strategy for the improvement of the activity of the Senate of Romania: a review of the past and a projection of the future .

This comprehensive Strategy – draf ted and to be implemented under the di rect coordinat ion by the Secretary General – a lso contains a plan of act ions, a iming to serve as catalysts for a real improvement of the capaci ty of the Senate to fu l f i l l i ts const i tut ional tasks and to bet ter manage i ts re lat ions wi th the c it izens. I wi l l ment ion only three of them:

1. The legislat ive proposals by the senators are submitted to public consultat ion on the web site of the Senate : a new IT appl icat ion of fers to c i t izens the possib i l i ty to express their opin ions and to send proposals or comments on the legis lat ive proposals drafted by the MPs. The Legislat ive Department of the Senate inform the senators on the suggest ions and opin ions expressed by the ci t izens wi th in the per iod of publ ic consul tat ion of 60 days.

2. The new establ ished Working Group for the Development and the Consolidation of Institut ional Capacity of the Senate was in charge to design an improved mechanism of consultation with the representatives of the civil society and with other public institut ions , mainly wi th the inst i tut ions subordinated to the Parl iament , at all stages of the legislat ive process .

3. Where there are evident s ignals about the insuff ic iency and the ineff ic iency of the par l iamentary act iv i ty in the const i tuencies (complaints from ci t izens, resul ts of the surveys/ invest igat ions conducted by medias or by the civ i l society) , Senators are encouraged to s tronger involve themselves in the act iv i t ies carr ied out at the const i tuency level in order to create and to preserve a closer l ink wi th the ci t izens they represent.

In this regard:

The Senate wi l l provide ICT support enabl ing senators to access the Unitary Informat ion System of the Senate ( Intranet and Internet connect ions) from the Senator ia l Off ices in their const i tuencies.

At the same t ime, the Senate’s bi -annual Reports on activit ies wi l l include a new consis tent chapter on the relevant act iv i t ies of each senator in his electoral college . The ful l report wi l l be avai lable on the websi te of the Senate in order to famil iar ize the ci t izens with the act iv i ty of the senators and to encourage them to regain their t rust and to develop a construct ive and conf ident win - win re lat ionship wi th their representat ives.

In the l ight of the above-mentioned judgments, I would l ike to conclude by br inging to your considerat ion some key features which could be considered for def in ing the concept of an “act iv ist parl iament”:

Representative Active and Proactive Efficient and Effective People-centred Transparent and Accountable to the ci tizens.”

Mr Gheorghe BARBU (Romania) presented the fol lowing contr ibut ion:

“ ‘The act iv ist par l iament together wi th the civ i l society is an essent ia l character ist ic of parl iamentary democracy and the ru le of law.’

I appreciate the notion of activist parl iament as having maximum importance for par l iamentary democracy and rule of law. I consider that i t is t ime to br ing our contr ibut ion in def ining the concept of act iv ist par l iament, as a t rue benef i t for the future development of parl iamentary act iv i ty .

The role of the parliament in the democrat ic societ ies is to fo l low the real izat ion of the general interest of society . The Parl iament , as s ingle legis lat ive author i ty, in accomplishing i ts funct ions, must organize the society in l ine wi th the requirements of the actual real i ty. As representat ive body of sovereignty of the people, i t must have the awareness of represent ing the interests of every c i t izen.

In achieving these major object ives, the Par l iament must st imulate the impl icat ion of the c iv i l soc iety in the decis ion-making process. Furthermore, the Par l iament must be proact ive in ensur ing the impl icat ion of the civ i l society in i ts act iv i ty a imed at accomplishing the const i tut ional object ives.

With in the regulatory and decis ion-making process, the Par l iament must analyze the real problems of soc iety , together wi th i ts c i t izens. The ascerta inment of some problems can be real ized correct ly by consul t ing the communit ies, by undertaking research on the spot in the framework of the act iv i ty carr ied out by the MP’s in their const i tuencies. This is necessary in order to determine the genuine problems of the society. The true knowledge of the problems also al lows taking decis ions which help solv ing them.

Also, when taking decis ions the populat ion and communit ies must be consul ted. In th is way, solut ions corresponding to problems and accepted by the communit ies can

be ident i f ied. This proact ive approach def ini tely br ings wi th i tself the long term solut ions for the problems society is confront ing with.

We understand the role of the civi l society as being a partner of d ia logue, negot iat ion and, by these att r ibutes, an actor br inging added value to the qual i ty of the publ ic pol ic ies. The c iv i l society actual ly represents the civ ic inst i tut ion of communit ies, of the ci t izens of the state.

We establ ish the main object ive of the civ i l society as being one of defending the interest of the populat ion, so that, in the moment in which the publ ic inst i tut ions incorrect ly appreciate the interests of the ci t izens, to take not ice and to request the reconsiderat ion of the decis ion-making process and of the decis ion i tsel f . The c iv i l society is an act ive actor for the purpose of soc ia l development.

As a form of socia l and c iv ic part ic ipat ion for the purpose of change and progress of the ent i re soc iety, the civ i l society must present a lso a proact ive approach so that i t p lays a part in the decis ion-making process to make i t corresponding to the actual socia l needs.

The Parl iament of Romania promoted the content of the act iv ist par l iament not ion a pr ior i to i ts conceptual izat ion, for the purpose of ensuring par l iamentary democracy and defending the rule of law. To th is end, I ment ion a few examples of good pract ices:

The Chamber of Deput ies has developed a project ent i t led “ The Partnership with the civil society ” . This partnership represents an argument of the fact that the Par l iament of Romania is an act iv ist par l iament.

For example, one of the main resul ts of the partnership wi th the c iv i l society is f inancing and implement ing of the projects of socia l in terest in partnership with 53 non-governmental organizat ions and other actors of the civ i l society. Also, the Chamber of Deput ies holds a reperto ire of the NGOs, in which 417 organizat ions registered.

Another example is the fact that the Par l iament of Romania establ ished an internal procedure for the accredi tat ion of the NGOs and other actors of the civ i l society. 120 organizat ions are current ly accredi ted at the Chamber of Deput ies.

Another important factor of the proact ive approach of the Par l iament of Romania is the access to publ ic s i t t ings of the standing commit tees and of the plenary sessions of the Chambers of the Romanian Parl iament , so that the c iv i l society can part ic ipate to the decis ion-making process.

Other arguments that can be mentioned in order to apprec iate the proact ive approach of the Par l iament of Romania are: the r ight for legis lat ive in i t ia t ive of the ci t izens, information given on i ts own motion or on request and the publ ic debates in the standing commit tees or wi th in the plenary.

Also, the Parl iament of Romania has been involved in the real izat ion, support and development of the conferences re lated to the topic. In this context , i t should be ment ioned the fact that , fo l lowing the conference ent i t led “ Roma from Romania, problems and perspect ives ” , organized by the Chamber of Deput ies in partnership wi th the civ i l society, was publ ished the study “ Increasing par l iamentary representat ion of Roma ” , the only research on th is matter in South-East Europe.

Therefore, having in regard the above mentioned, I propose you a possible def in i t ion for the not ion of act iv is t par l iament, respect ively: ‘The activist Parliament is the parliament of a democratic state and of the rule of law, which manifests the proactive approach to involve the civil society in the process of determination and analysis of the problems of society, as wel l as in the decision-making process, for the purpose of accomplishing the general interest of society’ . ”

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, opened the debate to the f loor .

Mr BOSC (Canada) said that the struggle for servants of parl iament was to understand what act iv ism could mean for them in a context of pol i t ical impart ia l i ty. In Canada, i t could only involve promot ion and defence of the inst i tut ion of Par l iament – the rest was for the pol i t ic ians. Canadian par l iamentary staf f worked wi th school teachers, for example, to help promote understanding of Parl iament among chi ldren. He asked to what extent d id Mr Dingani and his staff have to take care to balance the demand for act iv ism wi th pol i t ica l c i rcumstances in South Afr ica.

Mr LAURENCE SMYTH (UK) suggested that some of South Afr ica’s d if f icu l t ies in reaching out to local i t ies was i ts use of a l is t system for elect ing Members. The publ ic in the Uni ted Kingdom was beginning to set the agenda for Par l iament, through the introduct ion of an electronic pet i t ioning system. Thanks to a popular ini t ia t ive wi th more than 100,000 supporters, the Commons was going to debate whether the Uni ted Kingdom should leave the European Union. This was an at tempt to make the inst i tut ion responsive to publ ic opin ion.

Mr AGNIHOTRI (India) said that in h is country, Parl iament had surrendered much of i ts jur isdict ion to the Execut ive and judic iary. Proceedings were regular ly dis turbed, wi th l i t t le legis lat ive work taking place. This was a defeat ist , rather than an act iv ist , Par l iament.

Mr ZVOMA (South Africa) asked about how the people were expected to benef i t f rom an act iv ist Par l iament.

Mr KALKAN (Turkey) said that h is Speaker had ordered him to prepare for an open e-consul tat ion via the par l iamentary website. Both publ ic and NGOs had very l i t t le information about the law-making process. They needed to be helped to contr ibute, but could not subst i tute themselves for e lected pol i t ic ians.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr DINGANI and other members who had contr ibuted to the debate. Mr DINGANI (South Afr ica) responded, by re i terat ing that par l iamentary s taff needed to remain non-part isan. Their ro le was to support pol i t ic ians of a l l part ies. The electoral system in South Afr ica was supported by al l the pol i t ica l part ies. A const i tuency-based system would fa i l to ensure representat ion of minor i t ies in South Afr ica. In governing, publ ic opin ion needed to be taken into account without going back on mani festo commitments. Act iv ism did not require conf l ict , just that par l iamentar ians needed to be act ive in foster ing a close re lat ionship wi th the people. He suggested col leagues read Noam Chomsky’s book Hopes and Prospects .

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , thanked Mr DINGANI for his response.

4. Administrative and financial questions Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , proposed the endorsement of the draf t budget for 2012.

The draft budget for 2012 was endorsed .

5. Presentation by Mr Paul WABWIRE, Deputy Clerk of the Parliament of the Republic of Uganda, on the organisation of the next session (Kampala, April 2012)

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invi ted Mr Paul WABWIRE to the platform to make his presentat ion.

Mr Paul WABWIRE (Uganda) gave a presentat ion on the next session in Kampala.

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, thanked Mr WABWIRE, and said how much members were look ing forward to v is i t ing Kampala.

6. Examination of the draft agenda for the next meeting (Kampala, April 2012)

Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , read the draft Orders of the Day for the next session in Kampala (Sunday 31 March – Thursday 4 Apr i l 2012) which had been approved by the Execut ive Committee:

Possible subjects for general debate:

1. Things that can’ t be said: l imits on freedom of express ion in par l iamentary proceedings

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

2. Rais ing matters of urgency or emergency in the Chamber

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

Communicat ions

1. 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”

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 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”

4. 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”

5. Communicat ion by Mr Er ic PHINDELA, Secretary to the Nat ional Counci l of Provinces of South Afr ica: “Const i tut ional Court rul ings in respect of Acts of Par l iament”

6. 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 service of the Swiss Par l iament for 2012–16”

7. 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”

8. 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”

9. 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”

Other business

1. Presentat ion on the par l iamentary system in Uganda.

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 one Vice-President of the Execut ive Commit tee and at least one ordinary member of the Execut ive Commit tee

5. New subjects for d iscussion and draft agenda for the next meet ing in Quebec (October 2012)

The Orders of the Day were agreed to.

7. Closure Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President , marked his f inal sess ion as President of the Associat ion by saying what a great honour i t had been to perform the role for the previous three years. He hoped to cont inue to be act ive wi th in the Associat ion as an ordinary member. He thanked the two Joint Secretar ies and their adminis trat ive assistants, of whom one, Bernadette Pabion, would be leaving the post af ter the session. He welcomed her successor, Karine Velasco, and the new Br i t ish ass is tant, Jenny Sturt . He thanked the Swiss Secretar ies General for their superb organisat ion of the conference, and the interpreters for their ster l ing work.

Mr BOSC (Canada) thanked Dr AMRANI very s incerely on behal f of the Associat ion for h is great contr ibut ion to i ts work over the previous three years, and presented him wi th a g i f t as a token of members’ esteem.

The si t t ing rose at 4.15 pm.