Rapporteurs: Jean-Claude VAN CAUWENBERGHE (Belgium)
and Halvdan SKARD (Norway)

-------------

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

A - INTRODUCTION

1. The local authorities have been represented within the Council of Europe since 1957, when the Parliamentary Assembly set up the European Conference of Local Authorities. This body was officially recognised by the Committee of Ministers in 1961 and then, in 1975, it became the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, a change reflecting the emergence of the regional dimension at Council of Europe level. However, at this stage, the Conference was still only regarded officially as a “Committee of Experts” as defined under Article 17 of the Statute of the Council of Europe.

2. It was only at the first Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe (Vienna, October 1993) that the idea was mooted of setting up a specific body. This was put into action in January 1994 with the adoption of Statutory Resolution (94) 3 granting a new Charter to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, as it was now to be called, establishing it as a Council of Europe body working in its own field of competence alongside the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly.

3. The Congress comprises two Chambers, both of which are organised along the same lines as the Parliamentary Assembly, particularly where the number of members is concerned. Incidentally, this is what differentiates the Council of Europe institution from the body set up at around the same time by the European Union, the Committee of the Regions, which was established by the Treaty of Maastricht and consists of a single body comprising both local and regional authorities.

4. Right from the outset, and basing itself on the “general remarks” in the explanatory report on the European Charter of Local Self-Government, the Congress has played an ever increasing role in monitoring the commitments of member states which have ratified this Charter since its adoption in 1985 (to date 30 of the 40 member states have ratified and 6 have signed). The Congress also regularly adopts reports on the situation of local and regional democracy in member states and applicant states, setting itself the goal of adopting one report on each member state every ten years. This approach has led to permanent dialogue with the countries in question and their governments which has been given more tangible form since last year by the organisation of mini-sessions during which a discussion is held with ministerial representatives of countries which have been the subject of a report. The Congress also regularly monitors local and regional elections, particularly in countries which are candidates for membership and sometimes in certain member states. The Congress also contributes to the credibility and public prominence of the Council of Europe as a whole in its particular field of competence.

5. After the last article (Article 14) of the Charter of the Congress, there are a series of 4 transitory provisions. Transitory provisions 2 and 3 are no longer applicable. They covered matters relating to the organisation of the first session of the Congress held in 1994 such as the Chamber which should provide the first president and the arrangement of national procedures to appoint members of the Congress.

6. Transitory provision 1, on representation in the Chamber of Regions, relates to states without genuine regional authorities. It was intended to be re-examined after a six-year period. Accordingly, the aim of the present report of the Congress is to consider the possibility of replacing it by permanent provisions.

7. Transitory provision 4 relates to budgetary questions. It was designed to be re-examined after a three-year period. This was done but the Committee of Ministers considered that the time-limit should be extended for another three years which would also expire in the year 2000. Therefore, the proposals in the present report concerning the budget of the Congress are aimed at replacing the transitory provision.

8. In the meantime, a second Summit of Heads of State and Government was held in Strasbourg, in October 1997. Following this summit the Committee of Ministers set up a “Committee of Wise Persons” which has now submitted its report to the Committee of Ministers under the title “Building Greater Europe without Dividing Lines”. In 1998, the Congress began discussing the implications of a reform, with a view to providing substance for the Wise Persons’ discussions. This led to the adoption, at its 5th Session, in 1998, of Resolution 61 on statutory reinforcement and the revision of the Charter of the Congress, which laid the foundations for the present report. In addition, a delegation of the Congress presented its views to the Wise Persons. Following the adoption of the Wise Persons’ report, the Congress was asked by the Committee of Ministers to submit an opinion on the report. The Rapporteurs who drew up the present report prepared a draft opinion, which was adopted by the Standing Committee on 4 March 1999 [Opinion 11 (1999)]. The Wise Persons made a whole series of proposals regarding the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (paragraphs 53 to 56 of the report), which the Opinion of the Congress adopted in part, though the Congress reserved its opinion on certain points, particularly matters relating to the revision of the Charter, until the present report, which is due to be adopted at the 6th plenary session on 15-17 June 1999.

9. The final draft of the proposals for changes to the Charter was approved by the Bureau at its meeting on 7 May in Budapest. In the meantime, initial discussions were held with the Ministers’ Deputies on 3 March and within the Standing Committee on 4 March.

10. In view of the considerable importance that the Parliamentary Assembly has always attached to the activities and the institutional structure of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, the Rapporteurs sought to establish a constructive dialogue with the representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly on this draft revision of the Charter, in accordance with appropriate procedures. An initial dialogue was held at the Standing Committee meeting on 4 March with Mr Martinez Casan, Rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities. This Committee adopted a draft Resolution on this subject on 27 April 1999. This text will be examined by the Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly on 30 May 1999.

B - STATUTORY RECOGNITION

11. A new version of Article 2 of the Statutory Resolution could include a passage corresponding to paragraphs 22 and 24 of the Wise Persons’ report, recognising that the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe “has become, in its sphere of competence, an important contributor to democratic developments at local and regional level and associates them with the process of European construction”.

12. Consultation by the Committee of Ministers
In keeping with paragraph 54 of the said report, Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Statutory Resolution could be more specific in requiring the Committee of Ministers to consult the Congress on issues falling within the remit of local and regional authorities. The second line of this paragraph should therefore read “local and/or regional”. The present text mentions consultation only when the interests of local and regional authorities are at stake. Since the Congress is made up of two Chambers there may also be cases where only the interests of local authorities or regional authorities are involved. This is all the more true considering that, in certain states, regional authorities have very broad powers which should be taken into consideration, wherever appropriate, when deciding whether consultation should be regarded as necessary or not. At Committee of Ministers level, there is already a procedure for consultation of the Congress by the CDLR. This procedure could serve as a model on which the other consultation procedures to be implemented by the Committee of Ministers and its other subordinate Steering committees could be based. The paragraph could also be made stronger by a provision stipulating that “the Committee of Ministers shall determine the procedure for such consultation”.

13. One area where the lack of consultation of the Congress seems evident is that of requests by the Committee of Ministers for opinions on issues concerning local and regional authorities. This system functions satisfactorily only in the field of the CDLR (Steering Committee on Local and Regional Democracy), where there is a specific procedure. In recent years the Committee of Ministers has also consulted the Congress directly, but no other steering committees have done so. The Committee of Ministers and/or the Secretary General should urge steering committees to consult the Congress when proposing conventions or draft recommendations of the Committee of Ministers on issues which generally fall within the competence of local and/or regional authorities. More explicit provision to this effect should be made in the Statutory Resolution.

14. Regarding the functioning of steering committees, perhaps it would be worth including a provision in the Statutory Resolution stating that “the Congress shall be authorised to send representatives to the meetings of steering committees dealing with questions falling within the competence of local and/or regional authorities”. This would be in keeping with the recommendation made by the Committee of Wise Persons in paragraph 54 of its report.

15. The Joint Committee
On the subject of relations between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, paragraph 54 of the report of Committee of Wise Persons simply states that “The Congress should be more widely consulted by the Committee of Ministers on issues falling within the responsibilities of local and/or regional authorities”. No mention is made of the Parliamentary Assembly or of the procedures for consultation by the Committee of Ministers. These details should be included in the Statutory Resolution. The Congress had foreseen requesting that it participate in the proceedings of the Joint Committee which, about 6 times a year, brings together a large number of representatives of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly to discuss the main items on the agenda of these Council of Europe bodies. Aware of the Parliamentary Assembly's opposition to such a presence of the Congress, however limited it might be, it seemed wiser to the Rapporteurs not to pursue this idea. It should be said that during discussions with the Ministers’ Deputies on 3 March 1999, the Deputies raised the possibility of introducing a system of bilateral meetings between the Committee of Ministers and the Congress. This has now taken shape in the "report on follow-up action on the final report of the Committee of Wise Persons"¹ adopted late April by the Ministers' Deputies and brought to the attention of the Congress. This report provides indeed that: "Joint committee meetings between the Congress and the Committee of Ministers will be convened, if the subjects to be discussed are of sufficient importance to justify such a meeting."

16. Monitoring
With regard to the role of the Congress in examining local and regional democracy in member states and states in line for membership, and monitoring the European Charter of Local Self-Government, the Wise Persons acknowledge in paragraph 22 of their report that the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe has become, in its sphere of competence, an important contributor to democratic developments at local and regional level and associates them with the process of European construction. Its role is becoming particularly prominent in the monitoring of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. It should be noted that its role in this respect also stems from the explanatory memorandum to the European Charter of Local Self-Government adopted by the Committee of Ministers. Furthermore, in the context of its work on compliance with the commitments entered into by the member states of the Council of Europe, which focused in 1998 on local democracy, the Committee of Ministers took the following decisions on 25 November:

“The Ministers’ Deputies

. invited the CLRAE, in view of its Resolution 31 (1996), to continue its work on the preparation of country-by-country reports on the situation of local and regional democracy in all the member states;

. urged the CLRAE to step up its efforts to ensure that the principles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government are observed effectively by all the member states.”

The Ministers’ Deputies have also increased the resources which the Congress may use for this purpose under the Action Plan on follow-up to the Second Summit.

17. This role of the Congress could therefore conceivably be formalised by an addition to Article 2 of the Statutory Resolution, which could read as follows:

“The Congress shall regularly prepare country-by-country reports on the situation of local and regional democracy in all the member states as well as applicant states about to join the Council of Europe and ensure in particular that the principles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government are observed effectively by all the member states”.

18. European Union/OSCE
The Rapporteurs do not consider it necessary to amend Article 2 paragraph 1d of the Statutory Resolution to include the European Union and the OSCE. They feel that the current wording is sufficiently general to cover this.

C - MEMBERSHIP OF THE BUREAU AND OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE

19. The Rapporteurs discussed the possibility of increasing the membership of the Bureau of the Congress as the number of member states of the Council of Europe has increased since the Charter of the Congress was adopted in 1994. It was suggested that there should be 19 members, equal to the number in the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly.

20. The Rapporteurs also discussed whether the Chairs of political groups should be invited to meetings of the Bureau in an advisory capacity (without the right to vote). In this connection, they propose the following provision: “the Bureau may invite the Chairs of political groups to its meetings, when it deems this desirable.” On the other hand, since the political groups meet regularly on the occasion of meetings of the Standing Committee, the Rapporteurs felt that the Standing Committee could invite Chairs of political groups to its meetings in an advisory capacity (without the right to vote).

21. Provision should also be made for committee representatives to be invited to meetings of the Standing Committee or the Bureau in the interests of co-ordination. This seems necessary, particularly if duplication is to be avoided and in order to ensure a degree of follow-up in respect of the Bureau’s role of distributing the various subjects to the appropriate specialised committees. In particular, the Bureau could expand the terms of reference of specialised committees and decide to pass on particular texts and subjects to them. This applies both to the relations between the Bureau of the Congress and the specialised committees of the Congress and to the relations between the Bureau of the Chambers and the committees of the Chambers. Therefore, when a meeting is held with the chairs of the specialised committees, an invitation should also be sent to the chairs of the specialised committees of the Chambers. (However, this is more a matter for the Rules of Procedure.)

22. The Rapporteurs discussed whether it was desirable to introduce a formal system for allocating seats on the Bureau to member states, as is the case in the Parliamentary Assembly. They concluded that this would not be appropriate for the Congress, because elections are held simultaneously in both Chambers. When such a fine balance exists between the Congress and the Chambers, it scarcely seems feasible to deprive the Chambers of one of their few political privileges. An allocation system could only work for the Bureau as a whole. The solution is therefore to continue to trust the judgment of Congress representatives and their political groups.

23. The Rapporteurs also examined the question of the President’s right to vote at Bureau meetings. Article 8 paragraph 2 of the current version of the Charter states that the President is not entitled to vote in the Bureau. Recognising the important role of the President who is appointed alternately by each Chamber, and considering that increasing the number of Bureau members to 19 makes it unlikely that there will be a conflict between the two Chambers resulting from a vote decided by a majority of one, they felt that this provision somewhat discriminated against the President and should be removed from the future Charter.

24. The Congress President automatically has a representative’s seat, for his country, on the Chamber of the Standing Committee of which he is a member. Given that, in practice, the President does not attend meetings of the Chambers of the Standing Committee, the country holding the presidency is therefore deprived of a seat on one of the Chambers. A rule should be foreseen allowing the President’s substitute to take part in meetings of the relevant Chamber of the Standing Committee.

D - POWERS OF THE BUREAU AND THE STANDING COMMITTEE

25. The powers of the Bureau and the Standing Committee deserve to be re-examined and redefined. Currently, the Standing Committee is responsible for the continuity of the work of the Congress (Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Charter). In this connection, one of its tasks is to follow the different fields of intergovernmental activities of the Council of Europe (Article 7, paragraph 1, 2nd sentence). The Bureau, on the other hand, is given a more administrative role (Article 8), ie preparation of the plenary session and co-ordination of the work of the two Chambers.

26. In recent years, there has been a tendency for the Bureau to take on the role of ensuring continuity on behalf of the Standing Committee and present the latter with decisions which have often already been largely implemented. The Bureau therefore has adopted a more political role in respect of the Congress’s work. On occasion, between Bureau meetings, the President will issue press releases and other statements in the name of the Congress.

27. In practice, it is obvious that the President acts as a kind of spokesperson for the Bureau, even between Bureau meetings. This seems only natural and should be made official, if not in the Charter then at least in the Rules of Procedure. This also implies that the President may be censured by the Bureau, if the views that he or she expresses between sessions are contrary to the spirit of the texts adopted by the Congress or relate to subjects on which the Congress does not wish to take a stance.

28. Accordingly, it would be a good idea to remove the second sentence of Article 7, paragraph 1, which has proved somewhat inoperable in practice. These functions could be assigned to the various specialised committees, in their own area of competence, and co-ordination could be carried out by the Bureau.

29. Article 10 states that the Standing Committee may adopt texts (Recommendations and Opinions addressed to the Committee of Ministers or the Parliamentary Assembly and Resolutions addressed to the local and regional authorities), outside the plenary session. This should indeed remain the exclusive right of the Standing Committee. However, additions should be made to Article 8 of the Charter to make it clear that the Bureau is expressly authorised to take any urgent action other than the adoption of Resolutions and Recommendations on behalf of the Congress. This action should include the adoption of Opinions to be submitted to other bodies of the Council of Europe when they are really urgent. Of course, the article should also state that, in return, the Bureau must report on the action it has taken to the Standing Committee and/or the Congress.

30. Accordingly, Article 8 of the Charter could be reworded as follows:

“1. The two Bureaux shall constitute jointly the Bureau of the CLRAE which shall be responsible for ensuring the continuity of the work of the Congress.

2. The Bureau shall also be responsible for the preparation of the plenary session of the CLRAE, the co-ordination of the work of the two Chambers, in particular the distribution of questions between the two Chambers, the co-ordination of the work of the specialised committees, the preparation of the budget and the allocation of budgetary resources.

3. When it deems it advisable, the Bureau may invite the Chairs of the political groups to its meetings, without voting rights.

4. The Bureau may consult representatives of the statutory committees in the interests of co-ordination.

5. The Bureau of the Congress shall be presided over by the President of the Congress.”;

E - THE SECRETARIAT OF THE CONGRESS

31. The current version of the Charter states with regard to the Secretariat of the CLRAE that: “Secretarial services for the CLRAE shall be provided by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe” (Article 14). Previously the Secretariat formed part of one of the Council directorates but, since 1 September 1998, the Secretariat of the Congress has become a separate department under the direct authority of the Secretary General, which, incidentally, fulfils a desire expressed for some considerable time now by the Congress itself. It is true that this is a temporary situation, pending the more wide-sweeping changes to the Secretariat of the Council of Europe, recommended in the Wise Persons’ report. The Congress Secretariat currently has a staff of about thirty, permanent and temporary posts combined, under the authority of the Head of the Secretariat who has the grade of a Deputy Director.

32. Congress Resolution 61 (paragraph 8.a.4.) requests not only the independence, consolidation and increased prominence of the Secretariat but also, in particular, the election of a Clerk of the Congress. The Congress’s first requirement therefore relates to the reinforcement of its Secretariat and the enhancement of its status, which should enable it to become at least the equivalent of a directorate, within the Council of Europe Secretariat.

33. The Congress has noted with considerable satisfaction that its concerns are shared by the Committee of Wise Persons who state, in paragraph 53 of their report, that: “the position of the Secretariat of the CLRAE within the Council of Europe should be reinforced with, in particular, the election of a Head of Congress Secretariat”. One of the aims of the present report is to establish certain more detailed rules regarding the Secretariat of the Congress. This proposal of the Wise Persons was received favourably by the Ministers' Deputies.²

In this connection, a number of questions merit more thorough consideration:

34. The designation of the post
Since the terms “Clerk” and “Secretary General” are out of the question, the Rapporteurs would propose, in order to avoid confusion within the organisation, that the name of the post be changed to “Chief Executive” – “Directeur exécutif” in French.

35. It is true that the Committee of Wise Persons’ report bases itself on the current official designation and talks of a “Head of Secretariat of the Congress”. It is well known that the Assembly would be hostile to the idea of appointing a “Clerk” of the Congress, fearing that this name would be too close to that of the “Clerk” of the Assembly. It may be pointed out in passing that the title of the equivalent post in the European Court of Human Rights is “Registrar”³, which reflects the exact legal nature of the function.

36. This being so, the Rapporteurs arrived at the above proposal. They also noted that use is sometimes made of the term “Executive Secretary”, as for example with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which is a regional body of the said international organisation. The head of this regional organisation, who is elected to the post, operates under the general authority of the Secretary General of the United Nations. This is a similar position to that of the Head of Secretariat of the Congress in relation to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. It should also be noted that the term “Chief Executive” is often used in the Anglo-Saxon countries to denote the most senior local government officials.

37. Term of office
The Rapporteurs consider that the Chief Executive should have a five-year, renewable term of office. The general trend at the Council of Europe is for a five-year term, as is the case, in particular, with the Secretary General, the Deputy Secretary General, the Clerk of the Assembly and the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, the same term of office could be considered for the Chief Executive of the Congress.

38. As the Chief Executive will not be a specially-appointed official, his or her term of office will also be subject to the age limit which applies to all Council of Europe staff (currently 65 years of age).

39. Submission of applications
Regarding applications by candidates, the Rapporteurs feel that applications should be made directly by the candidates themselves. However, this does not rule out the possibility of drawing up a short-list afterwards.

40. In the case of the Secretary General, the Deputy Secretary General and the Clerk of the Assembly, member state governments have the exclusive right of nominating candidates from their own country. In the case of the Registrar and the Deputy Registrars of the European Court of Human Rights, individual candidates are free to submit their own application directly.

41. However, one fundamental difference should be noted in this connection: whereas the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General are specially-appointed officials who are responsible for the entire Secretariat of the Council of Europe and the Clerk of the Assembly is also a specially-appointed official and has the rank of Deputy Secretary General, this is not the case with the Registrar of the Court and it is not planned at this stage for the Chief Executive of the Congress.

42. Therefore the procedure for the Chief Executive should be more akin to that for the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights which would mean that the candidates would be free to apply individually.

43. It should also be said in this context that it is customary for the Secretary General to be someone from outside the organisation whereas the posts of Deputy Secretary General and Clerk of the Assembly are always filled by people from the Secretariat of the Council of Europe, though there is no written rule in this respect.

44. As regards the European Court of Human Rights, only one election has ever been held. Both the Registrar and the two Deputy Registrars were members of the Secretariat though applications by candidates were free.

45. Short-listing of candidates
It is precisely because they believe that applications should be submitted freely that the Rapporteurs feel that it would be helpful to draw up a short-list before submitting applicants to the vote of the Congress. Even if it were possible to assign this function to the Secretary General or the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Rapporteurs consider that, because of the autonomy which the Congress should enjoy as a representative body of autonomous authorities, it would be natural to assign the task of short-listing candidates to the Bureau of the Congress which would be expected to submit at least two candidates to a vote of the full Congress.

46. So as to take account of the overall responsibility of the Secretary General for Council of Europe Secretariat operations, the Bureau could be required to consult the Secretary General before passing on this list to Congress.

47. As far as the level of appointment of the Chief Executive is concerned, the Congress would expect him to have the rank of Director, putting him on an equal footing with the Registrar of the Court of Human Rights and the Secretary of the Committee of Ministers. This could be facilitated by the fact that the post of Director of Environment and Local Authorities has remained vacant, following the departure of Mr Albanese. The Deputy Chief Executive should therefore have the rank of Deputy Director. In order to ensure that the Secretariat operates properly, the Secretaries of the Chambers should have the rank of Heads of Division.

48. The Deputy Chief Executive of the Secretariat
The post of Deputy Secretary Generals is subject to election. The same applies for the Deputy Registrars of the European Court of Human Rights. In each case, there are two Deputies. On the other hand, the Deputies of the Clerk of the Assembly are not elected but are senior international civil servants appointed by the Secretary General after consultation with the Bureau of the Assembly.

49. In this area, the Rapporteurs propose that the Congress should fall in line with Parliamentary Assembly practice which is closer to its own than the other cases referred to.

50. This measure would consolidate the powers of the Congress through its Bureau which is currently only consulted for the appointment of the Head of Secretariat.

51. The Secretaries of the Chambers
The Rapporteurs also consider that, bearing in mind the Congress’s current situation, the Chambers and their Secretariat should be given more prominence. Mr Van Cauwenberghe feels that the Charter should include a specific provision on the Secretaries of the Chambers. Appointments should follow the same procedure as for that of the Deputy Chief Executive after consultation with the Bureau of the Chamber in question. Mr Skard can accept the principle of consultation with the Bureaux of the Chambers, but he insists that such consultation should relate solely to the candidates’ suitability.

52. New Article of the Charter
Accordingly, a new provision of the Charter relating specifically to the Secretariat of the Congress could be worded as follows:

“1. The Secretariat of the Congress shall be provided by the Chief Executive of the Congress, elected by the Congress, who shall be answerable to the Congress and its organs and act under the authority of the Secretary General. Candidates shall be free to submit their application directly. Following examination of the candidatures, the Bureau shall submit a list of candidates to the vote of the Congress, after consultation with the Secretary General.

2. The Congress shall elect its Chief Executive for a renewable term of five years, without the age limit applicable to all Council of Europe staff being exceeded.

3. The Secretary General shall appoint a Deputy Chief Executive, following consultation of the Bureau of the Congress.

4. The Secretary General shall also appoint a Secretary for each Chamber, following consultation of the Bureau of the Chamber concerned.”

F - BUDGET OF THE CONGRESS

53. Budgetary provision
When adopting the 1999 budget, the Committee of Ministers took account of the Congress’s desire to have Vote V of the budget changed so that there would be an overall package comprising most of the appropriations allocated to the Congress. The Vote now covers staff costs, statutory expenditure and expenditure relating to political groups. The only part of the budget which is still under another Vote is the Congress’s co-operation activities (Sub-head 9202).

54. While it is natural that staff costs and expenditure relating to political groups remain outside the package, it has now also been accepted that all other expenditure will be included in the overall budgetary package of the Congress and that the Bureau may reallocate the budget according to the priorities it sets during the course of year, while ensuring nevertheless that the necessary funds are available for the organisation of statutory meetings and without exceeding the overall allocation.

55. Presentation of the draft budget
In a similar vein, current transitory provision no. 4c, requiring the CLRAE to make its needs known to the Secretary General, who will inform the Committee of Ministers thereof, should be reiterated and consolidated, giving the Congress direct access to the Committee of Ministers, so that it is able, where necessary, to discuss its budgetary requirements with the Committee of Ministers. This must not undermine the Secretary General’s role in preparing the Council’s draft budget and advising the Committee of Ministers whether or not to grant this or that budget appropriation requested by the Congress.

56. Per diem allowances
On the possibility of a special per diem allowance for Congress members, the Rapporteurs do not consider it advisable to incorporate this allowance into the Charter in view of the frequency with which it is amended. The Charter could, however, stipulate that the rates and methods for calculating Congress members’ per diem allowances should obey specific rules, taking account of the members’ geographical distribution. Particular attention should be paid to problems linked, for example, to the fact that many members come from peripheral regions, in keeping with the requirement in Article 2, paragraph 2a of the Charter calling for “a balanced geographical distribution of representatives from the member state’s territory”. When members are travelling from peripheral regions, some account has to be taken of the genuinely long journey times involved.

57. New Article of the Charter
A provision on the Budget could be added as a new Article 15 of the Charter. In any event, this Article would be designed to replace the current transitory provision no. 4. These proposals are moreover in keeping with paragraph 55 of the Wise Persons’ report. The new article could be worded as follows:

“Article 15
1. The Committee of Ministers shall adopt the budget of the Congress, as part of the ordinary budget of the Council of Europe.

2. This budget shall be designed, in particular, to cover the expenditure occasioned by sessions of the CLRAE, meetings of the two Chambers and their subordinate bodies, and all other clearly identifiable expenditure linked to the activities of the CLRAE. For plenary sessions, only the participation costs of representatives shall be defrayed by this budget.

3. The budget of the Congress shall constitute a specific Vote of the Council of Europe Budget.

4. The CLRAE shall inform the Secretary General and the Committee of Ministers of its budgetary needs. The sums requested shall be examined in the general context of the draft budget presented by the Secretary General.

5. The rates and methods of calculating Congress members’ per diem allowances shall be subject to a specific decision by the Committee of Ministers, after consultation with the Bureau of the Congress.

6. The budget of the Congress (apart from the remuneration of permanent staff and the amounts allocated to political groups) shall constitute a package which the Bureau of the Congress will be responsible for managing. However, the Bureau will be expected to abide by the financial regulations of the Council of Europe and see to it that the necessary funds are earmarked for the functioning of the statutory bodies of the Congress and of the two Chambers. It may not exceed the limit of the overall budgetary provision allocated to the Congress.”

G - NATIONAL DELEGATIONS

58. In respect of the official procedure for appointing members referred to in Article 3 of the Charter of the Congress, it should be made clear that these procedures should provide for “the consultation in each state of the relevant associations and/or institutional bodies”. These could be the representative national associations of local or regional authorities, or regional institutions in countries where there are no associations of regions, they are prohibited by the Constitution or they are replaced by constitutional authorities (as in federal states).

59. In respect of Article 3 of the Statutory Resolution, concerning the electoral mandate of members of the Congress and their substitutes, the Rapporteurs propose that the Congress should clearly uphold the basic principle that the members of the Congress should be elected either directly or by another elected body. Nevertheless, to ensure that countries which are still tied to other practices are not penalised too heavily, a transitory provision with a time-limit of six years could enable persons responsible to an elected body to remain within the Congress, provided that these representatives can be dismissed individually by a directly elected body and that this possibility is clearly stated in legislation. This proposal was criticised by two delegations at the Standing Committee meeting and the wording has now been made slightly more flexible. The Rapporteurs feel that the version now proposed is no longer excessive and that legislative reforms currently under way should make it possible for these countries at least to comply with the new provision. Failing this, these countries have enough genuine elected representatives at local and regional level to be able to form a delegation in accordance with the proposed new provisions.

60. The rules in Article 2, paragraph 5, concerning the choice of a replacement between sessions struck the Rapporteurs as being too restrictive. Experience in several countries suggests that the text should be toned down to permit changes in the membership of national delegations following local or regional (but on no account national) elections that bring about major changes. In such cases a country should have the right to change its delegation in line with the new political situation one month at the latest before the plenary session, and the delegation concerned should also respect this geographical and political balance.

61. The Charter of the Congress should stipulate that the Congress has the right to verify the credentials of the delegates appointed. Article 3 provides for the CLRAE to approve the appointment procedure. This is meaningless without the power, subsequently, to verify credentials, as provided for at present in the Rules of Procedure. Mention should also be made of the consequences of non-approval, which in addition to outright expulsion could also include financial sanctions (non-payment of travel and subsistence expenses).

H - MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHAMBER OF REGIONS

62. Transitory provision no. 1 should be revised. The Rapporteurs envisaged the possibility of limiting voting members in the Chamber of Regions solely to elected representatives from regional authorities duly established by law or the Constitution and possessing their own attributions and elected organs. Those countries which have no such regional authorities could send members in an advisory capacity, based on the criteria set forth in transitory provision no. 1, as it now stands or as amended in the light of the first six years’ experience of the Congress. Members would retain full voting rights at plenary sessions of the Congress. The same would apply to the Standing Committee of the Chamber of Regions (advisory status) and the Standing Committee of the Congress (full member), as well as the other statutory committees. To establish whether or not the countries in question have a regional authority entitling them to sit as a full member in the Chamber of Regions, reference should be made to the following definition given in transitory provision no.1: “authorities of a level immediately below national governmental level which have their own attributions and elected organs". This applies, in principle, provided that these authorities are situated between national governmental and local level, in reference to article 3, paragraph 1 of the draft European Charter of Regional Self-Government, currently under examination by the CDLR. The proposed provision has come in for criticism, particularly on account of the many “unitary authorities” in the United Kingdom, which act both as local and as regional authorities. After reconsidering the question, the Rapporteurs are prepared to suggest the following additional wording: “If a country has elected authorities which cover a large area and have their own local and regional powers, representatives of such authorities shall also be entitled to sit in the Chamber of Regions. A list of these authorities shall be supplied in the context of the national appointment procedure.”

63. The solution proposed above must be regarded as a compromise. It is important to stress that the above suggestions were aimed at avoiding any exclusion, in particular the exclusion from the Chamber of Regions of regions in a weak position with regard to their responsibilities or financial powers. Only the representatives of countries with no regions at all would not have the right to vote within the Chamber of Regions or its statutory committees. However, even these representatives would not be excluded from the work of the Chamber, because they would still be invited to sit in the Chamber and attend its meetings in an advisory capacity. Furthermore, it must be stressed that any texts adopted by the Chamber require subsequent ratification by the Congress or the Standing Committee, where representatives of all countries are entitled to vote. Consequently, the solution proposed would not lead to a situation where the Chamber of Regions would be able to take decisions that were completely unacceptable to local authorities. On the other hand, it is understandable that countries where there are no democratically constituted regions at all, either because of the country’s size or because of a deliberate policy, should not have exactly the same rights as the other countries within the Chamber of Regions.

I - COMMITTEES, WORKING GROUPS AND A SECOND ANNUAL SESSION⁴

64. To increase the participation of members in the various activities of the Congress and bring more structure and permanence to its activities, the recommendations made by the Committee of Wise Persons in paragraph 56 of its report should be followed. This means that, in principle, there should be two annual sessions of the Congress and its Chambers and that statutory committees should be set up which could each meet once during each plenary session and once in each interim period between sessions. Accordingly, the statutory committees would meet four times per year, apart from the Standing Committee which would meet only three times a year because of the need to offset most of the costs of the extra session.

65. With regard to the structure of these committees, the Rapporteurs propose the following model:

66. In addition to the Standing Committee, which would remain unchanged, four statutory committees could be set up:

a. an institutional committee, whose task would be to keep track of reports on local and regional democracy in member states and states awaiting accession, election monitoring, regionalisation in Europe and any specific question related to local and regional democracy infrastructure in the member states. Like the Standing Committee, its membership would comprise one delegate per country and per Chamber. Within this institutional committee, there would be an institutional committee of the Chamber of Local Authorities which would perform the present functions of the Working Group responsible for monitoring the implementation of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, with its independent experts. This committee will also operate within the Chamber of Regions. It will monitor the institutional development of regions in the greater Europe and, in this context, the draft European Charter of Regional Self-Government (and possibly also, in future, its implementation);

b. and three specialised committees⁵ which could also meet for each Chamber, comprising 30 members of each:

. a Committee on Culture and Education, also responsible for Media, Youth, Sport and Communication;

. a Committee on Sustainable Development, also responsible for Environment and Spatial and Urban Planning;

. a Committee on Social Cohesion, which would also deal with issues related to employment, citizenship, community relations, public health.

67. No delegate or substitute would be allowed to sit on more than one committee, with the exception of members of the Standing Committee, who would could also sit on one of the specialised committees. The Rapporteurs initially proposed that only full members of the Congress should be full members of the committees, and substitutes in the Congress should be substitutes on the committees. The discussions in the Standing Committee have persuaded them that this matter can be left to the discretion of the national delegations, who will make the best possible decision according to the actual availability of their members.

68. Alongside the Standing Committee and the specialised committees, there would be a limited number of specific working parties. At this stage these would be:
- in the Chamber of Regions, the Working Group on Regions with Legislative Power;
- a joint Working Group on Local Democracy Agencies (with an Assembly of LDAs) whilst waiting for a new structure (association);
- and, on a specific decision of the Bureau of the Congress, in cases where it would not be possible to assign the tasks in question to an existing committee, ad hoc Working Groups could be set up to carry out specific tasks such as the preparation of a draft convention or the organisation of joint working groups with the Assembly, the Committee of Regions, etc. The number of these ad hoc groups would be extremely limited.

69. This new structure would mean doing away with most of the working groups in their present form⁶. More specific tasks would be performed by Rapporteurs or co-Rapporteurs, subject to the financial means of the Congress.

70. The Congress regrets that in paragraph 56 of their report, the Wise Persons, aware of the budgetary restraints that the Council is experiencing and will no doubt continue to undergo for some years yet, have adopted a position which will plainly be unworkable. The Wise Persons state that: “the ensuing changes [the new structures and working methods, ie. the second annual session and the setting up of statutory committees in particular]should not entail additional costs for the Organisation”. This statement fails to take account of the budgetary situation of the Congress. According to the Secretariat’s estimates of the cost of reform along the lines proposed by the Committee of Wise Persons, a second annual session would cost around FF 3 500 000 and the replacement of the working groups by four statutory committees - allowing all members of the Congress to have a committee place - would, in fact, generate a net increase in costs. The only net saving would be that realised by eliminating a meeting of the Standing Committee between plenary sessions. The total cost of the reform is therefore more than FF 4 000 000.

The CLRAE would like to reiterate its profound attachment to the organisation of a second plenary Session which would, in particular, reinforce the participation of its members and increase the visibility of its activities. However, the exchange of views with the Ministers’ Deputies revealed that in view of the current budgetary constraints, the chances of holding a second plenary session as from the year 2000 are virtually nil. In the short term, the Congress will have to settle for other, less costly options.

In view of the above, even if it means postponing the holding of a second genuine plenary Session, the Bureau asked the Rapporteurs to think of other possibilities which would encourage the members to participate more fully in the activities of the Congress. Consequently, the Rapporteurs propose the two following options:

OPTION A – HOLDING TWO SPECIAL SESSIONS

The Standing Committee would continue to meet twice between plenary sessions and the four additional statutory committees would be set up, in reference to/following the initial proposal.

Instead of a second plenary session, there would be two special sessions on the occasion of the Standing Committee meetings, the first coinciding with meetings of statutory committees 1 and 2 and the second with meetings of committees 3 and 4.
The timetable for these special sessions would be as follows:

SPECIAL SESSION 1:

SPECIAL SESSION 2:

The second special session would follow the same pattern, with Committees 3 and 4 simply replacing Committees 1 and 2.

Under such an arrangement:

- the members of the two statutory committees would stay in Strasbourg for two days (days 1 and 2);
- the members of the Standing Committee would attend on days 2 and 3;
- day 2 would be a working day for all three committees.

Three teams of interpreters would therefore be required on days 1 and 2, and two teams on day 3.

The Congress bodies’ responsibilities would also have to be redefined on a three-tier basis:

- Plenary session: once a year;

- Special sessions: twice a year, although each committee would have only one opportunity to have texts adopted. Logically, although these special sessions would include the Standing Committee plus two statutory committees, votes taken there would involve only the Standing Committee members. Members of the committee having tabled the relevant text may however take part in the debate;

- Standing Committee: at its (now shorter) meetings, the Standing Committee would continue to adopt less important texts and those too urgent to await a plenary session or a special session of the relevant committees.

In addition, each of the four statutory committees would be entitled to hold a further annual meeting over two days (one day for a plenary committee meeting and one for the committees in the Chambers, for rapporteur group meetings when necessary, or meetings of the Presidents’ “troika” etc).

Option A would cost FF 1,200,000.

This is the cheapest option, but it raises scheduling problems for the committees and might not meet the requirements of the Institutional Committee.

OPTION B - WITH AN EXTRA INSTITUTIONAL SESSION

This option, like option A, would involve a single plenary session, and the four statutory committees would meet independently twice a year, as under the initial proposal. A session - possibly entitled “Institutional Problems Session” - would be introduced to bring together the members of the Standing Committee and of the Institutional Committee. (These are, in fact, the two largest committees, with a combined total of 160 members).

The Institutional Session, which would be held in the autumn, could follow a pattern similar to that of last autumn’s mini-session, with the difference that the Institutional Committee would replace the existing two working groups.

Option B has the advantages over the initial proposal of being simpler and more linear and of prioritising the work of the Institutional Committee, which, of course, has to deal with all the monitoring reports on countries as well as those on observance of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation and the draft European Charter of Regional Self-Government. Such a range of tasks surely justifies the proposed additional meeting of the committee, as well as a dedicated session that should also provide an opportunity to hear national representatives reporting on the implementation of previous Congress reports.

Obviously the other statutory committees could table reports (depending on their importance and urgency) for either the plenary session or for ordinary meetings of the Standing Committee, in the same way that the working groups do under the current arrangements.

Option B would cost approximately FF 2,000,000.

* * *
*

After lengthy discussions within the Standing Committee, the Rapporteurs showed a preference for option B which would allow a greater emphasis on institutional monitoring activities, an essential mission of the Congress.

However, in order to ensure maximum flexibility in future, they propose that the beginning of Article 4 of the Statutory Resolution be worded as follows:

“The CLRAE shall meet in ordinary session at least once a year. A second annual session may be held, depending on the available budgetary resources. In addition, the Standing Committee may meet jointly with one or more statutory committees. The institutional committee may meet once more than the other committees. Decisions to this effect shall be taken by the Bureau of the Congress.”

J - VOTING PROCEDURE

72. On the question of majorities, Article 12 paragraph 1b of the Charter of the Congress should be aligned with Rule 36 of the Parliamentary Assembly and read “two-thirds of the votes cast”. Throughout the present Rules of Procedure of the Congress the principle has been adopted that majorities are calculated in terms of the “votes cast” and not the “voters” as expressed in the Charter.

Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
(Cf : [email protected])

¹ [Document CM (99) 64]

² [Document CM (99) 64, approved late April 1999, page 5]

³ In French, this person is also referred to as the “Greffier”

⁴ An outline of the new bodies and a model timetable is appended to this report.

⁵ The composition of these committees would take into account the number of members of each national delegation and smaller countries would not automatically be represented on every committee.

⁶ A chart showing which committee would perform the current tasks of each existing working group is set out in Appendix 1.