Members
and substitutes: Ms. A. Kaboré Koala (Burkina
Faso), Mr. Nhem Thavy (Cambodia), Mr. D. Oliver (Canada), Ms. S.
Moulengui-Mouélé (Gabon), Mr. J. Winkler (Germany), Ms. N. Ali
Assegaf (Indonesia, President of the Coordinating Committee of Women
Parliamentarians), Mr. M.A.M. Al-Ghanim (Kuwait), Mr. K. Örnfjäder (Sweden),
Mr. P.‑F. Veillon (Switzerland), Ms. R. Kadaga (Uganda) and Ms.
I. Passada (Uruguay).
Mr. M.
Vardanyan (Armenia) was no longer a member of parliament and his replacement
was not able to attend. Ms. N. Motsamai (Lesotho), Mr. A. Alonso Díaz-Caneja
(Mexico), Mr. F. Kundi (Pakistan) and Mr. F. Drilon (Philippines)
were absent.
Secretariat
of the IPU: Mr. A.B. Johnsson, Secretary General,
and Ms. J. Toedtli, Secretary of the Executive Committee.
AGENDA
The meeting was called to
order at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 August.
Item 1 of the agenda
Adoption of the agenda
(EX/264/A.1)
Mr.
Oliver asked whether an extra item could be
added to the agenda as item 8 ‑ Overview of preparations for the
Quebec Assembly.
It
was so decided.
The
agenda was amended and adopted.
Item 2 of the
agenda
Financial questions
(a)Draft programme and budget 2013
(EX/265/6(b)-P.1)
Mr.
Örnfjäder, in his capacity as Chair of the Sub-Committee on Finance, said that the purpose of creating the Sub-Committee on Finance
almost one year previously had been to involve the members of the Executive
Committee more in the work of preparing the budget. The process for the 2013
budget had begun in Kampala, where the Sub-Committee had examined the IPU
Strategy and provided some guidance to the Secretariat, insisting on zero
increase in Members’ contributions. The six geopolitical groups had given
feedback on their priorities. The Sub-Committee had met twice since: once on 14
and 15 May and again on 28 June. The reports of both meetings had been
distributed. The previous day, the Sub-Committee had reviewed the draft budget
in detail and the report of that meeting was also available. Based on that
review, it would be recommending the 2013 budget to the Governing Council for
adoption at the Quebec Assembly.
Ms.
Lorber-Willis, Director of the Division of Support Services, gave a
brief overview of the 2013 budget. In keeping with the recommendations of the
Sub-Committee on Finance, the draft budget was balanced and there was zero
increase in Members’ assessed contributions. The decision had been taken to
freeze reserves in order to achieve that result and use the expected operating
surplus of CHF 100,000 to supplement 2013 income. The situation regarding the
payment of income tax to the French authorities by some staff members residing
in France remained unchanged but the Organization’s liability would decrease
over time as new staff members would not be entitled to compensation.
Additional
funding would have to be sought for the 2014 conference on indigenous peoples
and the Speakers’ Conference in 2015. The presentation of the budget had been
simplified, with a detailed logframe included as an annex.
Mr.
Veillon thanked the Secretariat for the detailed documents placed at
their disposal. While it was normal to have a balanced budget he felt that it
was unacceptable to use the operating surplus to that end. That was tantamount
to dipping into their capital. It was important to sustain cost-saving measures
over time. He asked how it was possible that the costs of two Assemblies abroad
(Kampala and Quebec) in 2012 were lower than the projected costs of one
Assembly abroad (Quito) and one in Geneva in 2013.
The
Secretary General explained that, on the one hand, the costs of the
Kampala Assembly were lower than those of the Quito Assembly because of the
travel component. Shorter distances meant less expensive airline tickets for
staff. On the other hand, the Canadian hosts would be covering certain costs,
including security, room services and locally-recruited interpreters for the
Quebec Assembly, which the IPU would have to cover in Geneva in 2013.
Mr.
Veillon said that he did not agree with displacing CHF 100,000 from the
Working Capital Fund to the regular budget and asked to have the amount
removed.
The
Secretary General recalled that that issue had been debated at length
and no other alternative had been found. As one post within the Secretariat
would not be replaced, the salary and budget of that post would not only
generate savings but would certainly also generate a surplus in excess of CHF
100,000. He assured the members that the IPU’s reserves would not be left
empty.
Mr.
Örnfjäder stated that the purpose of the 2013
budget was to service the Organization’s core work. Savings could not be made
simply for the sake of savings. Reductions or deductions had to be made in
certain areas.
Mr.
Oliver considered that the point was moot if projections placed the
operating surplus at the end of 2012 well beyond the CHF 100,000 mark. Canada
currently had an operating deficit of CAD $ 30 billion but the government
expected to have a balanced budget within one year by cutting programmes,
budgets and posts.
Mr.
Örnfjäder admitted that they were not wizards
and had done their best to produce a balanced budget. He was well aware of the
concerns expressed but members should look beyond the figures and consider the
impact of certain decisions on the budget.
Mr.
Oliver asked the Secretary General how the
outcome of the US presidential elections in November would affect the IPU. If
the US Congress rejoined the IPU its contributions would no doubt inject
significant sums into the Organization’s coffers.
The
Secretary General indicated that if the Democrats won and regained the
majority in Congress, he had received assurances that they would make it a
priority for the US Congress to reaffiliate to the IPU. The opposite scenario
would obviously defer that decision for some years.
Mr.
Veillon argued that while he understood the
reasons behind the move, having a financial background himself, he felt that it
was unacceptable to use the Working Capital Fund to balance the budget even if
there would be a surplus at the end of the year. It was an artificial measure
and he insisted on putting the matter to a vote.
The
President invited the members to vote by show
of hands on Mr. Veillon’s proposal.
Two
members voted for and seven members against.
The
motion was not carried.
Mr.
Veillon asked the Secretary General if he was certain to obtain CHF 1.5
million in voluntary funding as per projections.
The
Secretary General assured Mr. Veillon that the IPU would receive
significantly more than that amount. He would know for sure by the following
Monday but had good reason to believe that USAID would increase its
contributions and the Swedish International Development Cooperation (Sida) had
already pledged more than had been expected.
On
the matter of French taxes, the member from Switzerland had informed him that a
bill was currently before the French Senate on exonerating staff of the
International Organization for Migration (IOM) from paying taxes to the French
authorities. However, he added that the fundamental difference between the IOM
and the IPU was that the former was based on a treaty and was thus recognized
as an international organization. That was not the case of the IPU. The
Secretariat was in discussions with the French authorities and would try to
find an arrangement to resolve that matter.
Mr.
Veillon referred to page 9 of the budget
document and enquired why no figures were indicated in the first line under
Objective 2 – Advancement of gender equality.
The
Secretary General explained that the first line corresponded to staff
positions and as responsibilities under the various Objectives were distributed
among several staff members, it was difficult to reflect that situation in
fractions and figures.
Mr.
Nhem Thavy referred to page 10 of the budget
and noted that the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians would be
reducing the number of meetings it held but recruiting one additional staff
member. Was that not a contradiction? Should it not drop some cases in order
cut costs?
The
Secretary General indicated that the Human Rights Committee had held a
long discussion earlier in the year about how to improve its working methods
and become more efficient. Based on those discussions, it had decided to reduce
the number of sessions it held annually from four to three but be more
proactive and conduct more field visits. It was felt that a hands-on approach
would be more beneficial. Thus, it had not been able to identify any savings.
It was merely shifting expenses from one area to another. Traditionally, the
Human Rights Programme had been serviced by four staff – a Programme Manager, a
Programme Officer and two administrative assistants. However, its workload had
expanded over the years to include inter alia awareness-raising of human rights
issues in parliaments. It was thus felt that one additional staffer was needed
to allow the Committee to fulfil its mandate and voluntary funds would be
sought to that end.
Mr.
Oliver considered that the Human Rights Committee did laudable work and
its activities should not be cut but rather streamlined and enhanced. Its work
went to the heart of what the IPU did best. He asked about the training and
awareness-raising components of the budget.
The
Secretary General explained that the Committee organized information
seminars and events in the wings of IPU Assemblies and was pursuing work on the
Universal Periodic Review, children’s rights and international humanitarian
law. In late 2012, it would be organizing an event on birth registration. A
small amount of its budget came from core funding and a larger amount from
voluntary funding.
Mr.
Winkler asked whether the entire Committee would be travelling to
conduct on-site missions and if the conference proposed by the Arab Parliament
on detained Palestinian members of parliament was included in the Committee’s
budget for the following year.
Ms.
Kadaga admitted that she would be reluctant to touch the Committee’s
budget. It should be left intact.
The
Secretary General indicated that the Committee already conducted
on-site missions generally consisting of one senior IPU staff member and one
Committee member. It also sent trial observers to hearings involving members of
parliament to ensure that fair-trial guarantees were met and to obtain
first-hand information. He agreed that the Committee should continue to do that
and more and encourage its members to assume greater ownership by following up
events and cases in their respective regions. Its member from GRULAC would be
travelling to Colombia and to the Organization of American States in
Washington, D.C. to do just that.
Mr.
Winkler endorsed Ms. Kadaga’s remarks.
Ms.
Kaboré Koala considered that on-site missions should be promoted as
they had a greater impact on the ground and, as a counterweight, the Committee
sessions should be reduced by one.
Mr.
Veillon echoed the sentiments expressed by previous speakers. The
Committee did sterling work and its budget should not be reduced. However,
referring to Objective 4.2 of the Strategy on page 12 of the budget, he
questioned the link between the IPU and the World Trade Organization (WTO). In
his view, WTO-related activities were not a priority for the Organization in
times of financial hardship. The amount allocated to such activities –
CHF 103,000 – should be removed. He proposed to put the matter to a vote.
Mr.
Oliver argued that the WTO was essential for many reasons, not least
for its dispute settlement mechanism. The Director-General of the WTO had
stated in no uncertain terms that he wished to create a parliamentary dimension
to the trade organization so that not just ministers but legislators could
oversee the world’s trade architecture. He had attended a number of WTO-related
meetings on behalf of the IPU and had found that the WTO appreciated and valued
the IPU’s contribution. Indeed, he felt that the IPU should pursue its work in
that area to strengthen itself as an organization. He believed that the CHF
103,000 allocated to that area would be money well-spent.
Ms.
Passada considered that a cut in WTO-related activities was not
justified. Members of parliament had been sidelined for too long from trade
negotiations and their involvement was important.
Mr.
Örnfjäder admitted that the first item where he would propose to cut
expenditure was WTO-related activities. But if the amount was removed from that
budget heading, what would it be used for alternatively? What would be the
justification for making such a cut? Would the money be better spent in another
area?
Mr.
Winkler requested the Secretariat to produce a report on the outcome of
WTO-related activities.
Ms.
Ali Assegaf felt that if another area could not be identified where the
money would be better spent, it should be retained under the original budget
heading.
The
Secretary General said that a report on WTO-related activities would be
drawn up for the next session of the Executive Committee. He reminded the
members of the genesis of that activity. In 1999, the WTO Ministerial
Conference in Seattle, USA, had given rise to civil unrest and general
discontent. People had felt that the WTO was not held to account, lacked
transparency and thus was not a legitimate organization. The IPU had approached
the WTO in a bid to bring a parliamentary dimension to the organization and
enhance its transparency. The IPU had had to convince WTO Members to open up to
parliaments and the European Parliament (EP) to work with it. In 2002, the IPU
had held its first Parliamentary Conference on the WTO, organized jointly with
the EP. Those meetings had brought an element of information-sharing and
accountability to the WTO, to the extent that the WTO Director-General
currently fielded questions from parliamentarians about sensitive trade issues.
It was also the first activity within the IPU to enjoy a certain level of
specialization, since parliamentarians versed in trade issues or sitting on
trade committees in their own parliament were invited to participate. He would
be reluctant to cut that activity.
Mr.
Veillon stated that while he understood the
arguments raised, WTO-related activities were not part of the IPU’s core
business. Not in times of financial austerity anyway. The IPU needed to set
itself priorities and the Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on Finance had even
admitted that he would make cuts under that area first. He proposed to put the
matter to a vote.
The
President invited the members to vote by show of hands on Mr. Veillon’s
proposal.
One
member voted for, one member abstained and seven members voted against.
The
motion was not carried.
The
President asked about the rationale for producing the summary records
of the General Debate only in one language and four to five weeks after the
Assembly rather than on-the-spot.
The
Secretary General explained that back in the 1920s, speakers could take
the floor in English, French, German or Italian and the report would be
produced in their respective language. A decision had been taken many years
later to produce the summary record in French and English only within 24 hours
of the debate. When asked by the Sub-Committee on Finance to identify possible
cost-savings, the Secretariat had felt that currently it was not worth paying
airfare and per diem for précis-writers to travel to Assemblies to produce the
records on-the-spot. That could be done once back in Geneva since very few
delegates actually read the summary record on-site. He assured members,
however, that the summary record would be produced in its entirety in English
or French.
Mr.
Örnfjäder added that they needed to identify cost-savings and some
activities or areas cost more than others. Members should also examine the
format and length of future Assemblies in order to make savings.
Ms.
Ali Assegaf said that she had experienced difficulties in communicating
within and among the geopolitical groups and on a smaller scale, within the
Coordinating Committee of Women Parliamentarians. The e-mail list she had
received was not updated and it was crucial for members to remain in contact.
Therefore, she felt that improving communications at all levels was essential
for the Organization.
Mr.
Nhem Thavy observed that lots of money was being spent on developing
the IPU website. He felt that as a countermeasure, efforts should be made to
reduce the costs of producing and shipping publications and that dedicated
staff should be assigned to update mailing lists.
Mr.
Veillon requested a breakdown of expenses for the two annual assemblies
under Objective 7.2 on page 16 of the budget document.
Ms.
Ali Assegaf enquired why there was no costing for producing guidelines
on achieving gender and political balance in delegations. Was that not a
priority for the IPU?
The
Secretary General explained that funds had been allocated for the
production of such guidelines in 2013 under Objective 9. The Secretariat was
deliberately taking a step-by-step approach to the issue.
Mr.
Oliver requested a breakdown of the priorities and costs under the
communications budget. He asked what had been done to follow up on the Saatchi
& Saatchi report that had been issued some years previously. He admitted
that people often asked him what the IPU did, so he agreed entirely that
outreach was crucial.
The
Secretary General explained that the report referred to by Mr. Oliver
underpinned the new communications strategy. Greater efforts were being made to
communicate better with Members, notably through the website, and to make
contacts between Members and the Secretariat more fluid. The IPU was mid-way
through implementing the new communications strategy. It would be implementing
a more effective publications policy, making a number of publications available
online and asking Members to pay for shipping costs in full or in part. He
admitted that the IPU was little-known by its own Members, not to mention the wider
public. The Organization had hired communications experts to develop effective
tools under the guidance of the Director of Communications. Ultimately, a more
modern IPU would attract more donors and greater funding. He informed the
members that a more in-depth presentation on the IPU communications strategy
would be made later under Item 4 of the agenda.
Ms.
Passada agreed that the IPU needed to be more visible and more present
in parliaments. On her own parliament’s website there was no mention of or link
to the IPU. Change needed to start within the Organization and eventually
radiate outwards. The geopolitical groups must take ownership of the IPU and
improve contacts within and among the groups and with the IPU Secretariat. It
was important to know how and what to communicate.
Mr.
Oliver referred to priority no. 5 under Objective 8 – Enhanced IPU
visibility – on page 16 of the budget document. He asked what “building and
maintaining new media outreach” meant.
Mr.
Veillon noted that the IPU levied an internal assessment on its staff
and at the same time applied the UN salary scale. How was it possible to
reconcile both systems?
The
Secretary General stated that the IPU had always had its own Staff
Rules. As of 2005, the Organization had decided to align itself with the UN
salary scale so that it could be part of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension
Fund (UNJSPF). The difference between both systems was not enormous. However,
the IPU contracted its own health and accident insurance for its staff, hence
the dual regime. In addition, eight former staff members were part of a bridge
pension scheme to compensate for the two-year gap in retirement age from 60 to
62 years. As the IPU had to negotiate insurance for 40 staff as opposed to the
United Nations, whose staff was close to 100,000, it did not have the same
bargaining power.
Ms.
Kadaga asked why no provision had been made for staff and salaries under
Objective 6 – Improved parliamentary contribution to peace-building and
conflict prevention – on page 14 of the budget document. It was her
understanding that parliaments were being called upon to play a greater role in
those areas.
The
Secretary General explained that the IPU had never had a dedicated
officer for peace-building per se. Those functions had traditionally been
distributed among himself, the Director of Programmes and other members of
staff.
Mr.
Örnfjäder suggested that the Executive Committee recommend the draft
2013 budget to the Governing Council for adoption with two minor modifications:
the title should read simply “Implementing the IPU Strategy on a tight budget”
and a breakdown of expenses for the two annual Assemblies would be provided.
Ms.
Ali Assegaf seconded the motion.
Mr.
Veillon indicated that he wished to abstain since he disagreed on two
fundamental points: use of the Working Capital Fund to balance the budget and
the allocation made to WTO-related activities. He proposed that the budget be
put to a vote.
The
President invited the members to vote on recommending the budget.
Eight
members voted for, none voted against and one member abstained.
The
motion was not carried.
The
Executive Committee decided to recommend the 2013 draft budget as amended to
the Governing Council.
Item 2 of the agenda
Financial questions
(b)Mobilization of voluntary funding
for IPU activities
The
Secretary General indicated that when the IPU
approached donors, it expressed its preference for institutional rather than
earmarked funding. That way, the Members could decide how to spend the funds.
Currently, Sida provided such funding. It also provided multi-year funding,
having recently concluded a three-year arrangement with the IPU. At a minimum, the
IPU requested funding for programmes, which Irish Aid provided for the Gender
Partnership Programme. The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
used to provide such support but had recently been restructured and the IPU was
left without any obvious counterpart in the Agency. The IPU was confident it
would receive a positive response to its request for funding.
The
IPU had recently enjoyed robust support in the area of development,
particularly maternal, newborn and child health. It had received support or
offers of support from the World Health Organization, World Vision and the
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation and was in discussions with the
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. It also received support from
USAID (US$ 200,000 for 2013), UNDP (capacity-building in Afghanistan,
Democratic Republic of the Congo and Guinea-Bissau), UNAIDS and UNICEF. The
Sub-Committee on Finance had held lengthy discussions on how to attract more
donors and obtain additional funding. Contacts were being pursued with
Australia and New Zealand to that end.
Some
parliaments were willing to act as an intermediary between the IPU and their
country’s development agencies, such as those of India, Finland and Turkey. The
French and Austrian parliaments were following suit. He appealed to the members
to become more involved in fund-raising activities by heightening awareness of
the IPU’s work among the donor community.
The
importance of a sound legislative framework in promoting good governance had
been recognized far and wide and aid effectiveness work was being spearheaded
by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It was
important for parliaments in both donor and recipient countries to be aware of
aid received and more importantly, how it was being spent, hence the need for
parliamentary oversight. At an OECD meeting the previous month, the IPU and
other stakeholders had been applauded for their good work in drawing up
guidelines and recommendations. Such meetings – attended by government
ministers – gave the IPU a lot of visibility.
Other
potential donors included wealthy individuals, corporations and foundations.
Fund-raising required specific skills, time and networking. The IPU was not yet
fully equipped to do that but it was making strides. He asked the members to
assist in providing financial and human resources. A secondment scheme had
started some years earlier and staff had been seconded to the IPU to assist
with research, information, outreach and capacity-building from the parliaments
of Japan, Republic of Korea, Australia and most recently, Egypt. The Egyptian
Parliament was a long-standing Member of the IPU and had proposed to fill a gap
by seconding a native Arabic speaker who could facilitate contacts between the
Organization and its Members in Arab countries. He introduced Mr. Mokhtar Omar,
whose secondment would start on 1 September 2012. The Parliament of Australia
and the French Senate were in discussions with the IPU about the prospects of
seconding a senior staff member each. Such gestures were welcomed by the IPU,
particularly at a time when it was facing staff and budget cuts.
Mr.
Örnfjäder appealed to the members to do more
within their respective geopolitical groups to help the Secretariat raise
funds. There were lots of potential donors out there who would be interested in
the IPU and its work.
The
Secretary General wished to raise the question
of the renewal of the membership of the Sub-Committee on Finance. The member
from Armenia would have to be replaced for the Eurasia Group and his parliament
had already nominated a replacement. The member from Mexico would also need to
be replaced and in consultation with GRULAC, the Secretariat had proposed that
Ms. Passada of Uruguay occupy that seat. Both nominations would have to be
endorsed and formalized at the Quebec Assembly.
It
was so decided.
Item 3 of the agenda
Implementation of the IPU Strategy for 2012-2017
(EX/263/9(a)-P.1)
The
Secretary General indicated that when the Strategy had been adopted, it
had been decided that its implementation would feature on the agenda of the
Executive Committee. Under Strategic Objective 7 three major issues required
attention: the format of the second Assembly of the year; the functioning of
the Standing Committees; and the Committee on United Nations Affairs. The
geopolitical groups had provided feedback on the second Assembly. Some felt
that it was too short and should be lengthened from three to four days. Others
were concerned that the IPU only pronounced itself on three topics per year
that carried over to the next Assembly. Most felt that too little time was
devoted to discussion of the emergency item and that the panel discussions
should be more dynamic and interesting.
Ms.
Ali Assegaf endorsed the view of the Twelve Plus Group: that the IPU
should adhere to its current practice of discussing three topics at the second
Assembly and adopting resolutions on them at the following Assembly.
Ms.
Kadaga felt that there were too many external speakers from the United
Nations and other agencies who spoke at length on topics sometimes unrelated to
the business at hand. She considered that it was unfair for Members to have to
wait a whole year to raise certain issues, which by then might no longer be
topical.
Mr.
Oliver said that given the Organization’s financial constraints, it
would be unwise to add an extra day to the second Assembly. However, he agreed
that more time should be devoted to discussion of the emergency item in order
to strengthen the resolution. Likewise, the panel discussions should be
improved via strong moderators who kept time and focused the debate. Some of the
best debates he had heard were spontaneous and more of those should be
encouraged at the IPU. As a presenter, he used Power Point widely and advocated
its use in order to make a greater impact. He proposed to make better use of
modern technology to improve the quality and outcome of debates. In addition,
he felt that it would be better to nominate one rapporteur per subject-item
rather than the current two to avoid linguistic and cultural differences. Some
of the best work in parliaments was done in committees and the same should be
true at the IPU.
Ms.
Passada echoed the views of the previous speakers. She said that
members needed to have greater knowledge of issues and examine them in detail.
It would be helpful for Committees to debate concrete items.
The
Secretary General explained how the two annual IPU Assemblies had
evolved over the years. Initially, there used to be two assemblies abroad of
five to six days each. Because of financial constraints, the Members had
decided to hold one big Assembly abroad and a smaller one of four days in
Geneva. Members had subsequently realized that the second Assembly had been
unable to accomplish all the work of a full-fledged Assembly and had decided to
reduce it to three days, focusing mainly on governance and preparing the ground
for the first Assembly of the year. However, some Members had been saying that
it was not worth their while to travel halfway around the world to attend a
three-day meeting. He proposed to add one day to the second Assembly in Geneva
and subtract one day from the first Assembly abroad. Thus, they would remain
with two equivalent assemblies of four days each as self-contained events, each
dealing with three separate topics. He asked the members to give the
Secretariat some time to prepare a paper on that proposal with a corresponding
budget.
Mr.
Al-Ghanim endorsed the proposal made by the Secretary General. The Arab
Group was in favour of extending the second Assembly to four days and
discussing six topics per year. The rules of the Standing Committees were not
clear as they stood. It was preferable to give all Members an opportunity to
express themselves in the Committees. Currently, the co‑Rapporteurs
prepared a report, which they imposed on the other Members without necessarily
reflecting all of their views.
Mr.
Örnfjäder reminded the members that tackling six issues a year instead
of three would have both organizational and financial implications.
Essentially, that would mean double the work. Their discussions should be taken
to the national parliaments and the wider world to really make an impact.
Mr.
Veillon observed that there were two opposing
views on the table: extend the second assembly to four days and deal with six
subject items a year or keep the status quo. Was it worth asking the
Secretariat to prepare yet another paper for discussion? It must be remembered
that any change would have financial implications.
Mr.
Oliver agreed with the compromise solution proposed by the Secretary
General of two assemblies of four days each. That proposal could be discussed
at their next session and recommended to the Governing Council for adoption.
Ms.
Kaboré Koala observed that only half of the members of the Executive
Committee were present. As a result, she felt that any decision should be
deferred to Quebec. However, she asked the Secretariat to provide a basis for
their discussion.
The
President requested the Secretary General to
produce a paper on the format of the second assembly and proposed that they
defer the discussion until the Quebec Assembly.
It
was so decided.
The
Secretary General indicated that the standing committee system had been
fairly simple until 2003, when it had been reformed. Previously, two committees
met per assembly, topics were chosen and anyone could present a paper, which
was distributed to the Members. Any Member could submit a draft resolution and
the Secretariat would usually receive between 10 and 25. The standing
committees would designate a drafting committee to examine the various
resolutions, usually selecting one or two as a basis and drawing on the others.
Those documents were read by few delegates, making it a costly and inefficient
system. A decision had subsequently been taken to identify two co-rapporteurs
to maintain a North-South and linguistic balance. They were entrusted with
drawing up a report that would provide a basis for the discussions. Ideally,
the members of the standing committees should have specialist knowledge and sit
on relevant committees in their own parliament. In practice, however, that was
rarely the case. The same was true for members of the standing committee
bureaux. That lack of expertise was often reflected in the quality of the
resolutions. There was also a lack of interest among some members, who did not
attend meetings regularly. The co-rapporteurs faced many difficulties and
required support from their parliaments. They did the best they could on their
own. Sometimes the gulf between two co-rapporteurs could not be bridged because
of ideological or linguistic differences. Many Members had complained to him
and called for concrete results, rigorous follow-up and an end to dead-horse
resolutions.
Mr.
Veillon thanked the Secretary General for his honest analysis. He felt
that resolutions were part of the IPU’s core business but improvements had to
be made on the methodology and implementation fronts. Continuity of members of
the standing committees must be ensured to capitalize on expertise and
experience. The committees required more support from the Secretariat by way of
professional committee secretaries. They must be more involved in terms of
documentation, drafting, follow-up and oversight of implementation. The way
resolutions were currently handled left a lot to be desired. He suggested that
amendments should be dealt with in plenary rather than in the drafting
committee. In Kampala, his own experience in the First Standing Committee had
given him the impression of cattle-buying and the work had been conducted in a
very unprofessional manner.
The
Secretary General said that he could not agree more with Mr. Veillon.
With the members’ consent, he would align the Secretariat’s proposal with the
salient points of their discussion. He endorsed the view that the standing
committees needed to be better serviced by competent staff with expertise.
Mr.
Winkler recounted that in his experience, the main problem he had
encountered was that of poor attendance rather than the poor quality of the
debate. More rigorous discipline should be imposed. He pleaded not to expand
the drafting committees because it was difficult to reach consensus as it was.
He felt that the members of the Executive Committee should fill out the
questionnaire that had been distributed and based on their responses, a paper
should be produced.
Mr.
Oliver believed that the IPU should take pattern from the Quebec
Assembly, where there would be a special debate followed by an outcome
document, interactive panel discussions and a special Gender Partnership Group
session on gender-sensitive parliaments.
The
Secretary General endorsed Mr. Winkler’s suggestion and invited the
members to complete and submit the questionnaire on the functioning of IPU
Standing Committees.
Regarding
the Committee on United Nations Affairs, he recalled that in 2007, the
Committee had been established with a broad mandate to discuss the IPU’s
relations with the United Nations. It had been considered an appropriate
vehicle for interaction between the two organizations. The members of the
Advisory Group to the Committee had been appointed by the then President of the
IPU. That experiment had been set up five years earlier and the time had come
to take a decision about the Committee’s raison d’être and future, if any.
Should it remain as it was? Should it become a full-fledged standing committee?
The Committee had been trying to find its way and its sessions were often not
well-attended. In actual fact, a small core group was doing all of the
Committee’s work. Yet given the contribution the IPU had to make to the United
Nations, the Committee in itself was worthwhile but its members needed to
display greater commitment.
Mr.
Oliver stated that the fact that the IPU had observer status at the
United Nations was unique for a parliamentary organization. He felt that the
IPU was not taking full advantage of that status and needed to develop more
direct ties with the United Nations. The Committee was like a ship lost at sea
and should be placed under the wings of a UN agency.
The
Secretary General informed the meeting of an important development
since the Bern Assembly: the UN General Assembly had adopted a strong new
resolution calling for greater involvement of the IPU in UN processes. While
there was some cross-fertilization between the IPU and the General Assembly, he
would hesitate to place the Committee under the stewardship of any UN body. He
did agree, however, that there was a need for greater rapprochement with other
UN agencies. He told the members that the Advisory Group would conduct a field
mission in September with support from in-country UN agencies and the national
parliaments of the members of the Advisory Group.
Mr.
Örnfjäder said that members needed to ask
themselves whether the committee should be continued or not and, if so, how it
could be enhanced. A report on participation, activities conducted and results
was required to allow them to take such a decision.
The
Secretary General invited the members to drop in on meetings of the
Committee on United Nations Affairs to form their own impression. A survey
would be conducted at the Quebec Assembly on the usefulness of the Committee.
Mr.
Oliver proposed that the IPU seek funds from the United Nations to
support the Committee’s work.
The
Secretary General said that he had received two requests from
potentially important constituencies. The first had come from a group of young
parliamentarians as a result of a resolution adopted at the Bangkok Assembly on
youth participation in the democratic process. Since then, a group of young MPs
had been meeting informally in the wings of IPU assemblies. That group had
recently requested a more formal mechanism for networking with the Secretariat.
It requested its own space at assemblies and interpreting services. Their
request reminded him of when the movement of women parliamentarians had started
off at the IPU in an informal manner. The group was well aware of the IPU’s
budget constraints and pledged to do its own fundraising and develop its own
programme. It wished to obtain an agreement in principle from the Executive
Committee.
The
second request had come from the Chief Government Whip of the Australian
Parliament. A first meeting of a network of whips had been held a year
previously in the Australian Parliament. The group had turned to the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for support to create a more formal
arrangement but had come up empty-handed. They were now turning to the IPU for
support. They also wanted a space at IPU assemblies and pledged to be
self-funded. Therefore, there were no budget implications for the IPU.
He
asked the members if they would agree to continue to give a space to the young
MPs and offer a similar space to the whips.
Mr.
Oliver contended that he had no problem in supporting the young MPs per
se but would impose one caveat: that a senior IPU officer attend its meetings
in a supervisory capacity. He added that it would be difficult for whips to
attend IPU assemblies if parliament was in session. As the IPU already had a
link with the Association of Secretaries General of Parliament (ASGP), he saw
no reason for it not to establish ties with whips too.
Mr.
Örnfjäder echoed the views of the previous speaker and asked whether
there was an age limit for young MPs.
Ms.
Kaboré Koala stated that there was a Youth Parliament within the
Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. She asked whether the group had to
be composed of young or youthful MPs or members of a youth parliament. In many
parliaments, quotas had already been introduced for women MPs and young MPs so
she wondered about the need for that distinction. She was unaware of the French
equivalent of the whip. In her parliament, it was the head of the parliamentary
group who enforced party discipline during voting. Whips must surely already be
included in delegations to IPU assemblies so why did they seek to have their
own space? That would only lead to higher absenteeism in other committees.
Ms.
Kadaga considered that today, the majority of MPs were young and she
supported their inclusion in delegations. She suggested that a separate meeting
be held once a year for whips if they could not attend assemblies.
Mr.
Veillon endorsed the view to support the young MPs and provide them
with logistical support. He was not sure how they would react to IPU
supervision though. The concept of the whip was alien to Switzerland but he was
not averse to supporting that group too.
Ms.
Ali Assegaf echoed the views of the previous speaker. Young MPs should
be given a space to meet but there was a need to set an age-limit. In her
country, the age-limit for becoming an MP was 21 years. The concept of the whip
was also unheard of in Indonesia.
Mr.
Örnfjäder reminded the members that they still needed to find money for
the Speakers’ Conference in 2015. While he was not loath to giving a space to
whips in principle, should they not be focusing on existing concerns?
The
Secretary General begged to differ on the need to set an age limit. The
interpretation of “young” varied from one country to another depending on
context and culture. The group merely wished to provide a youth perspective on
IPU resolutions. He introduced Ms. Zeina Hilal, Programme Officer with the
Gender Partnership Group, who had been attending the meetings of young MPs. The
ASGP had started off much in the same way many years previously. The Speakers
who started attending IPU assemblies had requested administrative support from
their Clerks and little by little, the Clerks started to network and set up a
more formal mechanism, which today was a consultative body of the IPU. The ASGP
had its own statutes and a small budget. The IPU paid it a subsidy of CHF
40,000 a year to make up for the shortfall.
The
President felt that allowing different cultures to come together and
promote peace and cooperation could only be positive. Providing young MPs with
a space would serve them in good stead for the future and provide them with
invaluable experience.
The
Executive Committee decided to give a formal space to the young MPs during IPU
Assemblies and to initially provide similar support to a brief meeting of
parliamentary whips during IPU Assemblies in order to determine their level of
interest in a more formal network.
Item 4 of the agenda
IPU communications strategy
Ms.
Pandya, Director of the Communications Division, made a PowerPoint
presentation on the new communications policy. The policy had three main
thrusts: (1) modernizing the IPU website; (2) creating useful information
products; and (3) reorienting media policy and outreach. All three areas were
interconnected. Some fundamentals concerning messaging and brand building
needed to be addressed as a matter of priority, namely: identifying what the
IPU did, what difference it made, building on its expert reputation and
enhancing its visual identity. She cautioned that the changes would not happen
overnight. The Geneva-based firm Young & Rubicam had been selected to
create a visual identity for the IPU, including a logo and strapline. A survey
had been sent out to the membership about their website needs and the
30 responses received would be fed into the process. Staff had also been
consulted about their website needs. The firm had been asked to follow three
different routes: modernize the current logo; devise one with a more factual
representation; and create a more people-oriented logo. Members would receive
an update at the Quebec Assembly.
Regarding
website development, the recruitment of a web/ICT manager was underway. A
temporary home page had been set up and would go live by the following week.
She displayed the new page on the overhead projector, explaining that its
content had been simplified and the information presented more pointed. The new
website, like the old one, would be available in English and French.
The
purpose of creating new information products was to support Members’ work in
strengthening parliament, building the IPU’s reputation as a unique source of
expertise and better informing the membership and the wider public about the
IPU. Gender statistics were considered to be the best vehicle for giving
visibility to the IPU, with the results of women’s success often making the
news and the likes of CNN, the BBC and the Guardian asking to use the IPU’s
gender data.
New
tools envisaged included a bi-monthly e-bulletin in English, French and
Spanish, an information kit on the IPU in English, French and eventually
Spanish, and increasing use of social media, specifically Twitter. Ms. Pandya
extended her thanks to the GRULAC Secretariat for providing Spanish
translations of the e-bulletin and press releases. The intention was to produce
information products in Arabic too in order to reach out to the full gamut of
IPU Members. Those products would be used in outreach efforts to donors,
national parliaments and the general public. She displayed a graph showing a
steady rise in the number of e-bulletin messages that had been opened between
mid-April (671) and the end of June (895), barring a few dips. She admitted,
however, that she could not vouch that the messages were actually being read.
Media
outreach involved increasing contacts, targeted distribution, languages and
“opportunistic” communications. In her short experience at the IPU, she felt
that while journalists were aware of the IPU, they did know an awful lot about
what it actually did. Opportunistic communications entailed seizing
opportunities when they arose to heighten the IPU’s visibility rather than
merely being reactive. For instance, at the end of the Committee on the Human
Rights of Parliamentarians’ last session in July, she had held a press
conference with its President, Mr. Tapo, a Malian MP, at the Palais. When
asked by journalists what the IPU had done for him, Mr. Tapo replied that he
would not be alive today had it not been for the IPU, which had previously
handled his own case. That response had elicited a palpable reaction from the
journalists. Every little bit helped to change perceptions.
In
April 2011, there had been one mailing list of approximately 1,600 persons and
organizations, including Member Parliaments. Specific lists were currently
being set up, such as e-bulletin by language, foreign journalists by region,
press releases, membership, diplomatic missions in Geneva and New York,
international organizations, spokespersons, local journalists and donors. There
was no point in trying to communicate if the IPU could not identify its target
audiences. The number of press releases opened had also risen steadily over the
past months, with a few peaks having been recorded: the item on Syria (678),
the release of the Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC - 828)
and the number of women recently elected to the French National Assembly (600).
Again, there was no way of telling if they were actually being read.
It
was difficult to obtain statistics on media monitoring but she could safely say
that gender statistics fared the best. News related to the PLC and the killing
of Somali members of parliament had also generated wide interest. Interviews
did not receive much attention but the communications team was working on
remedying that situation.
The
challenges that lay ahead were several: scant human resources, limited time,
understanding, managing expectations and realistic optimism. It was worrying
that some Members systematically did not open any e-mails from the IPU. Even
with the translation of material into Spanish, the numbers remained static, in
the vicinity of 7 per cent. That was not a reason to stop communicating in
Spanish but greater efforts had to be made to reach out to the Spanish-speaking
membership together with the GRULAC Secretariat. Ms. Pandya appealed to the
members to reach out to other Members within their geopolitical groups. The IPU
had to engage more with its Members in order to make the Organization more
relevant. She was faced with a dilemma: how to enhance communications at the
IPU in the face of budget cuts?
Mr.
Örnfjäder asked whether there was an updated mailing list for members
of parliament and parliamentary staff. Should national delegations try to reach
out to the media using different contacts?
Ms.
Ali Assegaf observed that communications at the
IPU were currently one-way - from the IPU to its membership - while they should
ideally be two-way. She asked how many persons visited the IPU website per day
and per month and how many followers the Organization had on Twitter. She
cautioned against the use of that social media, which she felt was dangerous
and could not be controlled. She asked why the IPU did not use Facebook, which
was a safer medium.
Mr.
Oliver enquired what the job description of the webmaster entailed. He
suggested submitting op-eds to newspapers, for instance on the field mission to
Myanmar conducted by the IPU Human Rights Committee. Those pieces were free and
the IPU could write its own message. He also suggested making videos and
sending them out to the media. Weeklies were always looking for timely,
important news stories. Noting that all of those activities would have cost
implications, he asked for a detailed breakdown of the communications budget.
Ms.
Kaboré Koala asked whether the post of webmaster was temporary or
permanent. Once the new website was created, would the post still be needed? How
much would it cost?
The
Director of the CommunicationsDivision admitted that it
was necessary to have an updated e-mail list that was available to everyone.
She appealed to parliaments to assist in the IPU’s outreach efforts by
distributing information at the national level. She had broached that topic
with participants at the Information Seminar earlier that year and would
continue to do so every year. She would also be establishing direct contacts
with her counterparts in other organizations.
Mr.
Örnfjäder indicated that information was being sent to individual
members of parliament and the Secretariat of the Swedish Parliament, which in
turn was forwarding the same information to individual MPs. Therefore, e-mails
were being recorded falsely as having been opened twice.
The
Director of the Communications Division replied that the IPU was not
aware which Secretariats were forwarding information to individual MPs, which
was why e-mails were sent to the two groups. An extranet was foreseen to serve
as an interactive tool for the entire IPU community. It would create a space
for dialogue and interaction between the Secretariat and its membership and
between Members. The current number of Twitter followers stood at 127, which
was not very high but it was a loyal following. The IPU did not tweet every
day, so that was to be expected.
Mr.
Tchelnokov, IPU Secretariat, added that the IPU website received
between 35,000 and 40,000 hits per day, which translated into 1.2 million hits
per month.
Ms.
Ali Assegaf said that the Twitter account should be announced on the
e-bulletin as she was not even aware of it.
The
Director of the Communications Division replied that the Twitter
account would be announced in the next e-bulletin under the International Day
of Democracy item. She contended that Facebook was as unsafe as Twitter and
both had to be managed carefully. The difference was that Twitter was less
time-consuming. Using Facebook was not feasible because the IPU did not have
the capacity to update or manage it.
The
job description of the web manager included knowledge of ICT development,
technical expertise and experience in building and managing websites. In
essence, the web manager would have to build the web architecture of the IPU.
That task would take over one year and would be done in stages. Someone would
need to develop it on an on-going basis as the technology was constantly
changing.
She
provided a detailed breakdown of the communications budget as follows:
CHF 240,000 for rebuilding the website; CHF 80,000 for website content and
CHF 38,000 for information products. The new visual identity would cost a total
of CHF 98,000.
Op-eds
were not currently an option for the IPU because the values and messages of the
IPU were not sufficiently provocative for newspapers. To become attractive, the
IPU would have to go out on a limb and send stronger messages, which it could
not do without landing itself in trouble. The IPU was not Oxfam or Amnesty
International; it had its limitations and thus lost its ability to position
itself and defend its values as an organization.
Audio-visual
communications were very important and the IPU already had an institutional
video in English. She intended to do more video releases with a view to
bringing issues to life. Writing articles for weeklies deserved some
consideration. More research would have to be conducted on journalists with an
interest in parliamentary affairs.
Ms.
Passada considered that the IPU needed to showcase itself and its work
to its Members, even if that meant calling a spade a spade. The chairs of the
geopolitical groups needed to take ownership of the Organization and use their
good offices to convey valuable information. It was regrettable that some
parliaments did not receive useful information. The IPU must sell itself
through its Members. For that, good internal and external communications were
needed. If Twitter and Facebook were going to be used, they would have to be
managed and controlled by the IPU. The Organization could not afford to make mistakes
but it was on the right track.
Ms.
Kaboré Koala asked why the IPU promotional video existed in English
only.
The
Director of the Communications Division admitted that she had hesitated
about what to do – have the video translated into other languages or do an
entirely new one.
Ms.
Ali Assegaf proposed to set up an ipu.com website that would be fed
with news items. It was important to counteract the negative image of MPs
having a lavish lifestyle and neglecting their constituencies. The IPU could resort
to paid advertisements.
The
Director of the Communications Division
explained that the IPU promotional video had been made to raise awareness of
the Organization among the membership. Priority would be given to producing
that video in French and Spanish depending on the costs involved. Video news
stories were something different altogether. The IPU had a great heritage and
historical archives, but they were not at all showcased. She felt that the IPU
website was the place to put out information.
Ms.
Passada warned that it was impossible to get all information out. The
burning question was how the IPU as an organization could communicate better.
Mr.
Oliver congratulated the Director of the Communications Division on her
excellent presentation. The media saw the IPU as a talking shop. Any op-eds
submitted by the IPU would have to move out of the comfort zone. The
Organization’s hands were tied insofar as it could not say or do as it pleased
because of its mandate. The IPU had to be realistic; it could not grab
headlines because of its intrinsic nature.
Mr.
Veillon thanked the Secretariat for tackling
the communications problem. He endorsed the point raised by Ms. Passada about
forging closer ties with Members and agreed that the journalistic quality of
information issued by the Organization could be improved. As he saw it, the
post of webmaster could be full-time in the beginning and subsequently be
reduced to a part-time position and complemented by an IT web post.
The
Director of the Communications Division agreed that the IPU needed the
assistance of its membership in its communications drive. At the Kampala
Assembly, the Swiss Parliament had very kindly loaned the IPU a journalist from
the Federal Assembly to assist her. Therefore, in addition to secondments, the
IPU would welcome more of that kind of assistance. The IPU could give loaned
staff international exposure while gaining assistance at no extra cost. There
must be a symbiotic relationship between the IPU and its Members. She agreed
with the member from Canada that the IPU could never compete for global
headlines but it could capitalize on its empirical data and research. Certain
human rights cases also provided human stories that struck a chord with the
public. The one constraint in that area was the confidentiality issue.
The
Secretary General remarked that the discussion
on the communications policy was the longest they had held in many years. The
Organization needed to change what it said and how it said it. That would
entail a change in mindset at the Secretariat and among the membership. He
recounted that some 20 years earlier, the IPU had been asked to help set up an
agency in Stockholm known today as International IDEA. That agency invested
four times as much as the IPU in communications and was currently better known
than the IPU, which had been around for over 120 years. The IPU did not have an
IT web specialist per se on staff. Their discussion was unique because it
brought into question the fundamentals: how did the Organization portray
itself? Was there a need to modernize? If so, to what extent? There was a lot
to be done with little means. The IPU had every reason to be optimistic about
its future, but it must persevere. It was already on the right track.
The
President said that although the IPU had its limitations it was
singular insofar as it was the only organization to make statements on behalf
of the world’s representatives. Indeed, parliamentarians from over 160
parliaments signed up to resolutions adopted by the IPU. That singularity
should be cherished. At the United Nations, government representatives voted on
major global issues but at the IPU, it was the people’s representatives – the
conscience of the people – who voted.
Item 5 of the agenda
Parliamentary capacity building
(EX/264/5-R.1)
Mr.
Chungong, Director of the Division of Programmes, said that three documents had been distributed: the review of the
technical assistance provided by the IPU to parliaments; the technical
cooperation programme for 2011-2012; and a document on feedback received from
Sida.
Providing
a historical overview, he recalled that the IPU had been first called upon in
the 1980s to provide assistance to parliaments by way of study tours, library
development and enhancing the way the parliamentary administration functioned.
In the early 1990s, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, there had been an
ushering in of democracy. Parliaments started becoming more prominent due to
the advent of multiparty democracy. Their oversight role began to take on
greater importance. A flood of requests had come from Cambodia and Viet Nam in
Asia and Burkina Faso in Africa. That period had also been marked by the
emergence of other actors, such as UNDP, which had initially been very
reluctant to deal with highly political parliaments.
The
National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the
World Bank Institute (WBI), commercial consultants and non-governmental
organizations had come onto the scene. Yet the IPU was a frontrunner by virtue
of its global reach and its capacity to develop standards and benchmarks.
Currently, the United Nations asked the IPU to provide assistance in
implementing UN programmes because of the latter’s wealth of experience and
expertise.
The
IPU was involved in institution-building and had established criteria for
democratic parliaments: representative, transparent, accessible, accountable
and effective. It encouraged cross-fertilization between long-standing
democracies and those in transition or fledgling ones in post-conflict
societies.
At
the parliament’s request, the IPU first conducted a needs assessment and then
set up a framework to enhance the parliament’s performance. That served as a
basis for the donor community to provide support for specific activities. Its
work covered many areas, including review of committee systems, legislative
drafting and assistance in producing bills on specific themes, such as violence
against women and child labour. The IPU never imposed its views on national
parliaments; it helped them develop a roadmap to enhance their performance.
Having
done that for almost 40 years, the IPU had felt that it was time to evaluate
its work in that area and had commissioned an independent review in 2011. The
conclusions of that report had been taken on board, in particular those related
to the IPU’s core business and mandate: to promote democracy.
The
review had found that the IPU had a comparative advantage: being a small
organization it was flexible and did not have much red tape. It also had the
support of national parliaments and thus a variety of political systems from
which to draw. The IPU had thereby won the trust of parliaments worldwide.
The
IPU was seen as neutral and not having any hidden agenda. Being an inclusive
organization – spanning all political persuasions – it had developed expertise
and understood the political dynamics of different countries.
He
felt that UNDP was involved in many areas where it should not be and when it
found itself in hot water, turned to the IPU for assistance. Unlike UNDP, the
IPU was well-poised to relate to the various stakeholders in parliaments.
The
review had found, however, that one of the IPU’s weaknesses lay in impact
assessment, i.e. its ability to monitor results against objectives. That
remained a major challenge due essentially to a lack of human and financial
resources. At any rate, demand would always outstrip supply.
He
appealed for the political and financial support of the IPU’s governing bodies
by way of a political statement to deal with stiff competition from other
agencies such as the United Nations and WBI. The IPU would be reviewing its
current memorandum of understanding with the United Nations in a bid to include
other areas. He wished to assure the members that the IPU did worthwhile work
and had a real contribution to make in the area of technical cooperation.
Mr.
Veilllon thanked the Secretariat for providing
such useful documentation on the IPU’s core business. He assured the Director
of Programmes that he could count on his personal support and no doubt that of
the entire Executive Committee. Admittedly, there was always room for
improvement. The IPU should learn from the weakness identified in the review
and embrace change. It must enhance the transparency of its processes,
follow-up and monitoring, which in turn would facilitate its contacts with
donors. He asked the Secretariat to draw up a paper by the Quebec Assembly on
the recommendations made by the review and how they were being implemented.
Mr.
Örnfjäder expressed his appreciation for the
three documents, which provided different perspectives. The IPU had made a wise
choice by commissioning an independent expert to conduct the review and that
practice should be applied to other areas of the Organization’s work.
Mr.
Oliver expressed concern over two points raised
by the Director of the Division of Programmes: the threat posed by the United
Nations and WBI and what form the support being requested from the Executive
Committee should take. He asked whether the IPU was a doer or a facilitator of
field work. For instance, in Kenya, had the IPU actually helped the parliament
draft a new set of Standing Orders?
The
Director of the Division of Programmes replied
that the IPU’s role was to make expertise available to national parliaments. It
was, therefore, a mediator because it did not possess the requisite in-house
capacity or expertise. By way of example, it would approach the UK or Canadian
Parliament, pay for experts’ travel and subsequently undertake follow-up. IPU
staff usually accompanied the field mission to ensure that IPU standards were
met and practices applied. The IPU was not the doer per se but it had a
comparative edge – it could rely on its Member Parliaments. The IPU had never
had any difficulty in identifying experts.
UNDP
spent two thirds of its budget on governance activities, focusing a lot on
parliaments. It was involved in about 70 parliaments currently. Most of the
IPU’s work in that area was done jointly with UNDP. They had the funds and the IPU
had the expertise. He called on the Executive Committee to recognize that there
was a niche for the IPU. WBI developed governance programmes on combating
corruption and enhancing transparency and accountability. The IPU had already
collaborated with the Institute on budget-training seminars and was willing to
work with a wide array of partners.
The
threat from other agencies was serious and should not be taken lightly: UNDP
was involved in 70 parliaments while the IPU was working with about 30. The IPU
took criticism seriously and was taking on board a number of the
recommendations contained in the review. An independent review had also been
conducted on the Gender Partnership Programme and the IPU would like to do
similar reviews in other areas as they were very beneficial. The IPU needed the
political backing of its Members as some were providing funds to UNDP and not
to the IPU.
The
Secretary General reminisced about when he had
been invited to join the IPU in 1991 to build up the technical cooperation
programme, which was why it was close to his heart. He had endorsed the
recommendations of the review and assured the members that they were being
taken seriously and implemented.
The
IPU had a unique possibility to assist many parliaments in developing countries
because of its membership and experience. However, it was illusory to think
that the IPU could provide such assistance in all countries. The Organization
had a legitimate role to play in the Maldives, Sierra Leone and other countries
emerging from conflict.
In
the late 1990s and early 2000s, UNDP had decentralized its activities to the
level of its country offices in a bid to be closer to its beneficiaries. The
Programme had found it difficult to develop a coherent policy that could be
applied to each national context. UNDP did amateurish work, had no
parliamentary experience and wasted a great deal of overheads. It would do
better to improve its coordination and work in collaboration with the IPU. The
pair had an uneasy relationship and in 2011, UNDP had made a deliberate attempt
to sideline the IPU from its activities in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Myanmar.
That was when the IPU had started to put its foot down.
The
IPU did not have country offices, a field presence or endless resources. UNDP had
all of those things but in actual fact only occupied a place without achieving
anything. It had developed a programme in Tunisia based on initial work done by
the IPU without consulting the parliament. In the end, the entire programme had
had to be reworked, leading to great inefficiencies. In Myanmar, a joint
IPU-UNDP mission had been developed and a multi-year programme of assistance
had been submitted to the national parliament. It would provide a common
framework for any future assistance to the parliament. The IPU did not wish to
be confrontational but sought an alternative route for collaborating with UNDP
and other actors.
Mr.
Oliver asked what action the Executive
Committee could take to address that problem.
The
Secretary General answered that the Executive
Committee could draw up a policy paper or statement and recommend it to the
Governing Council.
Ms.
Kadaga asked whether the IPU could enlist the
support of Speakers of parliament through a letter since UNDP was present in
many countries. That would ease the burden of the Secretariat, which already
had a full plate.
Mr.
Oliver urged the Executive Committee not to sit
idle and to prepare a position paper and recommend it to the Governing Council
for adoption. It was important to let the world know about the IPU’s role and
stem competition from other actors.
Mr.
Örnfjäder felt that MPs must examine how funds
paid to the United Nations were being used. He called for greater
accountability of programme funds and invited other members to contact their
national authorities and urge them to channel funds towards the IPU instead of
other agencies.
It
was decided that the Secretariat would prepare a status report on
implementation of the recommendations contained in the Technical Assistance
Review and a draft IPU policy statement on technical support provided to
parliaments and the IPU’s role.
Item 6 of the agenda
Questions relating to IPU membership
(EX/264/6-R.1)
The
Secretary General provided an overview of
document EX/264/6-R.1.
Mr.
Al-Ghanim remarked that over half of the
countries mentioned in the document were members of the Arab Group: Egypt,
Kuwait, Libya, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Yemen. There had been positive
developments in five of the six Arab countries, which he welcomed, but one of
them, Syria, continued to be a cause for concern. A tragedy was currently
taking place in that country, with innocent people being killed by pro-regime
forces. The elections held in that country on 7 May had been anything but free
and fair and thus lacked credibility. Moreover, all opposition parties had
boycotted those elections. The IPU upheld the principle of free and fair
elections that reflected the will of the people. Surely the situation in Syria
was unacceptable given the sham elections and ongoing massacre. Furthermore,
the parliament thus elected, by virtue of its silence, seemed to be actually
sanctioning the killing of innocent civilians. The country was in a state of
civil war, with the government having lost control of large swathes of the
territory. The United Nations had ceased its operations in Syria. The Joint Special
Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, Kofi Annan, had quit
in the face of a worsening situation, his six-point proposal having been
flouted.
In his personal capacity and as the representative of the Arab Group
on the Executive Committee, he wished to move a motion to request the Quebec
Assembly to vote on the suspension of the Syrian Parliament until such a time
as the situation improved and a fully representative parliament was elected. He
pointed out that the Arab League had suspended Syria and the Organisation of
the Islamic Conference (OIC), at its recent Islamic Solidarity Summit held in
Saudi Arabia, had followed suit. He called on the IPU to send a clear message
to the Syrian authorities that the current situation was unacceptable.
Mr.
Winkler asked what rules governed the
suspension of Members and if they could be applied to Syria.
The
Secretary General observed that the Statutes
were not particularly helpful because they provided for two cases where Members
could be suspended: 1) where the parliament ceased to function; and 2) for
non-payment of contributions. There was no rule governing the current situation
in Syria and nothing in the Statutes stipulated that the parliament had to be
elected. Perhaps a discussion was warranted on the possibility of amending the
Statutes to cover cases such as the one at hand.
Mr.
Al-Ghanim expressed his disagreement with the
Secretary General’s position, recalling that in the recent past, the rules had
been bent in the cases of Egypt and Tunisia. He felt that the Executive
Committee could and should take a decision in spite of the rules. The IPU was
failing in its duty as an organization to express its solidarity with the
Syrian people. He called for a vote on the matter and expressed his wish for
unanimous support. He recalled that at previous IPU assemblies, the head of the
Syrian delegation had made many a promise about restoring peace and order, none
of which had been kept. He urged the members of the Executive Committee to vote
on his proposal and take a decision about suspension at the Quebec Assembly.
Mr.
Örnfjäder said that he represented his
parliament and was therefore not ready to take such an important decision
without first consulting the other members of the Swedish delegation. While he
fully understood Mr. Al-Ghanim’s arguments, he proposed to postpone the vote to
the Quebec Assembly.
Ms.
Passada and Ms. Kadaga endorsed
the views of the previous speaker.
Mr.
Veillon agreed entirely with the member from
Kuwait. He asked whether there had been any precedents at the IPU regarding the
suspension of a Member for political reasons. He felt that they should devise a
plan B and at the very least prepare a strongly-worded statement on the
situation in Syria.
Ms.
Moulengui-Mouélé congratulated Mr. Al-Ghanim
for raising that issue. As members of parliament they all had a duty to report
on what was going on in their respective regions. The situation in Syria was
indeed tragic and touched them all as human beings. However, the decision
should be deferred to the Quebec Assembly because of the need to first consult
the geopolitical groups. She advised against taking any hasty decision on such
an important matter.
Mr.
Oliver commended the member from Kuwait and
assured him that Canada would give his proposal a lot of backing. However, from
a legal standpoint, it was not possible to suspend Syria because the case was ultra
vires. The IPU could either amend the Statutes or add a general
discretionary clause to cover such situations.
Mr.
Nhem Thavy echoed the sentiments expressed by
the previous speakers.
Ms.
Kaboré Koala sympathized with the member from
Kuwait, adding that as human beings, they were all moved by the situation in
Syria. She asked whether the Syrian Constitution contained a provision that
nullified elections if a certain level of participation was not met. It was the
IPU’s prerogative to take a decision on the situation in Syria, but it should
do so at the Quebec Assembly and with a solid legal basis. The Organization
should not take a decision that would have negative repercussions.
Mr.
Winkler questioned the need to wait until the
Quebec Assembly to take action. He felt that the legal basis for their decision
should be established and contacts should be made with former and sitting
Syrian parliamentarians to ascertain their situation and the situation on the
ground. If the Statutes were not amended, thus effectively preventing them from
taking a decision, they should draw up a resolution on the situation in Syria.
He asked the members of the Executive Committee to reflect on amending the
Statutes to make provision for such cases in the future. The Executive
Committee should make its position clear and vote on a decision to suspend
Syria based on a two-thirds or three-quarters majority at the next Assembly.
Mr.
Al-Ghanim apologized for taking the members by
surprise and said that he fully understood and appreciated their positions. He
would undertake to provide another document that established the legal basis
upon which the Executive Committee could take a decision on suspending Syria.
He noted that Article 4.2 of the IPU Statutes governing the suspension of
Members was very general in scope. He expressed the hope that a decision could
be taken at the next session of the Executive Committee.
The
Secretary General admitted that the case of
Syria was unique and there had not been any similar precedents to his
knowledge. The Italian Parliament had been “suspended” in the late 1930s in
response to the fascist government’s invasion of another country. That case was
not even remotely akin to the one at hand. More recently, a decision had been
taken not to suspend the parliaments of Tunisia and Egypt although they had
effectively “ceased to exist” because the countries were in transition and it
was felt that a decision to suspend them would send the wrong message and
discourage their efforts to move towards greater democracy. Therefore, their
membership had been retained in spite of the Statutes. He agreed that the
Statutes should be interpreted depending on the particular context. The problem
was that Syria was currently a Member of the IPU and its case was not covered
by either of the two conditions for suspension. He would prepare a paper
providing an overview of precedents and interpretation of the rules governing
the suspension of Members. The members always had the possibility of amending
the Statutes. In the meantime, he proposed to issue a stern warning to the
Parliament of Syria for remaining silent and not doing its part to protect the
Syrian people.
Mr.
Al-Ghanim asked for that matter to be included
in the agenda of the Executive Committee when it met in Quebec. Based on his
paper and that of the Secretariat, the members should be in a better position
to take a decision.
Mr.
Örnfjäder agreed to have that item placed on
the agenda of the Quebec session. That would give the geopolitical groups ample
time to discuss the situation. However, he proposed that they formulate a plan
B just in case.
Ms.
Kadaga also agreed to discuss the matter in
Quebec and understood that the member from Kuwait needed to have the support of
the Executive Committee.
Mr.
Al-Ghanim thanked the members for their
expressions of support and accepted the proposal for a statement to be issued
by the Executive Committee on the situation in Syria.
The
President said that he took it that the item
would feature on the agenda of the next session of the Executive Committee, to
be held in Quebec.
It
was so decided.
Ms.
Kadaga asked whether the IPU was reaching out
to the Parliament of Somalia.
The
Secretary General said that the IPU had not yet
made any overtures. The Transitional Parliament had been admitted to the IPU
and had been subsequently suspended for the non-payment of its contributions.
The Organization had sent congratulatory letters to the newly elected
parliament and Speaker but had not officially invited them to attend the Quebec
Assembly. The parliament would have to pay its arrears before being readmitted
to the IPU and he was well aware of its financial difficulties. He asked the
members to reflect on the issue and proposed in the meantime to offer the IPU’s
support to the parliament.
Item 7 of the agenda
Any other business
The
Secretary General informed the members that the
Arab Parliament had proposed that the IPU organize an international conference
at IPU Headquarters in Geneva on the situation of detained Palestinian members
of parliament. He personally felt that the plight of the detained MPs was
already being addressed by the Committee on the Human Rights of
Parliamentarians and that organizing such an event would undermine if not
altogether jeopardize the Committee’s work by sending the wrong signal to the
Israeli authorities. There had been some positive developments lately: eight of
the 23 MPs who had been held in administrative detention in Israel in early 2012
had been released and the Israeli authorities were starting to communicate with
the Committee. It was his hope that more of the detained MPs would be
released.
Mr.
Örnfjäder reminded the members that organizing
any additional or unforeseen event had cost implications.
Mr.
Winkler added that the IPU should not organize
an international conference that singled out one country. After all, the Human
Rights Committee was dealing with cases from various countries. Perhaps an
event could be organized at an assembly on the plight of detained MPs the world
over.
Mr.
Veillon agreed that the matter fell squarely
within the purview of the Human Rights Committee, which was doing laudable
work, and should remain there.
Mr.
Al-Ghanim thanked the members for speaking out
on that issue. The IPU should adhere to its principles. The Israeli authorities
were running a sham and perhaps addressing the matter of the detained MPs
through an international conference was not the best route to take.
Nevertheless, the IPU should speak out against the situation of all detained
MPs throughout the world, whose fundamental human rights were denied. He
expressed his appreciation to the IPU for being instrumental in the release of
many detained MPs. The Organization should not give Israel the impression that
it was doing it a favour because detaining duly elected officials without
charge was a wholly unacceptable situation. Therefore, in lieu of accepting the
proposal by the Arab Parliament for an international conference, he felt that
the IPU President should issue a statement on the matter.
Mr.
Winkler reminded the member from Kuwait that
when the Speaker of the PLC had been released in July, the IPU President had
issued a statement welcoming the good news. He should issue another statement
only when other MPs were released.
The
Secretary General said that the Secretariat had
been working on a statement on the situation in Syria and read out the text in
English. He added that at opportune moments, the IPU would issue statements on
the situation of the detained Palestinian MPs but for the time being, would not
consider favourably the proposal by the Arab Parliament. He asked the members
whether the statement on the situation in Syria was acceptable to them.
The
members expressed their approval of the statement on the situation in Syria
(see Annex).
Item 8 of the agenda
Overview of preparations for the Quebec Assembly
Mr.
Oliver made a presentation starting off in
French and ending in English to reflect Canada’s bilingual nature. He said that
Canada was honoured to host the 127th IPU Assembly, which was the
fourth such event it would be hosting. 2012 marked the 100th
anniversary of the Canadian Parliament’s affiliation to the IPU and a
commemorative plaque would be issued to mark that milestone. The Quebec
Assembly would attract over 1,300 MPs and Observers and would be the biggest
conference in Canada, with over 1,000 hotel rooms already reserved. The
Assembly would be unique in every way, from the dynamic format and agenda to
the state-of-the-art facilities and the eco-friendly policy in place. The
Canadian IPU Group had invested a great deal in that endeavour and he promised
that the 127th IPU Assembly would raise the bar for all future
assemblies.
Mr.
Örnfjäder asked whether the Syrian delegation
to the 127th Assembly had been announced.
The
Secretary General replied that he had not had
any news from the Syrian Parliament.
The
President thanked the members for participating
in the meeting and the Secretariat for preparing solid documents on which to
base their discussions. He looked forward to welcoming them in Quebec come
October.
The
meeting rose at 12.35 p.m. on Thursday, 30 August 2012.