MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
STEERING COMMITTEE
The Senate, Paris, France
Friday, 3 September 2010
Present:
Mrs Ann Clwyd (United Kingdom), Mr Robert del Picchia (France), Vice
President, Mrs Marija Lugaric (Croatia), Mr Donald Oliver (Canada),
Mr Krister Örnfjäder (Sweden), Mrs Doris Stump (Switzerland)
In Attendance:
Mr Philippe Bourassé (France), Mr Bertrand de Cordovez (France),
Mr Kenneth Courtenay (Secretariat of the Twelve Plus Group),
Mrs Lena Eklof (Sweden), Mr Joseph Jackson (Canada),
Mrs Sandra Paura (Latvia), Mr Martin Peleman (Belgium),
Mrs Dominique Rees (Secretariat of the Twelve Plus Group), Mr Daniel
Zehnder (Switzerland)
Apologies for Absence:
Mr François-Xavier de Donnea (Belgium), Mr Juan Moscoso del Prado
(Spain), Mrs Karina Petersone (Latvia), Mr Rudy Salles (France)
The meeting started at 9 am, chaired by Mr Robert del
Picchia (France), Vice President of the Twelve Plus Group.
1.Opening
of meeting
Mr Robert del Picchia (France), President ad interim,
welcomed all attendants, especially Mrs Ann Clwyd, who represented the de
jure President of the Twelve Plus Group, and to Mrs Marija Lugaric, who was
filling in for Mr Juan Moscoso del Prado (Spain) for Southern Europe.
2. Adoption
of the Agenda
The agenda was adopted.
3. Approval
of the Minutes of the Group Steering Committee’s meeting held in London on
Monday, 1 March 2010.
The minutes were approved without comment.
1.Matters
related to previous meetings
The Chair reminded colleagues that in Bangkok,
and despite the Twelve Plus Group’s reservations, the Executive Committee had
approved a proposed amendment to the Rules, requiring an open competition for
the appointment of the Secretary General and allowing a single Secretary
General no more than three consecutive mandates. The amendment, which had been
adopted in Bangkok after a lengthy debate, would be submitted to the Governing
Council in Geneva.
This was certainly an improvement, since up until then,
the Secretary General could be reappointed indefinitely, and above all, his
appointment was not subject to competition.
A reform of the Rules of the Standing Committees had
also been adopted, dealing specifically with the reappointment of its
Presidents and Vice Presidents.
Mr Donald Oliver (Canada) quoted paragraph 2 of
article 3 of the draft amendment and said that the Executive Committee should
not be put on the spot and made to decide on the Secretary General’s terms of
office. This was up to the Governing Council.
Mrs Doris Stump (Switzerland) said the problem
was due to the imbalance between a very strong Secretary General and weak
governing institutions. The Executive Committee established the Secretary
General’s employment conditions; it should therefore be responsible for taking
into account the Parliamentarians’ points of view. Now the proposed amendment
of articles 8 and 9 of the Rules of the Standing Committees could weaken them
even further by reducing the maximum length of their members’ time in office
while the Secretary General would remain in office for ten years or more. This
was the reason for her two propositions, which would be discussed under item 13
of the agenda. Generally speaking, the Executive Committee and other bodies of
the Union should be strengthened.
Mrs Ann Clwyd (United Kingdom) believed that the
Secretary General should have a deputy.
The Chair reminded colleagues that such a
proposition would be discussed in Geneva.
Mr Donald Oliver agreed with Mrs Clwyd.
Furthermore, he thought that when it came to the appointment of the Secretary
General, the respective roles of the Executive Committee and the Governing
Council were not clear enough. It should be made crystal clear that the
Executive Committee merely made a recommendation to the Governing Council,
which had the final say as a last resort.
The Executive Committee “established” the Secretary
General’s “hiring conditions” and “contract”, the Chair stated, but it
was eventually down to the Governing Council to appoint him.
MATTERS RELATING TO THE IPU
2.Discussions
of the Executive Committee
The Chair commented on the draft paper on reform
of the Standing Committees, which had been produced by the Secretary General
(EX/258/9-P2, 16 August 2010). The Secretary General, having observed that the
Standing Committees and their offices do not work properly, made varied
suggestions and specifically proposed that the Committees be allowed to meet
between Assemblies. All questions would be considered by the Executive
Committee and submitted to the Committees’ Chairs and geopolitical Groups. The
Chair advised transparency and suggested the proposed reform be circulated to
all members of the Twelve Plus Group before the meeting in Geneva so that
national delegations had time to think about it. The Twelve Plus Group could
therefore come to a consensus that could be defended in front of the Executive
Committee.
Considering the budget, Mr Krister Örnfjäder (Sweden)
wondered how it would be possible for the Standing Committees to meet
between Assemblies, especially since other propositions were being made and might
imply high costs if adopted. For the sake of consistency, all propositions and
their implications should be discussed at the same time.
Mrs Doris Stump (Switzerland) agreed with the
Chair’s proposition, which would allow a debate within the Group at the Geneva
Assembly. She added that the document did not deal with the problem of the
changing composition of delegations, which did not allow smooth work. This
matter should be tackled up front.
The Steering Committee agreed to send to all members
of the Twelve Plus Group the Secretary General’s draft reform paper on the
running of the Standing Committees.
The Chair then commented on the Secretary
General’s document entitled Draft Strategic Plan for the IPU: 2010 - 2015. Six
of the selected strategic goals seemed to meet general consensus, but the
seventh one did not. Again, this was about turning the Inter-parliamentary
Union into a treaty-based international organisation and reaching a new
agreement between the IPU and the United Nations. This contradicted the
conclusions of the 3rd World Conference of Speakers of Parliament
held in July. The Twelve Plus Group would have to make a stand on this matter.
A strategy should be defined and maintained but the IPU should not spend too
much time reflecting upon itself rather than on its missions, or engage into a
costly modernisation without taking the financial aspect into account.
Mrs Ann Clwyd (United Kingdom) completely agreed
with this and suggested that the Twelve Plus Group create an internal working
group which could analyse the document in detail. This would be the only way to
reach an enlightened position.
Mr Donald Oliver (Canada) agreed to this
proposition. During the last decade, the IPU had worked primarily to strengthen
its role with the United Nations. This should therefore be thought over
carefully.
The Steering Committee approved the creation of a
working group that would review the 2010-2015 strategy proposed by the
Secretary General.
3.Conclusion
of the 3rd World Conference of Speakers of Parliament
and
4.International convention on the IPU
The Chair reported that during the 3rd
Conference of Speakers of Parliament, there had often been tensions between the
Secretary General and some Speakers, some of them from European Parliaments,
when it had come to a draft treaty and new means to be granted to the IPU. As a
result, the final statement did not explicitly mention any upcoming treaty or
agreement between the United Nations and the IPU, and did not have the phrase
“adopted by consensus”. This had never been seen before. Despite those
hindrances, the Secretary General seemed to be willing to move forward.
Mrs Doris Stump (Switzerland) stressed the
ambiguity of the decision taken in Geneva. Many Speakers of Parliaments had not
wanted to take positions since they considered it was up to the IPU bodies to
decide on the matter. Moreover a few of them, although they had not supported
the idea of an international treaty, and more generally, the Secretary
General’s vision of the IPU’s future, had not thought that they had the
authority to decide on behalf of their Parliaments. The Twelve Plus Group was
responsible for ensuring that the Secretary General did not go it alone and
that decisions made by the Union agreed to all geopolitical Groups’ wishes.
The Chair stated that it would indeed be
difficult to ignore the Speakers of Parliaments’ reservations.
Mrs Doris Stump (Switzerland) mentioned again the
proposed strategy for 2010-2015 and regretted that geopolitical Groups had so
little time to come up with counter-propositions when presented with
strategically crucial documents. The decision-taking process had to be
reviewed.
Generally speaking, the Secretary General had not
realised that not everyone approved his chosen path. She said she supported the
strengthening of the IPU’s powers, but not the way the Secretary General wanted
to.
Mr Krister Örnfjäder (Sweden) said that the
Swedish Parliament wondered mostly about the status of the current IPU members
who would refuse to ratify the treaty, if there was ever one. Would they be
considered as second rate countries? This matter must be made clear before any
further action. It should also be established whether a treaty would be an
appropriate solution.
Mr Donald Oliver (Canada) said that if the
Conference had accepted this, the IPU would have had a hard time not to follow
through. As far as he was concerned, the Canadian Parliament had always been
against a treaty, and nothing had changed.
The Chair insisted that the position of the
Speakers’ Conference could not be ignored, but that the IPU-UN relations could
be discussed in order to improve them other than through a treaty. The matter
should be discussed in Geneva within the Twelve Plus Group, stressing the
Speakers’ opinions and the Secretary General's propositions, so that the Group
could find common ground.
Mrs Doris Stump (Switzerland) said that one
should bear in mind that the Twelve Plus Group had been the only one to oppose
an IPU treaty in Geneva as well as at the Speakers’ Conference. The Group had
to find common ground but also had to carry on talks with other geopolitical
groups to explain its position, avoid becoming a minority and ending up with
many European countries refusing to sign the treaty and deciding to leave the
IPU rather than supporting it financially.
Mrs Ann Clwyd (United Kingdom) agreed with this.
She had already taken part in discussions on this matter, and had never seen a
consensus. Each national delegation could approve paragraph 34 of the 3rd
Conference's final statement, which dealt with strengthening cooperation
between the IPU and the UN, but nothing else remained of the original draft.
There was no consensus in favour of the Secretary General's proposition. To not
stop him now would cause further trouble down the line – and only the 12+ Group
could put the breaks on the process
The Chair stated that the European Speakers of
Parliament had not been the only ones to stand against the treaty. The United
Arab Emirates had spoken on behalf of the Arab Group to reject the principle of
an IPU treaty, as well as Japan, India and some South American and Caribbean
countries. Opinions therefore differed greatly, and the Twelve Plus Group was
not isolated. But its members at least had to agree on a method or direction.
Mrs Ann Clwyd (United Kingdom) stressed that the
IPU acted exemplarily in several ways: for instance, the Committee on the Human
Rights of Parliamentarians, which she had presided, did some impressive work.
But national parliaments never mentioned IPU resolutions and the Secretariat of
the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians was faced with tremendous
difficulties. Its administration manager was about to retire and it was unknown
whether she would be suitably replaced. If she was not, the Committee would
have a hard time carrying on with its activities. The Secretary General should
examine recommendations for the development of the activities of the Committee
on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians rather than pursuing projects that did
not meet consensus within the Union.
The Chair approved this. There were indeed
centres of excellence within the IPU that were often consulted by the UN, such
as the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians or activities for
gender equalities in politics. In the future, the IPU should strengthen these fields
and let the public and the international press know more about them.
Mr Donald Oliver (Canada) noted that item 21 of
the IPU draft strategy would strengthen the Committee on the Human Rights of
Parliamentarians and increase the resources allocated to it.
5.Preparation
of the 123rd IPU Assembly in Geneva
The Chair reminded colleagues that the 123rd
Assembly would be held in Geneva from the 4 to 6 October 2010. The Executive
Committee would meet two days earlier. He mentioned the panel discussions on
matters on the Agenda of the 124th Assembly, reminded colleagues of
their topics and reported that two co-rapporteurs came from the Twelve Plus
Group. Mrs Ferrier (Netherlands) on Committee II and Mr Destexhe (Belgium) on
Committee III. A special meeting on “Migration and Development” would also be
held on Tuesday, 5 October 2010. So far, no emergency item had been suggested.
6.Positions
to be filled
The Chair informed colleagues that there would be
a vacancy for the Twelve Plus Group on the Executive Committee since Mr Geert
Versnick’s office had ended. He had left the Belgian Parliament in June and was
currently replaced by Mr de Donnea until the end of the Assembly in October.
Currently the four Twelve Plus representatives on the Executive Committee were
Mrs Stump, Mr de Donnea up until October, Mr Örnfjäder and himself.
Mr Donald Oliver (Canada) said that he would
apply for the position. Not only should candidates be well familiar with the
inner workings of the IPU, but also Canada would host the Assembly in autumn
2012.
7.Budget
The Chair stated that on top of the 2011 draft
budget, the Executive Committee would be presented with a document on the
budget review for 2010 and quite unusually, with a document entitled “Budget
Review for 2011” with propositions to improve the organisation of the
Secretariat General. Its set up would involve additional expenses which had not
been integrated into the 2011 draft budget.
The budget review for 2010 showed additional expenses
that had not been planned in the original draft. Other additional expenses were
also revealed on top of the ones announced at the 122nd Assembly.
The cost of additional expenses was covered by savings of the same amount, but
some of them were nonetheless surprising, such as 60,000 Swiss Francs required
by the UN for security services during the 3rd Conference of Speakers of
Parliament.
The 2011 draft budget might seem satisfactory, but a
more detailed analysis revealed that it was in fact deceptive: the request for
a strong moderation of the evolution of expenses, which had been put forward
during the 3rd Conference of Speakers of Parliament, seemed to have
been taken into account for 2011, but the following years’ projections revealed
that this moderation would only be temporary.
The proposed budget for 2011 had decreased by 2.6%
compared to the 2010 budget, while membership contributions had gone up by
1.3%. Contributions had actually only increased by 1%, considering the extra
revenue registered in 2010. A 1% increase might be preferable to a 3% one, as
observed on average for the past few years; but it remained higher than many
national parliaments’ budget growth, some of them even having not increased at
all.
It was also surprising that members’ contributions
should go up when the Union budget was going down. This aimed to compensate the
13% decrease in voluntary contributions expected in 2011. This was due to the
upcoming expiration of multiannual agreements signed with several major donors.
In a way, the IPU members were suffering the consequences of the Secretariat’s
excessive optimism regarding voluntary contributions, while the Executive Committee
had regularly expressed concern over related revenue projections possibly being
unrealistic.
Many Parliaments had wished to reject the zero
contributions growth in order to avoid redundancies, even though several
members of the Executive Committee had stressed that it was unsafe to fund
permanent employment thanks to voluntary contributions, which were inherently
unpredictable.
The document for the 2011 budget review was set up
according to a method that was at the very least questionable: propositions of
additional expenses were put forward while the budget had not yet been adopted.
This might be due to an effort to artificially restrict expenses on the 2011
budget. Some extra expenses were in principle legitimate, such as the creation
of a Deputy Secretary position, but their schedule was wrong, unless the
related costs were to be met by saving on other staff costs.
Finally, projections for 2012 were worrying: the IPU’s
general budget would increase by 11.3% and members’ contributions by 3.7% while
many national Parliaments were foreseeing no-growth budgets for the next two
years. This again showed that the projected budget moderation for 2011 was
artificial, since it had been created by postponing expenses till 2012, not by
genuinely trying to save on programmes. One could also wonder whether it was
realistic to foresee an increase of expected revenue by a third regarding
voluntary contributions.
Mr Donald Oliver (Canada) requested details on
the appointment of the future Director General, its resulting expenses and that
of appointing a Deputy. Was that appointment part of the current Secretary
General’s succeeding strategy? Would the appointment follow an open competition
advertised in the international press or would internal promotion be favoured?
The Chair replied that nothing had been decided
so far. He did not think personally that the title of Director General was the
best. The IPU needed a “Deputy Secretary General”, who would have authority to
take the necessary decision whenever the Secretary General was travelling,
which happened very frequently. Should promotion within the IPU or an external
appointment be favoured? The matter would be debated by the Executive
Committee. They also would have to approve the related expenses, which had not
been scheduled in the 2011 budget.
Mrs Ann Clwyd (United Kingdom) noted that the
Twelve Plus Group could advise the Executive Committee that a Deputy Secretary
General rather than a Director General should be appointed, and mentioned
specifically as such in the job description. Candidates from the Secretariat
would obviously be allowed to apply internally, but recruitment should be open,
which was why a large open competition was called for.
The Chair stated that it was down to the
Executive Committee to decide which recruitment mode, what professional
contract and what additional expenses would be in order.
Mr Donald Oliver (Canada) asked whether the
Secretary General’s recently renewed contract included preparation for his
succession. TheChair replied that it did not. The Secretary
General would prefer that his future Deputy was appointed as Director General,
therefore seemingly reducing him to an administrative position. This might mean
that he hoped to appoint him or her himself, but it would be down to the
Executive Committee to decide, following an open procedure.
Mrs Doris Stump (Switzerland) asked details about
the confusing draft flowchart which featured in the meeting’s files. She
wondered about the duties of some IPU collaborators and wanted to know the
names of the people holding the various positions. The Chair recalled
the names of the current Directors and added that a person would be recruited
to fill the position of Head of Communication Division. Mrs Ann Clwyd
(United Kingdom) asked what would become of the Press Relations Service. The
Chair replied that it would be integrated into the Communication Division.
Mrs Ann Clwyd (United Kingdom) asked whether
anything had been heard about the United States possibly coming back to the IPU
and what that would mean for the IPU offices in New York. Also, would a
specific budget document be drafted for these offices’ expenses?
The Chair stated that the US Senate had agreed in
principle to the US’ reinstatement. The House of Representatives should decide
by the end of the year. As for the expenses of the IPU offices in New York,
they were part of the expenses for external relations.
Mrs Ann Clwyd (United Kingdom) asked whether the
IPU’s New York offices were really efficient. The Chair stressed that
the main role of these offices was to liaise between the UN and the IPU, not to
work towards the reinstatement of the United States. If, according to everyone’s
wish, the United States were to join the IPU again, their membership fee would
bring the Union new resources, the use of which would have to be discussed.
Since other members had to increase their contributions to compensate for the
United States leaving, it would be appropriate that they should – at least
partly – benefit from this major contributor’s reinstatement.
Mrs Ann Clwyd (United Kingdom) asked what was
meant by the American Senate “agreeing in principle”. The Chair explained
that the Senate had adopted a specific bill. Should the House of
Representatives reject the proposition, the Senate would have to discuss it
again. However, several things looked hopeful.
Mr Kenneth Courtenay (Secretariat of the Twelve Plus
Group) added that previous American administrations had always stumbled
upon the question of funding. However, the last Congress rejection had been by
a small majority. The political changes that had taken place in the US since
then could well alter the situation, but even if the Congress came back to the
IPU, which they were welcome to do, how much American Parliamentarians would
take part in the Union activities remained unknown and would depend greatly on
the dates of statutory assemblies.
Mrs Ann Clwyd (United Kingdom) noted that no
increase of the resources allocated to the Committee on the Human Rights of
Parliamentarians was mentioned in the 2011 budget. The Chair explained
that it had been mentioned in principle in the Union draft strategy but not yet
in the budget. Mrs Ann Clwyd (United Kingdom) deplored the fact that
every year an increase of this Committee’s resources was announced but never
actually happened. The Chair suggested that the Executive Committee be
advised to redistribute resources in favour of the Committee on the Human
Rights of Parliamentarians.
Mr Donald Oliver (Canada) thought that the 13%
decrease in voluntary contributions should not be so stressed as the ways of
getting Parliamentarians more involved in the Committees’ work.
The Chair said he wished that Parliamentarians
were not informed afterwards that any additional programme was being set up.
The Executive Committee should preferably decide on projects beforehand and
approve them if needed. Donation campaigns for countries affected by disasters
showed that not informing potential contributors on how their money would be
used could act as a deterrent. Therefore, thanks to structured projects, large
funds were able to be quickly collected for emergency relief in Haiti. The same
had not gone for Pakistan, where no detailed programme had been set up.
Mrs Marija Lugaric (Croatia) noted that the
implementation of the Resolution on Youth Participation in Democracy did not
feature in the 2010-2015 strategic plan. What was the point of voting such resolutions
if the IPU itself did not keep them as part of its strategic goals?
The Chair said that it would be up to the
Executive Committee to mention those matters at their next meeting.
8.IPU
Members
Regarding the US membership, the Chair reminded
that the document, which had been voted by the Senate, was currently pending at
the House of Representatives.
Furthermore, Montenegro had not paid contributions for
at least two years and could be suspended in 2011. Mrs Marija Lugaric
(Croatia) explained that she had already discussed this matter with the
Parliament Speaker of the country – whose interest in the IPU was not at stake
– and that she would contact him again to find a solution before the Assembly
in Geneva.
9.Specific
IPU meetings since the 122nd Assembly
The Chair went over the meetings held since
Bangkok.
13. IPU
Matters
- Propositions by Mrs Doris Stump (Switzerland)
The Chair presented two propositions mailed to
him by Mrs Doris Stump: to create a Rules Committee within the IPU, similar to
what the Parliamentary Assembly did at the European Council; and for the
Executive Committee to meet more often, and between Assemblies.
Mrs Doris Stump (Switzerland) explained that her
propositions came from her experience as a member of the Executive Committee,
but also expressed the feeling, which had been mentioned during the current
meeting, that the Secretary General had such power within the IPU that everyone
went along with him and granted his every wish. To put an end to that
situation, Parliamentarians should be more involved. The rules submitted at
Assemblies were not often the result of in-depth work, and the Secretary
General drafted them on his own. By contrast, PACE had a Committee on Rules of
Procedure that examined suggestions before they were submitted at the Assembly.
Also, the only way to strengthen the Executive Committee was for it to meet
more often - at least once more between Assemblies. That way, it would be
better informed, could ask questions and come up with new propositions.
The Chair asked whether a Rules Committee might
not be redundant, considering the Executive Committee already had authority on
all regulations matters. Even so, it would be interesting for the Executive
Committee to meet more often and be more involved in such matters. However,
this would be on two conditions: these meetings should be held in Geneva to
avoid the extra cost of IPU staff travel, but also members of the Executive
Committee, including delegates from far away countries, should be able to fund
their own trip to Geneva.
Mr Donald Oliver suggested that the Executive
Committee meet a day before each Assembly.
The Chair replied that this had been planned for
the 123rd Assembly. Mrs Doris Stump thought this partly fixed
the problem, but that with only two meetings a year, it was easy to lose track
of the discussions. More frequent meetings would allow the Executive Committee
to have more in-depth debates. A three, rather than two-day meeting before
Assemblies would not be enough. Without going that extra mile, including
financially, the Executive Committee could not fulfil its role. The Chair and
Mr Donald Oliver agreed with this and suggested that the 12+ Group ask
for at least one more meeting a year. To keep in line with financial
difficulties and the IPU's wish to find new ways of communicating with its
members, Mr Krister Örnfjäder suggested organising Executive Committee
meetings over the Internet.
The Steering Committee agreed to submit all those
propositions to the Executive Committee.
The Chair stressed that the strengthening of the
powers of the Executive Committee should be demanded most firmly. Good
governance rules applying to national Parliaments should also apply to the IPU.
Mrs Doris Stump suggested that the idea of a
Committee on Rules be discussed within the Executive Committee “Bureau” set up
by the six Vice Presidents. The Chair added that the Bureau itself could
form the Committee on Rules.
- Committee on Middle East Questions
The Chair reported that the Committee on Middle
East Questions would receive a note from the Secretariat regarding its
composition and running. The note stressed the level of non-attendance within
the Committee and the uneven geographical distribution of the six permanent and
six deputy positions. Even if it should be noted that appointments were made on
a personal basis, three out of five active members belonged to the Twelve Plus
Group and two to the Asia Pacific Group, while the four other groups were not
represented and women remained underrepresented, as there was only one.
The document went through possible solutions: to set
aside at least one seat for each geopolitical group; to impose equal gender
representation on groups with more than on representative; to consider other
criteria of participation, for instance to represent Israel, Palestine or other
countries directly affected by the conflict.
Such propositions called for two comments: on one hand,
the Twelve Plus Group might lose seats on the Committee; on the other hand,
would setting seats aside for geopolitical groups that were not directly
interested in the Committee be the best way to improve its running?
Regarding the Committee’s activities, the note recalled:
that the Committee had been able since 2009 to conduct separate discussions
with the distinct parties; that they had wished to go on another mission in the
area and had included Gaza in the programme; that the Palestinians had asked
for a Parliamentary conference about the conflict.
What could the Twelve Plus Group’s position be on those
propositions? Increasing the number of Committee members could be considered
rather than reducing that of European representatives, who were more concerned
by the Middle East question than other geographical zones.
Mrs Ann Clwyd (United Kingdom) spoke as President
of the Committee on Middle East Questions and said that she had not known about
this note. She wished the person who had drafted it had discussed it with her
beforehand. She said that only one person ran the Secretariat of the Committee
and that several sessions had had to be cancelled, since it had been impossible
for the Palestinians and Israelis to meet in the same room at the same time.
Members of the Committee had been somewhat frustrated by this. At the last
meeting, conciliation experts had been asked to suggest working methods for the
body. Those suggestions had been submitted to the IPU Secretary General. The
President would meet him in London the following week to discuss this. There
was no point in appointing people on this Committee who had no interest in the
Middle East.
The Committee on Middle East Questions had obviously not
been able to work. Was it relevant to maintain it if it did not have the
necessary financial and human resources? The President proposed to inform the
Twelve Plus Group of Mrs Clwyd’s correspondence with the Secretary General
about this; she doubted the note mentioned earlier actually reflected the
situation.
The Chair thought that the activities and future
of the Committee on Middle East Questions could be discussed under the “Any
other business” item at the Executive Committee meeting. (Approval)
TWELVE PLUS MATTERS
14. Programme
of activities and meetings for the 123rd IPU Assembly in Geneva
The Chair drew attention to the schedule of
meetings at the 123rd IPU Assembly and added that there would be a
reception at the Musée Ariana on 4 October from 7 to 9 pm.
15. Status
of one Group member regarding payment of contribution
The Chair reported that Albania had still not
paid their contribution arrears. They would therefore have to be considered as
an observer amongst the Group. Mrs Marija Lugaric (Croatia) explained
that she had been unable to contact Albanian Parliamentarians. The Chair said
that he would speak directly with them in Geneva.
16. Twelve
Plus Group Presidency – Open Competition
The Chair reminded the Committee that Mr John
Austin’s successor as President of the Twelve Plus Group would be elected in
Geneva. As the Group President ad interim, he had written to all members in
June to inform them of the upcoming election and called upon them to apply as
candidates. Applications should consist of a letter of intent and a curriculum
vitae and could be submitted up until the beginning of the October session.
As he had decided to apply himself, he wanted voting to
be supervised by his British colleagues. (Approval)
The Steering Committee set the date for the election
on Wednesday 6 October 2010.
17. Financial
matters
Mr Kenneth Courtenay (Secretariat of the Twelve Plus
Group) presented the Group’s balance sheet on 30 June 2010. Revenue
amounted to £33,649 and expenses to £21,149, leaving a surplus of £12,499. Even
though the balance sheet did not include the cost of the current meeting or
meetings that would be held around Geneva, there should still be a surplus at
the end of the year, which would put reserves at more than £70,000. The Group’s
financial situation was therefore a lot healthier than six years ago.
In Geneva, membership contributions should be determined
for the year to come, possible payment arrears should be acknowledged and the
corresponding countries should be contacted about their intentions. The British
team would transfer finances to the new Presidency as quickly as possible as
well as updated files. Conversions would be made according to the exchange rate
as of early October.
The Chair thanked Mr Kenneth Courtenay for his
excellent work. Considering the satisfactory financial situation, the next
Presidency could suggest that contributions be maintained at their current
level, with no extra charge for extraordinary missions.
18. Twelve
Plus Matters
The Chair said that the new Presidency, from
whichever country it may be, would have to set the date for a Steering
Committee meeting in early March, before the Assembly in Panama.
Mr Donald Oliver (Canada) reported that Canada
was working very hard to prepare for the 127th IPU Assembly to be
held in Quebec in October 2012. They were planning to ask former US President
Mr Bill Clinton to make a keynote speech. He hoped this would encourage
American Parliamentarians to travel to Quebec for the Assembly.
The Chair welcomed the initiative, which would
maybe prompt the US to come back to the IPU.
Mrs Ann Clwyd (United Kingdom) reminded
colleagues that a regional seminar would be held in London for European
Parliaments, on the subject of “Youth Participation in Democracy”.
Mrs Marija Lugaric (Croatia) suggested that such
events should not be held in December, when budget discussions were
traditionally held. If other regional seminars were to be organised at a
similar time in the future, she asked whether they could be scheduled on
another date.
The Chair would pass the comment on to the
Secretariat and the Executive Committee. He then noted that the agenda had been
covered and thanked colleagues for their contributions.