MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE
London (Jubilee Room)
Monday 2 March, 2009 at 0930
Group of the Twelve Plus
in the Inter-Parliamentary Union
Groupe des Douze Plus
à l’Union interparlementaire
Participation
Mr John Austin (Chair of the 12+
Group), Senator Donald Oliver (Canada), Mr Daniel Reisiegel (Czech Republic),
Senator Robert del Picchia (France), Mrs Elsa Papademitriou (Greece), Mrs
Karina Petersone (Latvia), Dr Roger Berry (United Kingdom), Mr Nigel Evans (United
Kingdom).
In attendance
Mr Marc De Rouck (Belgium), Mr Joseph Jackson (Canada),
Ms Sylvie Andrisova (Czech Republic), Mr Philippe Bourasse (France), Mr
Bertrand de Cordovez (France), Mrs Kalliopi Mermigki (Greece), Mrs Sandra Paura (Latvia), Mr Kenneth Courtenay (12+
Secretary), Ms Dominique Rees (12+ Secretariat), Ms Gabriella Liberotti (12+
Secretariat), Ms Libby Preston (12+ Secretariat)
1. Opening Remarks
Apologies had been received from Asta Moller (Iceland),
Brigitta Gadient (Switzerland), Rudy Salles (France) and Geert Versnick
(Belgium).
2. Adoption of the Agenda
The agenda was adopted.
3. Approval of the Minutes of the 12+ Steering
Committee meeting in London on Monday 15 September 2009
The Minutes were approved without comment.
4. Matters arising from previous meetings
The Chair reported that he had been unable to make
progress with the other geopolitical groups on the need for a revised agreement
between the IPU and Assembly host country regarding provision of visas
IPU Matters
5. Reports from the Executive Committee
Robert del Picchia (France) reported that an
extraordinary 2 day meeting of the Executive Committee had taken place at the
end of January to discuss the situation in Gaza. An Italian, Mr Filippo Grandi,
Deputy Commissioner General of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency
for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) who had extensive experience of the
Gaza region, gave an excellent presentation and responded very well to
questions. Debate in the Committee had, at times, been heated but the
President’s declaration had been supported by the majority. He praised the
President’s handling of the meeting.
The Committee agreed a series of meetings. On 7 and 8
May an economic crisis summit meeting would take place in Geneva. Experts would
be invited to give presentations on a range of topics. The Council would be
asked in Addis for a budget appropriation to cover interpretation costs and so
on, amounting to 157,000 Swiss Francs. On 14 December an environmental
conference would be held in Copenhagen on the occasion of the UN Climate Change
Conference (COP15). The meeting was deliberately timed to allow
parliamentarians to focus attention on the environment immediately before the
ministerial section of the UN Conference, which would be held on 15 and 16 in
Copenhagen. The one problem caused by this timing was that hotels were already
heavily booked. The costs of interpretation and so on would again be met from
IPU budgets.
There was some discussion about the hosting of Assembly
meetings in 2011. As 12+ Members were aware, Canada had bid to host the
Assembly but the visa issues remains unsolved. Panama had also now offered to
host the meeting. The Secretary General had sent a representative to look at
possible conference venues.
Elsa Papademitriou (Greece) praised the way in which the
President had handled the extraordinary meeting. She had met with him on the
eve of the meeting and had been impressed by the preparatory work he had
undertaken. The meeting had been difficult to chair but the President had
managed to build sufficient consensus for a statement to be released in his
name. She welcomed the climate conference and approved of its timing. There
were a number of other platforms available to parliamentarians to highlight the
Kyoto protocols in the lead up to Copenhagen, one example was the OSCE, where
Greece currently held the position of Chair-in-Office. Robert del Picchia
(France) added that the Executive Committee had agreed that the President
should accept an invitation to travel to Gaza and Israel at the end of
February.
The Chair hoped that the role of the Vice Presidents
would be discussed at the Executive Committee meeting in Addis Ababa. Elsa
Papademitriou (Greece) said an option could be for one Vice President to have a
mandate relating to finance and administration, and for the remainder to act as
geographical representatives of the President. Each geopolitical group would
then be represented by a Vice President. She agreed the roles needed to be
finalised. Karina Petersone (Latvia) suggested that the Executive Committee ask
the Bureau to circulate, in Addis, two or three possible ways in which the
roles of the Vice Presidents could be defined. It was agreed that the 12+
Executive Committee members (Robert del Picchia and Elsa Papademitriou) would
draft one possible mandate and propose to the Committee at its meeting in
Addis.
6. Preparation of the 120th IPU Assembly in Addis
Ababa
a. Reports and Resolutions of the Standing Committees
The revised draft resolutions were circulated. The 12+
rapporteurs were:
Committee I: Mr Price (Australia)
Committee II: Mr Fuchtel (Germany)
Committee III: Mr. Dismore (United Kingdom)
Elsa Papademitriou (Greece) circulated amendments that
had been proposed by the Greek delegation.
b. Emergency item
The Chair informed Members that the 12+ had not received
any formal notification of an emergency item. The most obvious topic was the
world financial crisis but this may not be classed as an emergency item,
especially given that a separate conference was planned for 7 and 8 May.
Robert del Picchia (France) thought it would be odd for
parliamentarians not to debate such a significant subject, the public would
expect it of them. The situation was also changing rapidly and there would be a
lot to discuss post the G20 meeting. Donald Oliver (Canada) echoed these
comments, parliamentarians needed to have an opportunity to hear each others
views, the debate itself would be more important than the resolution. It would
also act as useful preparation for the May meeting. Nigel Evans (United
Kingdom) agreed, things were changing rapidly and it would be of great benefit
to hear from other parliamentarians. The Chair suggested that the title of the
emergency item could focus on the impact of the crisis on the most vulnerable
people.
Roger Berry (United Kingdom) suggested that the causes
of the crisis also be discussed to try and prevent a repeat. Robert del Picchia
(France) suggested that the focus could be on the impact on African countries
given the location of the meeting. Elsa Papademitriou (Greece) also thought it
was important to understand the evolution of the crisis but she suggested a
focus on the democratisation of globalisation. Countries needed to unite
together to tackle the crisis, the debate should be about political rather than
economic solutions. Donald Oliver (Canada) thought it would be difficult to
debate the causes of the crisis in Addis because the United States would not be
represented. (Post Meeting Note: See Item 11) He suggested debate be
confined to the role of parliamentarians and the impact of the crisis on the
most vulnerable. The conference in Geneva could examine the causes of the
crisis because experts and academics could be invited to highlight what had
happened in the USA.
Karina Petersone (Latvia) agreed that the debate should
focus on the role of parliaments in response to the financial crisis, as well
as in ensuring global solidarity so that the most vulnerable did not suffer
disproportionately. The Chair thought that it would be impossible for the
debate not to touch on the causes but he thought the title should focus on the
Millennium Goals and the impact on the vulnerable. Roger Berry (United Kingdom)
said that some countries, such as Mexico and Argentina, had experienced
financial crises before the current one, but countries had not listened to
their experiences. As internationalists, IPU members needed to have the
humility to listen and learn from others. The Chair thanked members for their
comments. He suggested the Committee nominate a representative to draft a title
and rationale to propose as an emergency item. Donald Oliver (Canada) agreed to
take on this role, his contact details would be circulated to members.
c. Proposed topics and rapporteurs for future assemblies
The Chair said he had not been notified of any subjects
but asked Members to give some thought to possible topics .
Elsa Papademitriou (Greece) said that the Greek
delegation had proposed some topics, namely:
Committee I: Crisis Management: The involvement of
National Parliaments and International Parliamentary Assemblies
Committee II: Democratising Globalisation
Committee III: E-democracy and Child Pornography:
Protecting the Rights of the Child.
Nigel Evans (United Kingdom) was particularly interested
in the subject proposed for Committee III. He would be interested in a wider
exploration of e-democracy, looking at how parliamentarians were equipped with
new technologies to assist their work. Elsa Papademitriou (Greece) reported
that a seminar on e-democracy would take place on 6March, she
thoroughly recommended one of the speakers, Nicholas Dunlop. Nigel Evans
(United Kingdom) said that some parliamentarians were poorly equipped in terms
of research and information services. He suggested that the IPU could look into
this subject and suggest minimum standards. Robert del Picchia (France) advised
that the IPU held an annual meeting on this subject. He thought a 2007 IPU
report on the ways in which Parliaments supported the work of Parliamentarians
might be of interest to Mr Evans.
Karina Petersone (Latvia) also thought that e-democracy
was a topical issue. The IPU could ask for a report on how well Parliaments
were equipped to use new technologies but she stressed that the electorate
needed to have access, and the ability, to use the same technology. The Chair
thought the digital divide would be an interesting topic. Donald Oliver
(Canada) suggested that the IPU were already looking into the issues raised.
For example, an IPU seminar on parliamentary use of technology had taken place
in Geneva last October. He also explained the measures that national
parliaments could take to tackle internet based child pornography.
d. IPU Committee on UN Affairs
The Chair reported that this would be discussed at the
next meeting of the Executive Committee.
7. IPU Reform
Robert del Picchia (France) updated the Committee on
behalf of Rudy Salles. He reported that the allocation of committee time, as
trialled at the 119th Assembly in Cape Town, had been judged to be a success
and suggested it would be permanently adopted. In relation to Palestine, he
said that the President of the French National Assembly had received a letter
from the President of the PNC. The letter did not faithfully represent the
decisions that had been taken in regard to Palestinian representation at the
IPU. The French Assembly had responded clarifying the representation that the
IPU had agreed, copies of the response were circulated. Finally, in Addis
Ababa, the Executive Committee planned to discuss an amendment to rule 2 of the
statutes which would widen the definition of observer status.
8. Appointment of the Secretary General
The Chair said that Executive Committee papers on this
subject had been circulated last September, though had not yet been issued to
Council. He assumed they would be discussed at the Committee’s meeting in
Addis. Donald Oliver (Canada) highlighted that the current Secretary General,
Anders Johnsson, would need to announce his intentions by June. Robert del
Picchia (France) said that the appointments process must demonstrate that the
IPU operated according to democratic principles. The Chair observed that the
role would be advertised through the IPU and member parliaments. Individuals
could apply or parliaments could propose a candidate. Roger Berry (United
Kingdom) was surprised to learn that parliaments could propose a candidate, he
thought this could provide an unfair advantage to those candidates. The
Secretary General was a technocrat, employed to run the organisation. It should
be a straight forward advertisement for individuals only. The Chair said that
in other parliamentary organisations it was common for member parliaments to
submit candidates. Nigel Evans (United Kingdom) agreed with Mr Berry. He
suggested the Executive Committee impose restrictions on monies that could be
spent on campaigning; it would be wrong if a national parliament secured the
role through lobbying. Donald Oliver (Canada) said that the IPU had a history
of governments becoming involved in elections. It was clear that the Indonesian
Government had been involved in the last Presidential race. The Chair shared
the concerns expressed but added that in the past nominations had only been
accepted from parliaments. He was pleased that the Executive Committee had
agreed to allow individuals to apply, this was an important step forward.
Karina Petersone (Latvia) expressed concern that the
current Secretary General would have an unfair advantage by declaring his
intention in June, whilst other candidates would have to wait until the
appointments process began in the autumn. The Chair responded by saying that Mr
Johnsson was required to make his intentions known a year before his term of
office expired in June 2010. Robert del Picchia (France) said that other
candidates could announce their intentions before the autumn deadline. He
stressed that the process must be an open competition regardless of Mr
Johnsson’s decision. The Chair agreed. He said that the papers indicated that
the Executive Committee would produce a shortlist of 5 candidates who would
then be interviewed. Two or more names would then be proposed to the Council
who would decide through a vote. Roger Berry (United Kingdom) asked how parliamentarians
would get to question the candidates. The Chair thought that the candidates
proposed to the Council would address each geopolitical group. Robert del
Picchia (France) commented that each Executive Committee member could nominate
up to 5 candidates. The Committee would then vote and the top 5 scoring
candidates would then be interviewed. Following the interviews the Committee
Members would select 2 or more candidates to proceed to the next round, which
would include attending a meeting of each geopolitical group. He added that as
Secretary General of the IPU, the appointee would have political power, vested
through the organisation, so must be more than a technocrat.
9. Vacancies
Committee on Middle East Questions
The Chair announced that Mr Carter (New Zealand) had
assumed ministerial office and Mr de Donnea (Belgium) was now a titular member,
this meant that there were vacancies for one titular and one substitute member
resulting from these changes, in addition to an existing substitute vacancy. These
were not designated 12+ positions and it may be thought that the 12+ had enough
places, but there was nothing to stop individual delegations nominating
candidates..
First Standing
Committee
The Chair said that the
12+ would need to select a titular member and substitute vice president to
replace Lord Morris (United Kingdom) and Mr Podgorean (Romania).
Third Standing Committee
The Chair announced that there was a 12+ vacancy for a
substitute vice president.
The vacancies would be discussed at the 12+ meeting in
Addis.
10. Budget
The Chair reported that the budget documentation had
only just been received from Geneva. Initial consideration showed that the fund
for voluntary contributions had only received 25% of the amount estimated and
although there was an operating surplus, the budget was actually in deficit if
the pension fund obligations were taken into account. Daniel Reisiegel (Czech
Republic), who was also an internal auditor, noted that the position of the
voluntary fund had not improved from the previous year. He thought that the
current financial climate would make it more difficult to secure contributions.
He would consider the budget in more detail and make the Committee aware of any
concerns.
11. Membership
The Chair reported that the suspension of Guinea would
be considered at the Addis Assembly and also the possible reaffiliation of
Bangladesh. Donald Oliver (Canada) asked if there was any news on the
reaffiliation of the United States. The Chair understood that 5 representatives
from the US Congress would attend the Assembly in Addis. There was a suggestion
that if the US were to seek reaffiliation, it would request that the Assembly
always meet during the Easter recess. This timing would cause difficulties for
some other member countries.
12. Specialised IPU meetings held since the 119th IPU
Assembly in Geneva
The Steering Committee noted a list of the meetings held
since the 119th Assembly.
13. Other Matters relating to the IPU
a. Selection process for Assembly host countries
The Chair said that the issue of visas (affecting the UK
in 2004 and Canada’s wish to host an Assembly) had been discussed before but he
understood further concerns had been expressed on the process and selection of
host countries in regard to their politics and human rights records. Concerns
had also been expressed about conference facilities. He explained that from a
12+ perspective the Addis facilities posed a problem because the meeting room
only had a capacity of 115. Delegations would only be able to send 2 or 3
representatives to the morning meetings. Interpretation facilities were also
limited meaning only English and French interpretation would be possible. A
letter from IPU HQ on the facilities was circulated. It was agreed that the
invitation to the 12+ meetings would include a note explaining the situation.
Turning to human rights, the Chair reported that the
Ethiopian Opposition Leader, Birtukan Mideksa, was currently imprisoned. The
Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians could not take up her case
because she was not a parliamentarian. The Secretary General had written to the
Speaker of the Ethiopian Parliament about the case. The United Kingdom would be
raising the case with the Ethiopian Ambassador. He urged other member countries
also to raise the matter. Roger Berry (United Kingdom) echoed this view, it
would be difficult to defend holding the IPU Assembly in Ethiopia in such
circumstances. Donald Oliver (Canada) reported that a Canadian was also wrongly
imprisoned in Ethiopia at present. The Canadian Government had raised the
matter only last week. The Chair agreed to relay parliamentarians’ concerns to
the Ethiopian Ambassador.
Donald Oliver (Canada) reported on the latest
developments with regard to Canada’s wish to host the Assembly in 2011. The
Secretary General had contacted the former legal counsel to the Secretary
General of the United Nations for a legal opinion on the visa issue. The
opinion should be produced in time for the meeting in Addis. He was
disappointed to learn that the Secretary General had authorised a visit to
Panama, who had also offered to host the Assembly in 2011. The Chair was
puzzled as to why a legal opinion was necessary. The visa requirement was set
out in a letter of agreement between the host country and IPU, it was not a
legal, but political, matter. It was a ludicrous situation because without
resolution of the visa issue, no country that had signed the international
travel ban would ever be able to host an Assembly. Robert del Picchia (France)
believed that the Secretary General had sought legal opinion in an attempt to
influence the other Executive Committee members.
b. Contingency Fund for Extraordinary Meetings
The Chair said that the parliaments of Executive
Committee members were responsible for the cost of sending members to meetings
and visits. For example, members of the Middle East Committee had been asked to
pay to participate in a visit to Israel and the Occupied Territories. A member
of the UK delegation had also recently been invited to represent the Committee
on Middle East Questions at the extraordinary meeting held in Geneva to discuss
the situation in Gaza. Members had been asked to pay their own costs. Roger
Berry (United Kingdom) thought the policy of requiring members to pay their own
costs was unreasonable and regressive. He was concerned that a poorer country
might not be able to send its members and would therefore be discouraged from
participating in committee activities. He suggested that the IPU have a
contingency fund to pay for such activities. Donald Oliver (Canada) added that
the IPU did pay travel costs for the Committee on the Human Rights of
Parliamentarians.
Elsa Papadimitriou (Greece) saw the validity of the
principle but she thought that parliamentarians and national parliaments should
make a conscious decision about the commitment required when seeking
appointment to a committee. It would mean a significant increase in budget if the
IPU were to fund more travel. Robert del Picchia (France) thought that the IPU
should not establish a committee if the funding was not clear. However a
distinction needed to be drawn between meetings of the IPU and its committees,
and meetings where IPU members were invited to attend. The French delegation
rarely approved funding for attendance at the latter meetings. Budgets were not
infinite, choices had to be made. If the IPU was to fund travel for committees
difficult decisions would have to be taken around selection of participants.
Karina Petersone (Latvia) agreed, each country had to be free to make its own
choices about the activities in which it became involved. Although she could
see a case for a contingency fund in the event of emergency meetings. And she
supported the opinion that the IPU should only create institutions, the
activities of which it can bear the costs of. The Chair asked the Executive
Committee members to note the comments.
c. IPU Committee on Korean Reunification
Donald Oliver (Canada) circulated a draft document
regarding the establishment of a committee on Korean Peace and Reunification.
The purpose of the committee would be to generate parliamentary dialogue,
promote human rights and inter-Korean dialogue, and stimulate the economic
development of North Korea. The Committee could also play an active part in
reuniting families separated across the North-South border. He hoped that
efforts made by parliamentarians could add to the Governmental efforts already
being made. Private funds would be raised to support the Committee’s work.
Support had been gained from Vietnam, Indonesia and also, he hoped, China. The
draft would be circulated to the Asia Pacific geopolitical group at its meeting
on 20th March. If that group approved the proposal he hoped the 12+
group would also provide its endorsement. The Chair said he would circulate the
draft proposal to the 12+ group when Mr Oliver was ready.
12+ Matters
14. Programme of activities and timetable of meetings
for the 120th IPU Assembly in Addis Ababa
The programme of meetings and details of the dinner were
noted.
15. Membership
The Chair had nothing new to report. Montenegro,
Azerbaijan and Ukraine remained unaffiliated.
16. Financial Matters
Papers relating to the
12+ current financial situation were circulated. Donald Oliver (Canada) asked
about the cost of bank charges. The Secretary explained that some charges
related to telegraphic transfers and some resulted from payments being made in
different currencies. He would prepare a detailed analysis for the 12+ meeting
in Addis. The Chair suggested that contribution rates would stay the same for
2010; this was agreed.
17. Date of Next Meeting
The Chair would circulate, by email, proposed dates for
the autumn meeting.