Report by the Speaker of the Portuguese Assembleia da  República, Mr Antonio de Almeida Santos

1. In the Conclusions of the Presidency of the Lisbon Conference it was agreed that the debate on what was then called the Conference Regulations should continue, the following general principles having been consensually adopted:

• The Conference comprises Speakers of the national parliaments of the Member-States of the European Union and of the European Parliament, on an equal basis.
• Nevertheless, participants have different mandates in accordance with their respective constitutions or, in the case of the EP, with the consolidated treaties.
• Speakers of the Parliaments of candidates countries to membership of the EU may be invited as observers.
• The Presidency of the Conference is held by the Speaker or Speakers of the host parliament who is responsible for its organisation.
• The Presidency will prepare a summary of the Conference works to distribute to participants. The Presidency and the other Speakers may make public statements on positions adopted at the Conference which will not bind the latter.
• By consensus the Conference may create working groups.
• Secretaries general of the member Parliaments may accompany their Speakers to the Conference and convene separately both to prepare the Conference Agenda and for mutual consultations.
• The Conference will take place once a year at the invitation of one of its members.

2. In accordance with the above programme the Italian Presidency prepared a first Draft, which was previously evaluated at a restricted meeting in Strasbourg by the Speakers of the Portuguese and Swedish Parliaments and the President of the European Parliament, and then distributed to Conference members.

3. Last June, at the Meeting of Secretaries general in Rome, aspects which participants considered distanced from the framework of consensus achieved in Lisbon were evaluated and analysed. These included issues such as the framework of the Troika (plus the European Parliament at all times); observers and guest-participants (whose presence at the Conference would depend on consensus between the Conference members, in accordance with the Lisbon Conclusions); and the draft agenda, (where the Draft text made no reference to the institutionalised role of the Meeting of Secretaries general), and finally, the prevision of unanimity as a rule for making decision and adopting conclusions, when consensus appeared more appropriate, having been the procedure adopted thus far.
In view of the observations then produced it was decided that all Parliaments who wished to do it could submit proposals to change the Draft.

4. Several contributions have been received:
The Finnish Parliament underlined constitutional aspects to be safeguarded and expressed its support to the observations made by the Danish Parliament;
The Danish Parliament submitted suggestions refering to articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, regarding the concerns expressed at the Meeting of the Secretaries general in Rome;
The Swedish Parliament also submitted a draft text which was re-written in accordance with the issues already mentioned and transmitted in Rome;
The Greek Parliament submitted proposals regarding articles 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 of the initial Draft;
The Irish Parliament not only expressed its support for the proposals of the Danish parliament but suggested alterations to articles 9 and 10;
The Luxemburger Parliament, having suggested that the Regulations should refer to "Guiding Principles", suggested alterations to articles 6 and 10;
The Spanish Senate submitted proposals for articles 1, 3, 5, 6 and 10 of the Draft;
The House of Commons of the United Kingdom, submitted an alternative text, including the observations produced at the meeting of Secretaries general in Rome;
The House of Lords expressed its agreement with the proposals made by the Speaker of the House of Commons;
The National Assembly of France, in the person of the Secretary General of the Presidency, personally conveyed its agreement to the Secretary General of the Portuguese Assembly of the Republic as to the problems the latter had raised at the June meeting in Rome;
The President of the European Parliament expressed her agreement with the proposals presented by the Secretary General of the EP, with emphasis on maintaining the principle of consensus and the importance of the Secretaries general's prior intervention.

5. In view of the several contributions produced, the Presidency drafted another text including the proposals that were likely to achieve consensus.
This text, which also includes a few drafting suggestions by the Rapporteur, is called "Guiding Principles of the Conference of Speakers of the European Union Parliaments", has ten articles, and for purposes of final evaluation is attached as an integral part hereof, in English and in French.

6. We thus present the choices selected in the text submitted for evaluation to the Conference of Rome, which reproduce or reflect proposals to develop the principles agreed in Lisbon or the concrete adjustement of the draft drawn up by the Italian presidency and evaluated by the Troika in Strasbourg. Also, observations arising from the Meeting of Secretaries general which took place in Rome, or emanating from the Speakers of the Parliaments on the draft text, which they last received, were taken in consideration.
Those choices are the following:

a) The designation of the articles - instead of the initial designation: "rules for the functioning of the Conference of Speakers of the European Union Parliaments ", a more generic designation was preferred which is more conform with the nature of the norms in question, that is: "guiding principles of the Conference of Speakers of the European Union Parliaments ".
b) No references are made to the Troika as this was only justified during the preparatory phase of the text to be submitted for final evaluation.
c) Decision-making: instead of unanimity, provided for in former article 10, it was thought preferable to establish consensus as the form of decision-making. In practice consensus will be one way of reaching decisions or resolutions and of preparing the agenda according to the procedures adopted so far, which will be preceded by consultations with the various members and by preparatory works within the scope of the Meeting of Secretaries general.
For systematic reasons article 10 was deleted and is now the new paragraph 4 of article 1.
d) Still on article 1, it was considered that the reference to respect for the autonomy and constitutional position of each Parliamentary Assembly and of each Speaker should preferably refer only to each Speaker.
e) A new paragraph 3 was added to article 1 clarifying that "the Speakers may be replaced by one Vice-President of their Chamber".
The new rule has a dual purpose: it expressly allows replacements but restricts them to Vice-Presidents.
f) In article 3, paragraph 1, it was deemed convenient to make it clear that the person extending the invitation to the meeting each year "is the Speaker or Speakers of the host Parliament". The expression used previously - "at the invitation of one of its members" was too imprecise and could lead to duplicate invitations.
g) It is proposed to delete paragraph 2 of article 5 because consultations with the preceding and following Presidencies is inferred in the generic prevision laid down in paragraph 1 regarding all Speakers.
h) In paragraph 1 article 5 we have included the consultation of the Secretaries general.
i) It is proposed to delete former article 6 which foresaw the possibility of the Speakers of Parliaments of countries wishing to join the European Union being invited to participate as observers. Ditto the possibility of inviting Speakers of Parliaments of other countries when dealing with specific issues of mutual interest.
Deleting this article will not eliminate the possibility of such invitations being extended but we think that the absence of a written rule on this subject will make the possibility of doing such invitations, which remains open, less binding.
j) In the new article 7 (former article 8), paragraph 1 includes the possibility of "experts" and not only officials being included in the working groups. This makes the rule more flexible.
l) Paragraph 1 of the new article 10 (previously article 12) refers once again to consensus instead of unanimity as the form of decision-making.
m) Certain small changes in language are self-explanatory.
7. The Conference of Speakers of the Parliaments of the Member-States of the European Union is therefore entitled with ruling principles capable of regulating the formal aspects of its functioning.
We questioned the possibility of sparing them. In their absence we would continue as we have done so far. Nevertheless it will be impossible to deny that flexible rules will more likely lead to decision-making by consensus and prevent situations of deadlock than a precariously established custom.

Thanks are due to:
- The Speakers of the Italian Parliament for having started this initiative to draw up the text which I hope we will soon dispose of.

- The Speakers of the Troika and the Conference of Secretaries general.

- All the Speakers who enriched the initial text with judicious amendments, deletions or addenda.

This is not a closed text, however, but one open to future improvements. It even includes a prevision of how it can be revised.
The Conference of Speakers of the Parliaments of the Member-States of the European Union has taken another step towards its institutionalisation.
Through it, the European Union's democratic legitimacy is strengthened. And to a certain extent so is the democratic "deficit" so often pointed out as the original sin of its founding treaties.
Although I do not consider that this text is "sacred" or even that it cannot be corrected or improved, I have the honour of submitting it for your evaluation and approval by consensus, the founding principle to which we all are bound.

The Speaker Rapporteur
António de Almeida Santos
President of the Assembly of the Republic of Portugal