Association of European Senates/Association des Sénats d’Europe

15th Meeting, London/XVème Réunion, Londres

Friday 15 June 2013/vendredi 15 juin 2013

The meeting opened at 9.28 am.

The Relationship between Upper and Lower Chambers

Baroness D’Souza, Lord Speaker of the House of Lords, United Kingdom Good morning, everyone. Thank you all so very much for being on time. In the history of these conferences, we are making history by starting two minutes early.

Welcome to Westminster for this 15th meeting of our association. It is a great honour for me to be able to host this year’s meeting. In making arrangements for today, I thought that it was very important that we should meet in the Houses of Parliament and, more particularly, in this beautiful room, the Queen’s Robing Room. Let me take a few minutes to explain the significance of our location.

Since the first half of the 16th century, the two Houses of Parliament—the Commons and the Lords—have met here in the Palace of Westminster, which in the times of King Henry VIII had ceased to be a royal residence. What you see now is not the original palace, because in 1834 it was seriously damaged by fire. Our Victorian predecessors were nothing if not ruthless. Much of what remained of the earlier buildings was pulled down and the new Houses of Parliament were erected in the 1840s and 1850s. The architect was Charles Barry and the interior designer was Augustus Pugin, a church architect devoted to the gothic revival style. Almost every detail of what you will see today stems from Pugin’s design.

Overseeing interior design and decoration was Prince Albert, who until his death in 1861 chaired the commission set up in 1841 to mastermind the project. Victoria and Albert as portrayed by Winterhalter gaze down on us this morning and their stamp is everywhere on this building—quite literally.

1 The new Palace was our first purpose-built parliamentary building, with Committee rooms, libraries, smoking rooms—things have changed—and other facilities fit for the 19th century. What, you may ask, was the purpose of this room, the Queen’s Robing Room, and the adjoining Royal Gallery? The answer is that their purpose was largely ceremonial and royal. The Queen still uses this room to put on the crown and ceremonial robes at the annual State Opening of Parliament. These rooms remind us that, constitutionally speaking, Parliament consists of the Commons, the Lords and the Sovereign.

Occasionally this room is used to receive visiting heads of state into Parliament. Yesterday, for example, Mr Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, addressed Members of both Houses here. For a time—between 1941 and 1950—it was transformed into a parliamentary Chamber. The House of Commons Chamber had been completely destroyed by a bomb and the Commons moved into the Lords Chamber. The Lords, then a much smaller body than today, moved into this room, where they stayed for nine years.

After the history lesson, let us move to some more practical matters for today’s meeting. For the morning session, I shall call speakers in the debate to speak in alphabetical order, by country, with the exception that Madame Matvienko from Russia will speak third, because she has to leave this morning. I remind you, dear colleagues, that you have eight minutes for your speeches. We will try to keep to time this morning. My colleague here on my left has a bell, which I very much hope that he will not have to use.

This afternoon, we shall progress in reverse alphabetical order. A list for this morning’s debate is now available—I think that most of you have it. You can speak in both morning and afternoon debates and, if you have not already done so, please register at the documents table just outside this room. I have arranged the speaking times so that in both debates after the last speaker we shall have some time for impromptu informal discussion. We will adjourn at 12.40 and just before lunch we will have a family photograph of all participants, including staff, on the Sovereign’s

2 Steps, which are the steps that the Queen uses as she comes up to open Parliament—in fact, it will be at the Sovereign’s Entrance.

Finally, in the unlikely event of a fire or any other emergency, we will be directed to leave the building by the same route as we entered it. I ask colleagues around the table to speak relatively slowly, to give our interpreters a reasonable chance at translating our words of wisdom.

Let us now turn to our first debate of the day. I call Mr Edgar Mayer to speak.

Mr Edgar Mayer, Speaker of the Federal Council of the Republic of Austria Thank you, Lord Speaker. I will continue in German, as it is easier for me.

(Translation.) Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished colleagues, the annual meeting of the Association of European Senates is taking place today for the first time in the United Kingdom. I thank Baroness D’Souza in particular and our other British colleagues for their efforts in organising this conference.

As we enjoy the privilege of meeting in this magnificent room in the Houses of Parliament in Westminster, which is one of the world’s oldest Parliaments, we should recall a statement by the Member of Parliament John Bright, who in 1865 called England the “mother of all Parliaments”. It is true that the English or rather the British Parliament served as a model for all European Parliaments: the origins of the House of Lords go back as far as the 14th century.

Since that time, the Second Chambers of our Parliaments have played a central role in checking and balancing the activities of the First Chamber. It is no coincidence that we foreigners use the English term “checks and balances” to describe our function. Our Second Chambers serve to verify the quality of the legislative process and provide a framework for reflection on issues that the First Chamber did not have the time to deal with, thus assuring the quality of the political process as a whole.

3 The three fundamental principles underlying the work of Second Chambers are as essential now as they were at the inception of the bicameral system: first, checking and monitoring the First Chamber; secondly, involving the regions through the strong regional ties of its Members; and, thirdly, participating in European policy- making.

I do not need to elaborate on our task of checking and monitoring the First Chamber. The Austrian Federal Council has the right to raise objections to legislative decisions of the National Council, mostly with suspensive effect. However, in certain matters the Federal Council also has an absolute veto right. We can also make legislative proposals to the First Chamber, which then pass through the entire legislative process.

As the Austrian Federal Council, we are heavily anchored in our regions. We have direct and strong relations with the federal provinces. We pay a lot of attention to ensuring that local and regional interests are represented at the national level. The regional orientation of the Austrian Federal Council is in no way contradictory to the European idea, but logically derives from it.

Through the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Second Chambers in the EU have been given a new and crucial function in an integrated Europe: we check that draft legislation is in line with the interests of the people—the subsidiarity check. We ensure that EU legislation works in practice. For example, we were the ones who were able to assess whether the draft of a regulation on seeds actually made sense for our people. Also, we were able to ensure that the water proposals worked in practice. In both cases, the Austrian Federal Council expressed a negative opinion on the draft submitted by the European Commission. We gave detailed reasons for our objections to the legislation proposed and outlined why it did not meet the needs of our people.

In recent years, the Austrian Federal Council has become the European Chamber of Austrian legislation. The Federal Council has the possibility of outlining a negotiating position and can even propose a voting position to be taken by the Federal Minister

4 in charge or by the Federal Chancellor. Every year, we send more than a dozen position papers to the European Commission.

We should ensure that our political work becomes more founded in the grassroots. We need to make sure that our Second Chambers become more Europeanised. Our Chambers are more important than ever, so, ladies and gentlemen, let us reflect on how we can contribute together towards the creation of a legal framework to satisfy the interests of our citizens. We should make sure that European legislation meets the needs of our people and that the regions are better represented. If we, as the Senates and Second Chambers of Europe, succeed in contributing towards the achievement of this goal, we will be filling the tradition of the bicameral parliamentary system, which has its roots here in this building in which we are gathered today. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much indeed, Speaker Mayer. I now call Madame Zrihen from Belgium.

Ms Olga Zrihen, Senator, Senate of the Kingdom of Belgium Thank you. First, let me give a few words in English. I thank Baroness D’Souza and the House of Lords for the warm welcome that they gave us last night and for the fact that our agenda today is so interesting. This is a special time for us, as Belgium is experiencing something very special—I will talk about that a little later. I will continue in French, as my text has been written in French.

(Translation.) Honourable Lord Speaker, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to take the floor in this magnificent Palace of Westminster, which, as you all know, is so steeped in history. For us all, as representatives of various Upper Houses in Europe, this meeting is indeed a return to our roots because it was here on the banks of the Thames, around eight centuries ago, that the word that brings us all together was born—“Parliament”.

5 The President of the Belgian Senate, Mrs Sabine de Bethune, whom I represent here, asks you to forgive her, because she could not come. She thought that it would be a good idea for me to attend in her place to address you on a subject that currently preoccupies us—the synergies between the Belgian House of Representatives and the Belgian Senate. I convey the greetings of Madame de Bethune to Baroness D’Souza, whom she received quite recently in Belgium.

I am here today in my role of President of an institution that is little known in the world at large: the College of Quaestors. Belgium, like our friends in France and Italy, has a quaestorship, a term that hints at the distant origins of our Senates in ancient Rome. The three Quaestors in the Belgian Senate are, in accordance with tradition and with our Rules of Procedure, “responsible for all measures relating to ceremonial matters, resources and expenditure”—in other words, they manage. They have a political responsibility for financial and administrative management, both to the political Bureau, of which they form part, and to the Assembly.

It is important that I should point out that in 2014 the composition of our Belgian Senate will be very different from what it currently is. Initially, we had elections over large territories that were representative of the population, but from 2014 Senate representatives will all come from the regional Parliaments, with the exception of 10 people who will be designated as having been co-opted. Currently, the Senate comprises 74 people, including three members of the Royal Family, but from 2014 it will be made up of 60 people, without members of the Royal Family. That is a significant reduction and change in composition, which I think is important.

The crisis has had an impact on our work. Within the offices of our Assembly, I was suggesting two and a half years ago that we should encourage synergies between the respective services of the Chamber of Representatives and the Senate. My proposal was approved and now we have a multi-annual plan from 2011 to 2014, seeking through such synergies to ensure transparent management and to make savings.

Before I go any further, let me define the word “synergy”, which derives from the Greek “συν” (“syn”, “with”) and “εργον” (“ergon”, “work”). In physiology, the term

6 applies to many areas and refers to the “co-ordinated or combined action of two organs in order to accomplish a single function”. In our case it refers to a combined effort between our two Chambers with a view to achieving greater efficiency in carrying out parliamentary work and the improved management of our funding appropriations. I imagine that in all countries we now have a duty of good governance and transparency.

The Belgian Parliament does not have a single administration, as is the case with the Austrian, Irish and Swiss Parliaments. During the more than 180 years that our Kingdom has been in existence, the two Belgian Assemblies have grown up in the same building of the Palais de la Nation, operating side by side but with a level of independence, even autarchy, and each with a certain degree of ignorance about the other. Deputies and Senators originally came from different social classes: the former from the bourgeoisie, the latter from the aristocracy. Each Assembly had a considerable degree of financial autonomy and its own staff. Each administration offered the same services. Between the two Assemblies, there was also a colour border, with a burgundy carpet for the Senate and a green carpet for the Chamber, just like in the Palace of Westminster.

Following the colours, a kind of psychological boundary emerged, resulting sometimes in rivalries and, above all, a great deal of duplication. That is why we decided to be attentive to this arrangement, which now seems to us obsolete. Why do we have two incompatible data processing systems? Why are there two completely separate internet sites? Why are there two parallel sets of administrative notices on subsidiarity and proportionality relating to the same European texts? Why are there two separate procedures for getting a visa on a Deputy’s passport or a Senator’s passport from the same embassy?

Following this attention to good governance, transparency and close co-operation, I am pleased to tell you that we have been able to achieve budgetary balance. This is an obligation imposed on us. We even made a real saving of 6% in budget—that is important. I stress that, in a difficult time, when our image is not so good, we as representatives of the population should have an image of healthy, transparent and

7 effective management. One can imagine that when the synergies between our two Chambers are further developed, the savings to be achieved by both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies will be much more substantial.

The problem of synergy has become even more acute now that a reform of the Belgian Senate, which I mentioned, is being examined by our Commission on Institutional Affairs. This reform gives greater resources and competences to the communities and the regions. You know how complex Belgium is, but this will allow federal entities to exercise greater power at federal level through the new Senate. Its competences will be limited to institutional matters and it will therefore not sit in permanent session. At the moment, we sit every week in plenary session. This will no longer be the case. We will have a far slower rhythm and therefore we will meet less frequently. Our competences will diminish and therefore there will be a significant reduction in staff numbers.

I know that I am nearly at my time limit, but I wanted to say that this reform of the two-Chamber system is a real challenge. It is an opportunity to be seized in order to modernise the administration, to create harmony between the two Chambers, to improve the quality of services and to bring some real work to parliamentarians and the legislative power, which will allow citizens to see more clearly and more transparently a body whose objective is to be at their service and, of course, the service of the nation. Thank you.

The Lord Speaker Thank you. I call Madame Matvienko, from Russia.

Ms Valentina Matvienko, Chairperson of the Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation Thank you, Lord Speaker and distinguished colleagues. First, let me thank you, distinguished Lord Speaker, for the wonderful organisation of today’s meeting and for the attention, hospitality and warm welcome that we have received. Indeed, it is a great honour to be here in the Palace of Westminster, where the walls breathe history and where many bright pages of the history of parliamentarianism were

8 written. Within these walls, one cannot forget that almost 800 years ago—on 15 June 1215—King John signed the famous charter that laid the foundation of parliamentarianism and protection of human rights. That is why the British Parliament is the forefather of parliamentarianism worldwide.

Within a very short period by historical standards, the new Russia managed to undergo unprecedented changes and become a dynamically developing modern state. This year, our country will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the new Constitution and the two-Chamber Parliament. The past years have been a period of dynamic transformation for the Russian parliamentary system. The procedure for forming the State Duma has been changed. The President of Russia has recently submitted a new law on election of State Duma Deputies on the basis of a mixed majoritarian- proportional system.

The principle of forming the Council of the Federation has also been changed several times. This year, a new procedure for forming the Chamber enabling voters to express their will takes effect. Now the Senators representing the executive authorities will be elected by the inhabitants of the regions on an alternative basis together with the governors. That will ensure a strong link with the regions and accountability to the electorate.

The Council of the Federation is not formed on the basis of the principle of party affiliation; no factions can be created there, although Senators can be members of political parties. Senators work on a permanent professional basis. Unlike British parliamentarians, they are obliged to attend all plenary meetings of the Chamber and all meetings of the Committees. It should be emphasised that the present Russian legislation on elections and political parties fully complies with modern international democratic standards.

No ideal democracies exist and there should be no stagnant democracies. That is why we actively pursue reforms to democratise public life and to liberalise the electoral system. We do our best to ensure the maximum openness of the authorities towards people and active popular participation in governing the state. In

9 particular, in the Upper Chamber we have recently begun openly to broadcast the meetings online and to broadcast live our parliamentary hearings and meetings of the Committees. We have opened a new modern website in order to engage the population in discussing all laws and in order to take public opinion into account. We have created a parliamentary television channel, which is actively covering the activities of our Chamber.

As far as reforms are concerned, I can note some of them. Last year, the law on direct elections of regional governors was adopted. It is our response to the demands of the society and willingness of the population to elect the representatives of the authorities. A law to simplify the registration procedure for political parties has been adopted. Essentially, one only has to submit an application; since the adoption of the law, 69 new political parties have already been created. I think that this process will continue to develop even more actively. With a view to developing political competition and a multi-party system, we abolished the requirement for political parties to collect signatures in order to participate in the elections to the State Duma and the Parliaments of the regions.

As in most bicameral Parliaments, the Chambers of the Russian Parliament differ from each other not only in the way in which they are formed, but also in their functions, the powers enshrined in the Constitution of our country and their role in the system of governance.

The Council of the Federation is a crucial federal body that represents the interests of the regions. For Russia, the Upper Chamber is extremely important, because our country, with its 83 regions, is not just big but multi-ethnic and multi-confessional. That is why the Council of the Federation plays an important role in public life. As for the Lower Chamber, the State Duma, it, like Lower Chambers in most other countries, reflects the political opinion of society.

Relations between the two Chambers in Russia have been developing in various ways. In the 1990s, there were periods of tough confrontation, but today I would call our relations with the Lower Chamber constructive and based on partnership.

10

The focus in our interaction has shifted to a more scrupulous and co-ordinated elaboration of draft laws at earlier stages of their discussion in the Duma, starting from the preparatory reading. The Senators actively participate in the legislative process at all stages. As a result of such interaction, the number of laws rejected by the Upper Chamber has been drastically reduced. Almost one-third of laws used to be rejected in the past, but for the last one and a half years the Upper Chamber has rejected only six laws.

As one French statesman said, “If a Second Chamber agrees with the First, it is superfluous; if it disagrees, it is mischievous”. There are no such extremes in our work. In my opinion, we managed to find the balance necessary for the efficient interaction between the Chambers.

The Senators often put forward legislative initiatives that, among other things, contribute to empowering the regions. The Constitution gives us such a right. We ensure that Russian legislation does not become unitary. Federal laws should establish general rules and standards, but certainly they should not prevent regional lawmakers from taking the initiative. That is also the mission of the Council of the Federation as the Chamber of the regions.

Of course, we also have unresolved issues on which we are working. We consider that it is important to adopt federal laws that would regulate the procedure for the adoption of federal laws. In order to co-ordinate the interests of the Russian Federation and its constituent entities, we have created the Council of Legislators under the Parliament. This body is unique in many ways. We are ready to share this experience.

As far as the role of parliamentarianism in Russia is concerned, I would like to say that we have established a special public holiday, the Day of Russian Parliamentarianism, which was celebrated for the first time this year. All in all, I can say with certainty that Russian parliamentarianism, having gone through difficult

11 stages of development, has been established and that the process of building a democratic society has become irreversible.

That is why I would like to see you, dear colleagues, personally get acquainted with the work of the Russian Parliament in detail. In this regard, please accept our proposal to hold the next 16th Meeting of the Association of European Senates in Russia. By the way, it would also be a good occasion to celebrate a small jubilee— the 20th anniversary of the Council of the Federation, the Upper Chamber. We can together determine the topic of our meeting and specific dates later. Thank you for your attention.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much, Madame Matvienko. That was a wonderful invitation and I am sure we all look forward to next year. I call Mr Tadić from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr Ognjen Tadić, Speaker of the House of the Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Translation.) Honourable Lord Speaker, Baroness D’Souza, your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to greet you on behalf of the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina and thank the host of today’s meeting, here in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom.

We in Bosnia and Herzegovina have the Parliamentary Assembly, which has two Chambers. The Lower House is the House of Representatives and its Members are elected in elections organised in the constituencies that respect the entity division of the country. The Upper House is the House of Peoples, consisting of three peoples caucuses, which comprise five delegates from each of the majority people—Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats. Serbs are selected by the National Assembly of Republika Srpska, while Bosniaks and Croats are selected by relevant peoples caucuses of the House of Peoples of the Parliament of BiH Federation. It seems complicated, but it is easy to understand their selection and their responsibility.

12 Both Houses have equal responsibilities in the legislative and other parliamentary activities. The exception is dealing with the appointment of the Council of Ministers. The House of Representatives independently appoints the Council of Ministers, with prior proposal of the Presidency, but the Council can be dismissed only with the approval of the House of Peoples. A draft law is passed when adopted by both houses in identical text. The House of Peoples and the House of Representatives also have common competencies realised through joint sessions, joint collegium, joint committees and joint delegations to various international organisations and associations.

The impact of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the political system in the country is dominant because the two parliamentary instruments— entity voting and vital national interest—determine the outcome of all potential political actions. At the same time, these instruments prevent representatives of any of the people from making a decision that is not acceptable for the representatives of other peoples. These two instruments, therefore, keep the balance of interests, peace and political stability.

The question arises why Bosnia and Herzegovina would not have a unicameral Parliament when the jurisdiction of the Houses is almost the same. The reason for the existence of the two Chambers is the fact that by direct election of representatives in the House of Representatives we get an unequal number of representatives of majority peoples and therefore there is a possibility for majoritisation, which led to conflict in 1992. We are currently seeking a constitutional model according to which the representatives of ethnic majorities could get their seats in the House of Peoples and by which we would completely implement the peace process and carry out political reintegration of all members of our society.

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s model of bicameral organisation could certainly be applied in other complex countries with more large national communities—that is, those that are divided according to a federal or confederal model. It is extremely effective as a model for the protection of particular interests. At the same time, all decisions

13 that have necessary approval are easily made, often in an urgent procedure, even without any intervention of MPs.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that in these few minutes I have succeeded in explaining the bicameral organisation of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the main characteristics of the relationships between the two Houses and the importance of maintaining this form of parliamentary system. Thank you for your attention.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much indeed, Mr Tadić. I now call Mr Štěch, from the Czech Republic.

Mr Milan Štěch, President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (Translation.) Baroness D’Souza, dear colleagues, the Czech parliamentary system is based on the sovereignty of legislative power and is composed of two Chambers, the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. The core of Czech political power lies in the Parliament, but the Chambers have substantially different roles in its administration. The current status can be well expressed by the term “asymmetrical bicameralism”.

The activity of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic was renewed in 1996 after almost 58 years, in particular as a controlling body and a constitutional safeguard. A different system was deliberately selected for the election of Senators; we have a majority election system rather than the proportional system that is used for our Chamber of Deputies.

When Acts are debated by the Senate as well as by the Chamber of Deputies, their quality improves. This derives from a different perspective given by a diverse age structure, but also by a different political composition from that of the Chamber of Deputies, by greater life experience and by weaker ties between Senators and political parties. In the Senate, we find many personalities with experience from local

14 and regional politics. Senators are elected in 81 electoral districts, but they do not represent regions; they are representatives of all citizens in the Czech Republic.

Our Senate has in principle five ways of dealing with a Bill after its transmission from the Lower Chamber. If the legislation is approved, the President verifies the text, but the Senate may return the Bill with amendments to the Chamber of Deputies. An absolute majority of MPs’ votes is necessary to override these changes or a Senate veto. It sometimes occurs that the Senate proposes not to consider a particular Bill or does not deal with it within the 30-day deadline. Both approaches have the same result, which is that the Act is adopted by the Parliament.

The Senate makes a strong and well known contribution to the development of legislation, especially when the Government has only a small majority in the Lower Chamber and the Opposition controls the Senate. That is the situation at present and it means that the Senate can amend draft legislation. At present, the Senate enjoys double the level of confidence of the Chamber of Deputies. Similar steps strengthen substantially the position of the Senate in the eyes of the public, who under the communist regime lost the habit of the more complex, but often for democracy more advantageous, bicameral system.

Obviously many other factors contribute to the respect of legislative bodies, including good co-operation in the work of both parliamentary entities. The leadership of each has to understand above all that the interests of the country lie far above personal and party interests, although, to be frank, we do not always succeed in this in our country.

To sum up, the relationship between our two Chambers, the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, is not idyllic but neither is it antagonistic. In spite of all the problems, it remains functional and advantageous for our country. Thank you for your attention.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much indeed, Mr Štěch. I call Monsieur Bel, from France.

15

Mr Jean-Pierre Bel, President of the Senate of the French Republic (Translation.) Thank you. In turn, Lord Speaker, I thank you for your warm welcome and the nice evening that we all had together yesterday. It is my pleasure to be here with you, having welcomed you last year at the Assembly in France. It was a special moment for us, as it was the first time since the beginning of the Fifth Republic, 50 years ago, that the Senate had experienced a democratic political changeover.

I would now like to talk about the relationship between the Upper and Lower Chambers—the National Assembly and the Senate. In France, this must be looked at in the light of the principle of autonomy between the parliamentary Assemblies. Each Assembly has, among other things, its own building—we welcomed you last year to the Palais du Luxembourg, where the Senate sits—its own budget, its own staff and even its own television channel.

As a matter of principle, the two Assemblies work separately, each in its own area. In this way we each aim to preserve our freedom of thought, deliberation and decision-making, although of course this does not prevent informal or official contact between the groups or Committees of the two Assemblies. As a result, it is texts that go from one Assembly to the other rather than the parliamentarians themselves. Nevertheless, the fact that each Assembly can see what measures the other is adopting is at the heart of the bicameral system.

In the field of legislation, the Assembly to which a topic is first referred—either the Senate or the National Assembly—will, in principle, examine the draft law or private Bill without prior consultation with the other Assembly. Then the “shuttle” begins between the two buildings, with the text going back and forth until a common text is adopted. Essentially, then, the legislative process is based on a bicameral dialogue, while the Government, which determines national policy, plays the role of mediator, so to speak.

The shuttle may be suspended after two readings or, in the case of an expedited procedure, after a single reading. The Prime Minister then convenes a Joint

16 Committee, comprising seven Deputies and seven Senators, who will work in camera to produce a common text that will be acceptable to both Assemblies. If the Joint Committee fails to come up with a solution, the Government has the option of giving the final say to the Assembly. This solution of last resort is exceptional and since the beginning of the Fifth Republic has been used only about 10 times.

Since the triple switch that France has experienced—in the Senate, the presidency and the National Assembly—the problem of the “final say” took a new turn because there is no majority currently to vote on the Budget Act. The question for us is whether this shows a weakening of the legislative role of the Senate. We do not believe that it does, because the Senate, in the context of its history and tradition, likes to express a different voice, even when there is a governmental majority there. It cannot block the proceedings, but it allows the Government to have what we call the “final say”. It is often said in my country that the Senate has been the enfant terrible of bicameralism. Nevertheless, the fact remains that, as Robert Badinter put it, the best laws are the fruit of a co-production between the two Assemblies.

The Assemblies are also required to meet physically when changes are to be made to the Constitution. The National Assembly and the Senate have to meet in Congress in Versailles, having first adopted an identical text. In such cases, the two Assemblies are required to reach an agreement if our fundamental laws are to be changed in any way. The Senate also has a veto on constitutional laws. Our two Assemblies also collaborate within the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Assembly of Francophone Parliaments and the Council of Europe.

With regard to matters of quaestorship, to which my Belgian colleague referred, co- operation between the Quaestors of the Senate and the National Assembly is generally informal, although it is an institutional requirement on certain matters. The Quaestors of the Senate and the National Assembly sit on a Joint Appropriations Committee, which is chaired by a magistrate of the Court of Audit. This Committee is responsible for determining the funding required for the operation of each of the two Assemblies and the appropriation to be requested from the state. It normally meets in July. Its proposals, accompanied by an explanatory report, are sent to the

17 Budget Minister for inclusion in the draft Finance Bill for the year. Co-operation also takes place between the Quaestors of the Senate and of the National Assembly on the joint definition of the Rules of Procedure and the funding of departments that are common to both Assemblies.

Beyond this formal framework, the Quaestors of the two Assemblies have regular direct exchanges on matters of common interest that require, if not a formal agreement, at least an understanding, in particular in relation to the material status of parliamentarians and the provision of assistance for carrying out their mandate. This is a burning topic of the day.

In the area of supervision and assessment, the Senate can take fully independent action in setting up joint fact-finding missions or commissions of inquiry, although there is the risk of duplication if the National Assembly takes the same initiatives. Should one encourage the creation of joint working bodies between the National Assembly and the Senate? We can cite, among other examples, the Italian example of joint commissions of inquiry, in relation to the Mafia for example. This is a complex subject, which raises questions of principle and practice. At present we have two shared bodies: the Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices and the Information Unit. I also point out that the two Commissions on European Affairs can have joint meetings, which may be attended by European parliamentarians. This may be an example to follow as a way of avoiding duplication in certain hearings that I mentioned.

I, for my part, have regular meetings with the President of the National Assembly, Claude Bartolone. I meet him every month to discuss political or institutional matters. I did the same thing with his predecessor. My wish would be to develop this kind of shared working and to make it official, in the form of joint meetings of the Bureaux of our two Assemblies. We have many common topics to consider, such as the organisation of our Assemblies, handling our agendas and the rules of transparency or parliamentary immunity in relation to judicial proceedings.

18 In conclusion, let me say that the National Assembly and the Senate are in permanent communication with each other, both within the framework defined by the constitutional rules and when Deputies and Senators consider it necessary to meet to discuss specific matters. These exchanges constitute the richness and the spice of parliamentary life and the vitality of democratic debate depends on their quality.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much indeed, Monsieur Bel. I now call Herr Kretschmann, from Germany.

Mr Winfried Kretschmann, President of the Federal Council of the Federal Republic of Germany Lord Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I would like first of all to thank our host, Baroness D’Souza, for her kind invitation to London and for the perfect organisation of this conference. I am particularly pleased that we have an opportunity to meet this year in the venerable Palace of Westminster, which has gone down in the annals of parliamentary history.

(Translation.) Dear colleagues, over the past 13 years we have been meeting as the Speakers of European Senates to discuss topical issues pertaining to European policy. This has developed into a highly positive tradition. Another thing that has, similarly, become more or less traditional—in this case, unfortunately, it has to be said—is our shared struggle to combat the European financial and sovereign debt crisis. This has defined our debates and has called for a shift in mindset for representatives from Second Chambers, too, demanding flexibility and speed in our decisions to an almost unprecedented degree.

In these difficult times, co-operation between Upper and Lower Houses has proved its worth. At the same time, the relationship between these Assemblies has faced new challenges because of these major problems.

19 It was decided in 1949 that the German Constitution Law would stipulate the establishment of two parliamentary representative bodies: the Bundestag, with 620 directly elected MPs, and the Bundesrat, the Federal Council, which consists of representatives of the Governments of the 16 Länder, Germany’s constituent states—it therefore has 69 Members.

The relationship between the two Assemblies can overall be described as being very good. What is special about the German system is that we have a Chamber consisting of the Executives of Germany’s constituent states. That means that we can bring in our administrative experience from Germany’s Länder and feed that in to the legislative process. We can take our practical experience and consistently make improvements. In solving major political problems, we have always worked very well with the other Chamber, whether this has involved fighting floods—I am sure that you have all heard of the major floods in Germany—or securing bank rescue packages or financial assistance to individual Member States. We have worked through the night on some occasions in order to adopt the requisite legislative measures and to ensure that we are all working together.

We have always had a very constructive relationship in a number of situations where there have been different majorities in the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. At the moment, the Bundesrat currently has a majority from the Opposition. There are always periods when people in the Länder vote for the Opposition to the majority in the Bundestag.

We are what is referred to as an “eternal Parliament”, as we do not have a parliamentary term. Every time a new Government is elected in a Land, this federal state sends new representatives to the Bundesrat. That means that we have a continuous system. This ensures that we are able to gain a greater overview of what is going on. For example, in adopting the fiscal compact, out of 16 Länder, 15 agreed to it—we had an overwhelming majority in the Bundesrat adopting the fiscal compact. If we do not agree, we have a so-called Mediation Committee, which is convened between the Bundesrat and the Bundestag, the Upper and Lower Houses. Usually, an agreement is reached so that the legislation can be adopted. What is

20 special about this is that the minutes of the meetings of the Mediation Committee are published only after 30 years, which means that MPs have complete carte blanche to decide how they vote.

What about our orientation in the materials that we deal with? We are pretty much in the shadows of media reporting in Germany, because the media prefer a good old fight and do not like it when we deal with the nitty-gritty detail of things—that is no fun for the media. That means that we are not often reported on.

However, there are problems as far as our information rights are concerned. What information do we have a right to receive in European affairs? Our rights of involvement and representation are, of course, different from those of the Bundestag, but we are entitled to the same information. However, this has been a problem. Recently, the Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that the Federal Government has a duty to inform both Parliaments in due course of what is going on at the European level, so that we can bring ourselves in at that level. I would like to encourage all of you—representatives of all the countries here—to insist on your rights of information. Similarly, you should ensure that you are equally represented on European interparliamentary bodies, as we need to make sure that we can play a decisive role as well. Only when we are granted this right will we be able to have our say in these very important interparliamentary Committees.

To conclude, I will say that I very much value the bicameral system, which ensures that in hectic political times we are able to add a little prudence and continuity to the political decision-making process. That is very important. In 2050, Europeans will make up only 5% of the world population, which is why we need to make sure that we maintain a voice in European affairs as well. Thank you very much for your attention.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much indeed, Mr Kretschmann. We will now hear from Signor Grasso, from Italy.

21 Mr Pietro Grasso, President of the Senate of the Italian Republic (Translation.) Lord Speaker, honourable colleagues, I would like first of all to thank the House of Lords and our host, Baroness D’Souza, for organising this 15th Meeting of the Association of European Senates and for having drawn up a highly interesting and topical agenda for our debate.

In Italy, the relationship between our two Chambers is defined by a number of distinctive features. The wide scope of its powers makes the Italian Senate one of the Upper Houses with the highest concentration of powers. Perfect bicameralism is the model enshrined in our 1948 Constitution. The Government must seek a vote of confidence in both Chambers. Laws must be approved in the same text by both Chambers. If either Chamber amends a Bill that has already been approved by the other Chamber, the latter must vote again on the amended text.

The rationale underlying this constitutional choice was to give preference to debate and shared decision-making rather than to the swiftness of the legislative proceedings. The Senate is thus essentially a Chamber of guarantee. Moreover, the higher age threshold required for electing Senators and standing for election—40 years of age, as opposed to 25—differentiates the Senate as a Chamber for thoughtful debate; it is a “wiser” Chamber, which enriches parliamentary activity with autonomous contributions and fosters co-operative bicameralism.

There is outstanding co-operation with the Chamber of Deputies and Speaker Boldrini. I meet often with her to harmonise our orders of business, to align our procedure and to share some services. The similarity of functions between the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Republic does not imply a duplication of work, because the Senate has its own very strong identity. One of its most specific features is its regional dimension. Under our Constitution, Members of the Senate are elected on a regional basis; the number of seats is proportional to the population of each region.

The electoral law has further enhanced the regional feature, by introducing for the Senate a majority premium at a regional level—extra seats are given to the winning

22 coalition—while in the Chamber of Deputies the premium is allocated to the party or coalition obtaining the largest number of votes nationwide. The political composition of the two Chambers may thus differ considerably, which can make it more difficult to achieve a stable majority in both Chambers, thereby hindering the Government’s action. The Constitutional Court, however, is currently deliberating on whether it is reasonable to allocate a majority premium on the mere basis of a relative majority, irrespective of a minimum threshold of votes.

A heated debate has been developing in Italy regarding institutional reforms required for ensuring governmental stability. This is coupled with the need to adjust the domestic decision-making procedures to the European integration process and to the challenges of globalisation.

It is for these reasons, and thanks to the broad parliamentary majority supporting it, that the present Government has embarked on a constitutional reform, which will also include amending perfect bicameralism, with a possible—and this is where the debate is raging—reconfiguration of the Senate’s functions, meaning a smaller number of Members of Parliament and a new electoral law.

It is not appropriate for me, as the President of the Senate, to express views on this process, to show preference for any particular model of bicameralism or to object to any of the changes that are being proposed. Nevertheless, my view is that we need to adopt a faster and more effective decision-making procedure, which must also be solidly democratic. These reforms will be essential in order to guarantee governmental stability.

However, we should not forget that Parliament is the institution where the sovereignty of the people is represented; the representative system is at the core of democratic and pluralist constitutional systems. Parliaments must not simplify pluralism, but represent it. This requires the representative political institutions and their legitimacy to be enhanced, so that policies can take into account the demands of the general public as a whole and not only of a section of it.

23 I am confident that Italy will be up to this challenge and that the Senate of the Italian Republic will continue to perform effectively its function of strengthening the democratic feature of the decision-making process. Thank you.

The Lord Speaker Thank you. We will now hear from Speaker Gillen.

Mr Victor Gillen, President of the Council of State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Permit me first to thank you for the nice venue in the famous Palace of Westminster. At its creation in 1856, the Luxembourg Council of State was conceived as “Councillor of the Crown” and counterweight in the unicameral system in place. It quickly became the adviser of Parliament as well. Indeed, not only the Bills and amendments worked out by the Executive but also those drafted by Parliament were deferred to it. Moreover, the opinions of the Council of State have always been communicated to the Chamber of Deputies and thus made public.

According to the Luxembourg Constitution, the Council of State is an institution independent of the Government and the Chamber of Deputies and its main mission consists in advising these two institutions within the framework of the legislative and regulatory decision-making process. Due to its suspensive veto right in legislative matters, which is granted by the Constitution, it further serves as a means to compensate for the absence of a Second Chamber.

It is the duty of the Council of State to give opinions on all Bills of law, as well as on all related amendments; its opinions have to be communicated to the Chamber of Deputies before the parliamentary vote on the Bill as a whole. If the Council of State has failed to give its opinion within a maximum period of three months of the communication of the Bill, Parliament may disregard the opinion after having previously held the article-by-article vote on the Bill. This procedure, added to the Constitution in 1996, has not been applied to date. On the contrary, in actual practice, parliamentary Committees await the referral of the opinion of the Council of State before starting their work.

24

Opinions of the Council of State are divided into two parts: the first deals with general considerations, questions of political opportunity and legal matters inherent in the Bills and regulations under examination; the second examines not only the title of the Bill or regulation but also each article. Within this second part, the Council of State regularly submits text proposals in line with its observations. If deemed necessary, the Council of State adds to its opinion a revised text version of the Bill, which takes up suggestions made earlier. Thus, the role of the Council of State is not confined to making critical observations; it also aims at offering to Parliament, as far as possible, legal and pragmatic solutions in compliance with legal norms and higher principles of law.

When examining a Bill and its related amendments, the Council of State identifies either any non-conformity to a higher legal norm—namely, the Luxembourg Constitution, European Union law, an international treaty or general principles of law—or any incompatibility with the legal order applicable in the specific matter or impossibility of practical implementation; it formally opposes such non-conformity. By doing so, it implies that, in the absence of an amendment or a justification for repealing its formal opposition, it will be obliged to use its suspensive veto right.

The parliamentary Committee in charge of the examination of a Bill may request to meet the Council of State to present a Bill or parliamentary amendments, or to obtain additional information regarding a given opinion. In theory, these meetings are used to clarify the positions on both sides. Opinions of the Council of State that have already been communicated to the Chamber of Deputies are of a public nature.

Regarding the suspensive veto right of the Council of State, it is in order to point out that the Luxembourg Constitution provides that all the Bills are subject to a second vote, unless Parliament, with the approval of the Council of State assembled in a public meeting, decides otherwise. Between the two votes there must be an interval of at least three months. This period is intended to allow Parliament to re-examine its position and, if necessary, to amend the text that underwent a parliamentary vote on the Bill as a whole.

25

The right to grant a dispensation from the second constitutional vote, provided by the Constitution to the Council of State to exert the moderating power of a second Chamber in the Luxembourg unicameral system, is independent of the Council’s advisory mission. The initiative to exempt a Bill of the second constitutional vote lies entirely with the Chamber of Deputies. After a first vote on the Bill of law as a whole, the President of the Chamber of Deputies asks Parliament whether the second constitutional vote should take place or not. If Parliament agrees that a second vote is not necessary, the Bill of law is transmitted to the Council of State in order to obtain the latter’s obligatory agreement. If the Council of State approves the Chamber’s decision, the Bill of law is passed and forwarded to the Grand Duke for promulgation.

If a second vote is requested, this vote has to be held after a period of at least three months. The Bill of law has to be absolutely identical to the version that was submitted to the Members of Parliament at the first vote on the Bill as a whole. A Bill that has been refused the dispensation of the second constitutional vote can still be amended. The Council of State must inevitably give its opinion on any amendments proposed. Even though the second constitutional vote should be the norm and the single vote on a Bill of law should be exceptional, in practice the opposite has become the rule. In fact, the Chamber of Deputies regularly decides to exempt a Bill of law from the second constitutional vote.

Neither the Chamber of Deputies nor the Council of State is limited in its sovereign power of appreciation and they are not required to motivate their decisions. In practice, however, the Council of State refuses to exempt a Bill of law of the second vote only if major reasons justify its disapproval, which it reports by formulating a formal opposition in its opinion. This can be the case, for instance, if it is revealed that a Bill that has been voted on is incompatible with the Constitution, international treaties, including directives and regulations of the European Union, international jurisprudence or general principles of law such as legal security. When refusing the dispensation of the second constitutional vote, the Council of State informs Parliament of the motives behind the refusal.

26

The Council of State deliberates in a public session on granting the dispensation of the second constitutional vote or not in a relatively short period of time. In order to be perfectly clear, it should be noted that, by its refusal to grant the dispensation of the second constitutional vote, the Council of State can merely oblige Parliament to hold a second vote after a period of at least three months, but it can by no means block a Bill of law indefinitely. The final decision thus lies with the Chamber of Deputies, which is the only institution in Luxembourg to be elected by universal suffrage. Thank you.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much, Speaker Gillen. We will now turn to Meneer de Graaf.

Mr Fred de Graaf, President of the First Chamber of the States General of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Lord Speaker, dear colleagues, it is a great pleasure to be here today and to meet all of you in this unique setting of the Palace of Westminster. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Lord Speaker, Baroness D’Souza, for the wonderful organisation and the warm welcome that we have received. If anyone personalises the Mother of all Parliaments today, it is without doubt the Baroness.

The topic of this morning’s session is the relationship between Upper and Lower Chambers. We are all well aware that, while we represent the Senates of Europe, our respective Senates vary greatly both in their history and in their present role. Different positions in the national parliamentary systems have created diverse relationships between Upper and Lower Houses.

When it comes to different histories, I could point out, for example, that I actually owe my position to the Belgians. Except for the Belgians themselves, I do not think that any of you could make the same claim. In 1815, when our Kingdom was established, the Dutch and Belgian territories were initially merged. The Flemish desired the establishment of a Senate in the parliamentary system. Previously, the Dutch had never really seen the added value of such an Upper House. Then, after a

27 mere 15 years, the Belgians opted for independence and created their own parliamentary institutions. The Dutch, however, decided to maintain the Senate.

Was this because of a general rule that institutions, after being created, hardly ever decide to dissolve themselves? Or were the Dutch actually convinced of the added value of having an Upper House? As you can understand, I tend to believe the latter to be the case; I believe that we, as Senators, do add value. Certainly, in what has almost been 200 years, ideas have been floated about reforming the parliamentary system. Some opinion-makers believe the Senate to be a redundant body. But so far not one discussion about abolishing the Senate has ever taken on serious forms. In my opinion, as long as we as Senators keep living up to what society expects us to do, these discussions will always remain marginal.

What then, dear colleagues, is that added value? What does society expect from us? This in my opinion is implicit in the role that we have appropriated over the decades. The bicameral system is not as perfectly bicameral in the Netherlands as it is in, for example, Italy. In our Constitution, the Dutch Lower House and the Dutch Senate have been granted different positions and have been endowed with different instruments—for good reasons.

Broadly speaking, the Senate is less equipped for “doing politics”. Of course, we do politics, but I tend to say that while the Lower House does politics with a capital “P”, we do politics with a lower-case “p”. What do I mean? The Members of our Senate are part-time politicians; we gather only once a week, on a Tuesday. The majority of the Senators have a full-time job elsewhere—at university, in the world of business, as a mayor or in the medical world. As a side note, I say that, of course, we have several explicit and implicit rules of conduct to prevent conflicts of interests.

Currently, if we have to believe the media headlines, the Dutch Senate is politicising. Some distinguish a shift from the lower-case “p” to the capital “P” in our politics. Certainly, in the current political situation, such a tendency could indeed be expected. The current coalition of Liberals and Social Democrats holds a comfortable majority in the Lower House, but not in the Senate. In my House, the

28 ruling coalition holds only 30 out of 75 seats. We can all imagine the debating, persuading, consulting and sometimes deal-making that go on in the Netherlands. Still, that should not prevent us from doing what we always have been doing.

In the Netherlands, Bills reach the Senate only after the Lower House has passed them. The assumption is that the Lower House has debated the political desirability of a Bill in detail and in depth. Often, it has modified the initial proposals with amendments, which is a right that we, as Senators, do not have. What is left for us is looking at the final Bill. We cannot amend it any more; we can only adopt or reject it. However, this means that we have a full veto right, which marks the strong position of our Senate. We scrutinise the Bill for practicality, legality and enforceability. We reflect on the bigger picture, the relationships to international treaties and to other laws and the overall social context.

Given the part-time character of the Upper House and the background of its Members, this is what we are good at. This is what we should do and should keep on doing. Nowhere in the Constitution has it been written that we should behave in a less politically opportunistic way than our colleagues in the Lower House. None the less, this has been the historical practice and, in my opinion, this is the source of our legitimacy. Our legitimacy lies in having a marked, obvious identity—a political identity—different from that of the Lower House. Especially in the Netherlands, where the Senate is an indirectly elected body, legitimacy can come only from clear added value and obvious societal relevance. Thank you.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much indeed, Meneer de Graaf. Can we please now turn to Speaker Borusewicz, from Poland?

Mr Bogdan Borusewicz, President of the Senate of the Republic of Poland (Translation.) Ladies and gentlemen, first of all let me, like previous speakers, thank the Lord Speaker. We are in a temple of parliamentarianism. I am greatly impressed by the venue. In school and college, I used to study the history of and the role played

29 by British parliamentarianism in Europe and worldwide. Now, today, I am here in this incredibly important place.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Polish Senate was reborn in 1989, at the end of the communist era. That is significant for the functioning of the Senate. It was the end of the dictatorship and the Senate was reborn. The first fully free elections of 1989 were elections to the Senate; elections to the Lower Chamber were only partly free, as 65% of places were guaranteed for previous Members, with only 35% for the Opposition.

The Sejm and the Senate have the same mandate but, in terms of structure and competences, some parts are asymmetrical and some symmetrical. Obviously, both Chambers have mainly a constitution-making and legislative function. They are separate in terms of structure. The two Chambers only join together in two cases. We do not have Joint Committees. In the constitution, the term “Parliament” is not used; instead it refers separately to the Sejm and the Senate. Clearly, though, we co- operate and some informal relations exist—for example, at the level of the two Speakers, the two Marshals. We have common problems to solve concerning the status of the Deputies concerning issues of immunity and concerning delegations to international bodies where we have joint delegations.

Thus from some perspectives we are asymmetrical but sometimes our competences go hand in hand. The symmetry mainly concerns passing and amending the constitution. In both Chambers, the constitution must be amended by two-thirds of the votes. For a constitutional referendum on whether a new constitution should be adopted or significant amendments made, the Sejm and the Senate can propose to organise that referendum. The same goes for the competences on the ratification of international agreements and treaties, where we forward some of our mandate to international organisations and delegate some of our competences outside. We need to obtain the support of both Chambers separately by two-thirds of the votes, which means that in this case those competences are symmetrical.

30 When passing Acts, the basic competences of both Chambers are asymmetrical. The Sejm passes some Bills that the Senate can then amend, adopt or reject. We have a deadline of 30 days to take a position on any given Act. If we do not keep to that deadline, the Act is passed without the Senate’s amendments. In reality, this does not happen.

The asymmetry in the performance of the legislative function is also manifested in the fact that the Sejm is not bound by any deadline to consider the Senate’s amendments. We are bound by deadlines, but the Sejm is not. Moreover, the case law of the Constitutional Tribunal has defined the very narrow status of “the Senate’s amendments to an Act”, which means that we can put forward amendments but cannot amend an Act more than the Sejm does. This decision has narrowed the scope of admissible amendments to be included in the Senate. Still, 86% of the amendments that we pass are then adopted by the Sejm, so the legislative efficiency of the Senate is considerable.

The Senate is also entitled to introduce some draft Bills, which are submitted to the Sejm, although in these cases the legislative process, as opposed to the legislative initiative, still starts in the Sejm. After going through the Sejm, the Bill comes back to the Senate and then returns to the Sejm. That is very important because the Senate is mainly a legislative body; the competences of the Sejm and the Senate here are asymmetrical and the position of the Senate is much weaker than the Sejm’s.

We also have an impact on the nominations and appointments of important representatives—for instance, the Ombudsman for Human Rights or the President of the Supreme Audit Office. These positions are filled by the Sejm on the Senate’s approval. In the case of some entities, the powers of the Senate are equal to those possessed by the Sejm—for instance, in the appointment of representatives to the National Broadcasting Council or the Monetary Policy Council. In other cases, the Senate does not participate in the appointments at all—for instance, judges to the Constitutional Tribunal, the Tribunal of State or the President of the National Bank of Poland.

31 The Senate also does not participate in the appointment of the Government or the vote of approval for Ministers. That belongs exclusively to the Sejm. Neither does the Senate have the power of scrutiny over the Council of Ministers. Obviously if a Minister is invited to attend a Committee session in the Senate he will come and make some clarifications, but formally we have no such competences. That means that we are also a less political body than the Sejm, although of course Senators are entitled to belong to political parties. We have representatives in the Senate from three political parties and we have a number of neutral Senators. Political parties obviously impact the functioning of the Senate, although to a lower degree than in the Sejm, where virtually all the decisions are controlled, consulted on and approved by political parties, especially when the votes concern posts and functions.

There are differences between the election of Sejm Deputies and Senate Deputies. The Members of both Chambers are elected, but the Deputies to the Sejm are elected in accordance with the proportional representation principle in multimember constituencies, on the basis of party lists. Elections to the Senate are based on plurality voting in single-member constituencies and do not represent the regions.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much indeed, Speaker Borusewicz. Friends and colleagues, I suggest that we take a well earned coffee break and reconvene at 11.30 sharp.

Meeting suspended at 10.55 am and resumed at 11.30 am.

The Lord Speaker Perhaps we can start with Speaker Antonescu from Romania. Thank you very much indeed.

Mr Crin Antonescu, President of the Senate of Romania First, Lord Speaker, I express my gratitude for your hospitality and kindness. It is a privilege to be here and to be speaking about Parliaments and parliamentarians in this magnificent building where there is plenty of history, in the oldest, strongest and most prestigious Parliament in Europe. Thank you very much.

32

(Translation.) I would like to use this opportunity to take a slightly different approach and speak about democracy and bicameralism in the context of crisis. When it comes to Parliament, we tend automatically to say certain things: that it is the supreme representative forum; that it is the key institution of democracy because it embodies the multitude of opinions and interests in a society; that it is a space for debate and decision. I believe that the time has come to take a more profound look beyond these words, to leave aside clichés and to better ground discussion about Parliament into reality. In a Europe that has faced a deep crisis, this reality means a lower confidence in Parliament, an increasing authority of the Executive in relation with the legislative and, last but not least, a growing temptation to populism.

Today, the debate about Parliament is in fact a debate about more or less democracy in Europe. In my opinion, it involves not an institutional or regulatory approach, but a political one, placed in a real, particular context and stemming from a few questions. How do we rebuild citizens’ confidence in the Parliament? How do we bring Parliament closer to the people? How do we render Parliament more efficient in terms of democratic exercise?

When we talk about the crisis in Europe, we automatically link it to economic measures, austerity budgets or social movements, but one of the unseen or at least less perceived consequences of this state of affairs is a deeply political one. It concerns the strengthening of Governments and the increase of their legislative power to the detriment of Parliament. The crisis required quick measures, often unpopular, which needed immediate political commitment, and that could only be the prerogative of a Government. From there it is only one step to evading Parliament and weakening its role. Stronger Governments and weaker Parliaments mean a different type of relationship between powers, which is yet another effect of the crisis. We do not judge this reality in value terms of good or bad, but we need to look at it lucidly and decide what kind of future we want.

33 The other subtle effect of the current context is the growing temptation of populism. The economic crisis has also been reflected in a deep crisis of confidence and legitimacy. This has impacts not only on administration but on every aspect of the public sphere. Politicians, institutions and even values and principles are questioned. Changes are called for in certain customs and practices. The main danger lies in trying to resolve the crisis through populist or administrative measures.

Parliaments have become more vulnerable today, as they pay the price for people’s distrust in the political class accumulated during the crisis. One of the immediate reactions is increasing pressure towards unicameralism or towards a reduction in the number of MPs, particularly when they are not necessarily the expression of a certain state architecture, a real need or a political vision. However, I do not believe that this is the solution; public confidence comes not from numbers or structures—I am referring to the number of Chambers and MPs—but from our performance and accountability. Performance in terms of parliamentary activity means the more efficient exercise of the oversight function, while accountability means a closer and more substantial relationship with the electorate, including by involving citizens in parliamentary debates.

Parliament’s structure must respond to political realities and mostly to the need for effective representation. Bicameralism is a particular modality for certain political communities to warrant the exercise of rights and freedoms and to give as much substance as possible to democratic representation. Although there are different formulas that can be classified by type, the bicameral system eventually reflects in each and every country the traditions in the constitutional imagination of the respective nation.

Romania, for example, started in 1991 with a formula of almost perfect symmetry, accompanied by a congruent model of electing the two Chambers. Both Deputies and Senators were elected by proportional representation and had the same prerogatives. The 2003 constitutional revision retained the congruent mode of election, while introducing a functional specialisation of the Chambers. For example,

34 the Senate has the final decision on international treaties and on organic laws in certain areas. For all other laws, the final decision belongs to the Chamber of Deputies. Currently, we are preparing a new revision of the Fundamental Law; the debates within the Constitutional Forum and the parliamentary Committee responsible for drafting the new proposals converge to a much more pronounced separation of prerogatives between the two Chambers.

Dear colleagues, the question is what we really want. What is our commitment as politicians invested with confidence by the people’s vote? Do we want to simplify the parliamentary system, as a means to attenuate the public pressure generated by the crisis? Do we allow the political effects of the crisis to perpetuate or do we answer them by strengthening the representative institutions, which are the expression of the relationship between the state and the citizen and of the balance between powers? Against this backdrop, bicameralism itself can be rethought and redefined, especially where it is not the expression of regionalism or federalism.

Strengthening the oversight function at the level of one of the Chambers is an option we have to consider seriously. Parliamentary oversight—exercised in relation either to the Executive or to other public institutions subordinated or functioning under the authority of Parliament—does not and must not be allowed to drift into formalism. Even if we still have to discuss the new forms of democratic oversight that can be created and the regulations that are needed to endow it with more content and a greater impact, in my opinion, no matter how complicated the situation has become, bicameralism is better placed to accomplish its mission of observing and correcting deviations from democracy, if only because, as has often been said, two eyes see better than one.

The existence of two Chambers creates competition in terms of prestige, initiative and prerogatives—a competition meant to ensure that the citizens’ interests and will are better expressed and with more determination. I therefore say that in times of crisis we need strong and relegitimated Parliaments more than ever. Nowadays people are less interested in technical discussions and normative solutions, although

35 their actual impact is of the highest relevance to them. When Parliament is strong, democracy is strong. Thank you for your attention.

The Lord Speaker Thank you. I turn to Speaker Bervar from Slovenia.

Mr Mitja Bervar, Speaker of the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia (Translation.) Ladies and Gentlemen, I greet you in a personal capacity. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to address you for the first time; I was elected President of the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia last year. I would also like to convey the greetings of all the other Members of the National Council to you. It is a great honour and pleasure for me to join you here in the cradle of parliamentary democracy.

The National Council of the Republic of Slovenia as the Second Chamber helps to build trust between citizens and the two parliamentary Chambers. The National Council and its Members or Councillors contribute to the mission of the First Chamber, the National Assembly, and its Deputies. Our common goal is to strengthen parliamentarianism and foster democratic tradition.

This shows that bicameralism is an important national institution. The Slovenian National Council is composed of elected representatives of functional and local interests but the Councillors are not professional politicians. In accordance with the constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, the National Council is the representative body for social, economic, professional and local interests. Its Councillors are thus the representatives of employers, workers, farmers, craftsmen, independent professions, non-commercial activities and local interests. The post of a Councillor is not a professional one but an honorary one, because Councillors work in different social and economic fields such as economics, the business sector, education, research, agriculture, health, social security and culture. This provides them with a better insight into the actual situation. The National Council also helps to improve

36 the quality of legislation and provides an important safeguard against hasty political decisions.

Previous Members were elected from among the representatives of local interests, who also constitute the majority in the Council. I, by contrast, am an economist by profession and the first representative of culture and sport to be elected President of the National Council. Although there are differences between the Chambers with regard to composition, role and, last but not least, powers, they have a common goal: to improve legislation. This is also the starting point for our common work. Despite the occasional debate about whether the Second Chamber is necessary, I stress that the National Council has always been and always will be open to seeking the best solutions.

The idea to abolish the Second Chamber in Slovenia was again on the agenda last year. Its proponents claimed that this would significantly reduce public expenditure and thus contribute to fiscal balance and consolidation. Of course, I cannot agree with this, as the National Council is one of the modest budget users and accounts for less than 2% of the annual general government expenditure. Abolishing the Second Chamber would definitely not resolve the economic and financial crisis. At this point, I stress that this year has seen an improvement of relations and co- operation between the two Chambers; they have become much more constructive and collaborative.

I should like to take this opportunity to explain the special relationship between the two Chambers in Slovenia. The best known power of the National Council is its suspensive veto. After a law is adopted but before it is proclaimed, the National Council can request the National Assembly to reconsider it. The National Assembly then needs an absolute majority to be able to adopt that legislation. This means that the National Council is a safeguard against hasty decisions in the legislative process.

I would like to point out another important role of the National Council: its active relations with civil society. The Council organises two major consultations per month on average. These conferences are attended primarily by the representatives

37 of experts from civil society, NGOs, ministries and other government services. Topical issues, problems and dilemmas are discussed, and afterwards the competent bodies of the National Council write down and publish conclusions. The deliberations of civil society are thus presented in Parliament, which helps to shape better policies that are closer to the citizens. I am aware that for this very reason we must continue to endeavour for more stable Second Chambers, as they are an important factor in enhancing democratic standards and democracy in general. As multilateral co-operation and bilateral exchange of experience at the level of Second Chambers can improve the position of our institutions, nationally and internationally, Slovenia will continue to do its utmost to strengthen multilateral and bilateral ties between Second Chambers.

I sincerely wish that I will be able welcome you to Slovenia during my term of office. I hope that I am successful and will attain my wish. Thank you for your attention.

The Lord Speaker We turn now to Señor García Escudero from Spain.

Mr Pio García Escudero, President of the Senate of Spain (Translation.) Speakers, colleagues, it is a great honour for me to take part once again in the Association of European Senates, which brings us together for the 15th time today in London. For that reason, I express my gratitude to Baroness D’Souza, Lord Speaker of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, for the excellent manner in which this event has been organised.

The subject selected for the first working session deals with relations between the Upper and Lower Chambers, a very topical subject, taking into account the difficulties currently facing parliamentarianism and the repeated questioning of the value of politics, which pushes the advisability of maintaining the two-Chamber system on to the front line of public debate.

The foundations of bicameralism lie in the origin of the varying forms of relations produced in each political system between the different Houses of Parliament.

38 Historically, a twin-House system is a response to the need to represent differing interests. The relations between the Chambers are relations based on difference and dispute in the exercise of the functions constitutionally attributed to each one, especially in undertaking legislative processes.

In Spain today, the normal resolution of disputes is facing difficulties because of the differing positions occupied by the Congress of Deputies, the Lower House, and the Senate, the Upper House, in the legislative process. The general rule established by the Spanish Constitution is that the Senate, which is the Chamber for second reading, may introduce vetoes or amendments to proposals from the Congress of Deputies. Where the Senate imposes a veto to a draft Bill approved by Congress, this may be overridden by the Lower Chamber through the ratification of the original text by an absolute majority, or by simple majority once two months have passed from the imposition of the veto. Where the Senate imposes amendments, these may be approved or rejected by the Congress of Deputies through a simple majority.

Situations involving disagreement between the two Chambers are, therefore, normally resolved through the position of prevalence held by the Congress of Deputies in the legislative process, without the need to resort to conciliatory measures to resolve such differences. This is one of the embodiments of what has been called “imperfect bicameralism”, weighted in favour of the Congress of Deputies.

In exceptional circumstances, the Constitution provides for the use of certain reconciliation mechanisms for a range of specific areas, including the authorisation of certain types of international treaties, the signing of specific co-operation agreements between autonomous regions, the distribution of inter-territorial compensation fund resources and the approval of projects concerning constitutional reform. If there is no agreement between the Senate and the Congress, a solution will be sought through a Joint Committee comprising equal numbers of Deputies and Senators. The Committee will submit a text that will be put to the vote in both Houses. If that is not approved in the manner provided, Congress will decide by enhanced majority.

39

On the other hand, bicameralism has evolved from its original, traditional concept. Nowadays there is a degree of renovation in the shaping of relationships between the Houses. It is no longer merely a case of opposing interests; rather, it is an integration of interests, which we can call “relations of complementarity”. There is a shift towards integrating interests, based in most cases on administrative or political decentralisation, and this is a way of expressing territorial needs and interests. This is the case with the vast majority of federal or highly decentralised states, which have a Second Chamber for territorial representation. This is also the case for the Spanish Senate, constituted as it is as the venue where both regional and local interests may be voiced.

As has been mentioned repeatedly, the Congress is the Chamber that represents the Spanish nation as a whole, while the Senate is the Chamber in which the geographical variety of our nation is represented. To put it another way, Spanish citizens are represented by the Congress in so far as they are citizens of a country and by the Senate in so far as they are citizens of a territorial area, in a sort of two-fold representation.

This is particularly important in the modern world. The phenomenon of globalisation has led us to speak of the centralising drift of federal or politically decentralised states. Decisions are taken at an increasingly central level and even at a supranational one, as is occurring with economic matters in those countries forming part of the European Union, often without the supervision of their Parliaments. We therefore need to extol the particular virtues and values of a Chamber such as the Senate, which can provide a voice for a range of local, regional, national and European interests.

However, in Spain this territorial representation is considered insufficient. Almost from the very outset when it was set up in 1978, we have witnessed ongoing discussions about the reform of the Spanish Senate with a view to developing its nature as a territorial Chamber and a range of measures has been adopted for that purpose. The main one was the creation of a General Committee for the

40 Autonomous Regions, conceived to organise general debates on regional policy and sector-wide issues. It counts among its participants the representatives of national government and regional government—regional government representatives do not participate in any other Committees in the House—as well as the Senators sitting on the Committee. In all the activities of this Committee, any of the co-official languages in use in Spain—namely Basque, Catalan, Galician or Valencian—may be used along with Castilian Spanish. As of 1 January 2011, the use of these languages is also accepted at plenary sessions, in the speeches given during the discussion of non- legislative proposals as well as in the presenting of written documents to the Senate Registry or in those matters on which citizens or institutions address the Chamber.

Furthermore, the current session of Parliament has seen the undertaking of a study paper for the reinforcement of the functions of the Senate, research for which is being carried out with the participation of all the political groups with representation in the House. Possible avenues for reform include the following: to establish the Senate as the Chamber for the first reading of laws with an impact on the regions and, in the event of disagreement, the implementation of conciliatory measures—for instance, in the case of regional statutes; to ensure that the Senate, rather than the Congress of Deputies, is the Chamber deciding to take into consideration, or “receiving”, legislative initiatives put forward by the regions; and to impose more demanding requirements for the Congress of Deputies to be able to reject Senate proposals in the ordinary legislative procedure.

As a further demonstration of the co-operative parliamentarianism inherent to modern two-Chamber systems, the constitution includes, as do the regulations for both Houses, the possibility of the creation of Joint Congress/Senate Committees made up of Members from both Chambers—for instance, the Joint Committees for relations with the ombudsman and the Court of Auditors; the Joint Committee for the parliamentary oversight of the RTVE public television and radio service; the Joint Committee for the study of the drug problem; and the Joint Committee for the European Union, which focuses on all questions pertaining to the European Union and specifically the oversight of the principle of subsidiarity.

41 In addition, mention has been made of a sort of “division of labour” between the Chambers, in the form of subject-based specialisation. Of fundamental importance here are the special study Committees formed in each Chamber. The Senate’s efforts have been of particular note here as they have given rise to proposals of great social import. For the everyday running of the Chambers, there are regular joint meetings of the Bureaux of the Congress of Deputies and the Senate to authorise agreements affecting both Chambers.

It is worthy of note, then, that there is complementarity between the two Chambers. This points to the usefulness of a bicameral system that must be strengthened if it is to be maintained. There is no doubt that the Upper Chambers have a purpose to serve—for instance, they can provide better relations between different territorial authorities; they can help to diversify the public’s democratic representation by enabling the improved integration of all sectors of the population; they can increase control over the Government; and they can allow for a second reading or greater deliberation and reflection in the democratic procedures. In short, they can guarantee that the discussion of legislation enjoys greater publicity and, therefore, that public opinion is better informed.

For that reason, however, it is necessary to strengthen the Upper Chamber’s functions to safeguard society’s perception of its usefulness for the state. To this end, there is no doubt that the feedback exchanged each year at fora such as this are of great use, allowing us to share points of view on the current situation in our respective parliamentary Chambers. Thank you very much.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much indeed, Speaker García Escudero. Let us now turn to Speaker Lombardi from Switzerland.

Mr Filippo Lombardi, President of the Council of States of the Swiss Confederation (Translation.) Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour and pleasure for me to be present with you today. On behalf of the Swiss Confederation of States, I convey our

42 greetings to you, Lord Speaker of the House of Lords, Baroness D’Souza, and the representatives of the various Senates of Europe.

I want to talk about a bicameral Parliament without any hierarchy, which is the system that we function under. We do not have an Upper Chamber and a Lower Chamber, nor a First Chamber and a Second Chamber. In fact, it is perfect bicameralism. The Swiss Parliament consists of two councils, the National Council and the Council of States. Both Assemblies have the same competences and are supported by common parliamentary services. The competences are the same and they deal with the same affairs but they also exert the same powers. All Acts of Parliament must obtain the approval of both Councils, and the will of one Chamber cannot supplant the will of another. The legislative power and the budgetary control are spread equally in an identical way between both Chambers, which both have the same rights. This perfect bicameralism reflects the federal nature of our country. The National Council represent the nation as a whole, while the Council of States represents the different parts of the territory. Most cantons have both mandates within the Council of States.

This representation, inspired by the American Senate system, creates equality between the cantons and prevents one particularly rich or strong demographic area from imposing its preference on the rest of the country. This system also counterbalances decisions taken by the National Council, where the Members are elected proportionally, so there may be more of a voice for the cantons with the largest populations. The smallest canton, Uri, has one delegate in the National Council, while Zurich, the largest, has 35. However, both have Members in the Council of States.

This system means that within the Parliament we have two perceptions of the social and political reality in the country. One Chamber concentrates on the national nature while the other concentrates the equality of the federal states, the cantons. Both Chambers deliberate separately. The Council of States has 146 Members and the National Council 200. There is an equal spread of topics between the two Chambers, so neither has a hierarchical supremacy over the other. Both can suggest

43 amendments and draft laws that will be examined in both Chambers. For each issue, the priority Council has to be decided on. This is done by the Presidents of the Councils and, if there is a disagreement, the issue is resolved by casting lots. This is essential: any decision of the Parliament requires the approval of both Councils. Both Councils need to have adopted exactly the same text or the same figures for a budget, for example. This is far from easy, and the Government’s projects may be amended as well by amendments coming from either Chamber. Sometimes the Act adopted by the Federal Assembly does not have very much in common with the project as it was presented by the Government.

How do these two Chambers agree in such conditions? They examine the projects of law in turn. If they have not opted for the same wording after first reading, we then have a shuttle between the two Chambers. If there is a continued divergence, there is what is known as a conciliation conference, consisting of 13 Members of each Chamber who have to come up with a joint solution. The conciliation conference makes a proposal that will be approved or rejected. If one of the Councils rejects it, the draft law is removed. That is the principle that enables us to establish the equal responsibility between the two Chambers.

The equal competence between both Chambers of Parliament leads to a very specific way of working, based on conciliation and compromise. This means that both Chambers have to give and take. Are there often conflicts between them? Empirical studies carried out between the 1970s and 1990s showed that there seemed to be a very consensual collaboration between both Chambers, but in the past few years the divergence has tended to increase and we have needed more conciliation conferences. The two main parties of right and left are largely represented within the National Council, whereas the central parties are more dominant in the Council of States. We need to continue this increasingly intensive dialogue between the two Chambers in order to reach the double majority that is required to enact a law. Since 1992 we have needed 90 conciliation conferences and only eight resulted in a rejection of the proposal, which represents an approval rate of over 90%.

44 In our semi-direct democracy system, any decision of the Parliament may be called into question by popular vote. Parliamentary representatives have to look for projects that will be consensual in order to avoid being faced with a popular referendum. This is written into the DNA of the Parliament. It is borne by the will of its Members. Switzerland is very preoccupied with cohesion and this ensures that the collaboration between the two Chambers remains very tight in order to give rise to the famous Swiss compromise, which is based on the interests of all. This way of working requires a good collaboration between different parties. In debates within the smaller Chamber, Senators can talk for as long as they like, whereas the other Chamber is more regulated by time. Members have different appreciations of their roles, but both bodies developed during an effort to bring together common interests in the art of rapprochement. Thank you for your attention.

The Lord Speaker Thank you. Colleagues, I chose this morning’s topic—relations between Upper and Lower Chambers—not simply because it is a subject on which we all have something to say but also because I was genuinely interested in hearing how other Upper Chambers manage their relationships with the other House and how close those relationships need to be.

At Westminster, as you can see, the House of Lords shares this wonderful iconic building with the House of Commons. Indeed, both Houses have been co-located from the earliest times. Quite a lot stems from that co-location in terms of shared services and there are other activities that we undertake together, but we are also completely separate institutions with potentially competing legislative powers. So there are inevitably tensions, which need to be managed, even though on the whole our collaboration tends to be harmonious.

Let me say a few words about our experience at Westminster before posing some questions that we can perhaps address in our discussion. I shall begin with the functions of the two Houses. Both Houses are Chambers of legislature, initiating and amending Bills—mostly government Bills. All Bills have to be agreed by both Houses before becoming law. By long-standing practice going back many centuries, the

45 House of Lords does not interfere in matters of taxation and spending, but on all other matters our House can offer any amendments that are relevant to the Bill under discussion. In any Session, many hundreds of amendments will be made, mostly by the Government itself, and some of these will be in response to amendments proposed by Members in debate.

Sometimes amendments are made by our House against the wishes of the House of Commons, which is of course dominated by the government parties. In the last resort, the House of Commons has statutory powers to override the views of the Lords, but these cannot be implemented immediately. So while the Bill passes from one House to another and back again, compromises are reached: some amendments will be accepted, others will be subjected to compromise and others will be overridden.

Very often these disputes are portrayed as conflict between the two Houses when in fact they are conflict between this House and the Government or, as we have seen recently, between different factions within the ruling coalition Government that we have at present. But there is far more collaboration between the Houses over legislation than there is conflict, with changes to a Bill often being made in the second House that were promised by the Government in the first.

Both Houses also scrutinise government activity through questioning Ministers and conducting inquiries in specialist Committees set up to look at policy matters. Clearly it would be unproductive if both Houses had identical Committees engaged in the same work, so the House of Lords has deliberately established a different kind of Committee structure. Most Commons Committees monitor government departments; Lords Committees, on the other hand, address specific themes. Even temporary Committees try to avoid subjects that are being considered by Commons Committees. Some Committees are joint, with equal numbers of Members of both Houses sitting together as one. We have a permanent Joint Committee on human rights issues, for example, and we often set up Joint Committees to consider draft Bills.

46 On business, there is currently a modus vivendi between the two Houses, but it is quite a delicate one. Many commentators and, crucially, many Members of the House of Commons felt that this relationship would be threatened by recent attempts to reform the composition of the House of Lords by replacing our appointed membership with one that would be mostly elected. That led to the eventual withdrawal of the reform Bill.

As I said, institutionally the two Houses are separate. We are separate corporate bodies, we have separate budgets, which are approved in different ways, and we are separate employers. Indeed, there are good constitutional reasons why this should be so. But although the two Houses preserve their separate status, we have to collaborate on many practical things. The unifying force is undoubtedly the building that we share.

We join together in a common contract with the Metropolitan Police to provide our security staff. We have set up a joint department to run our ICT service. We have a joint and jointly funded service to manage the maintenance of the fabric of our buildings. In addition we have about 30 other activities, large and small, which we carry out together under memoranda of understanding. Most of these are based in the Commons but they are partly funded by the Lords under one of four funding formulae. Of these, the parliamentary education and visitor services and our website merit particular mention. In other areas, such as international relations and our recent savings programmes, the two administrations work together completely informally but to great effect.

As a result of this collaboration, many initiatives have to be prepared jointly by staff, so our senior staff work more closely together than ever before. The Speaker of the House of Commons and I meet regularly, as do our chief executives and the Chairs of some of our key administrative Committees.

We do not always agree. Sometimes we feel that the House of Commons authorities take the collaboration of the House of Lords for granted and in a number of areas recently we have sought to exert a moderating influence on some

47 Commons initiatives. At the moment there are a number of issues where our approach is different, but overall we collaborate well on the big issues, not least because we have to.

That is enough from me, but let me mention some themes which have emerged during our discussions and which we might now discuss further. Perhaps I can pose a few questions. What governs our constitutional ties with the other Chamber and how smoothly do they run? What, if any, are the administrative ties with the other Chamber? What activities are carried out on a shared basis and how are they funded and administered? How can we relate effectively with the public as Parliaments, while at the same time retaining a separate voice for each Chamber? How do we deal with conflict between the two Chambers?

The question that I have raised about how we engage with the wider public on the different roles of the Senates or Upper Chambers in our different Parliaments is one that we will be addressing this afternoon. It is largely to do with the sort of outreach that we have. As I have explained, we have a joint visitor and education service between the two Houses, where we are constantly trying to engage the public in all kinds of ways, such as through social media, television and radio. Each of us has outreach programmes and it is something that we would like to learn a great deal about this afternoon, as each of you will have separate ways of contacting the public.

Having listened to this morning’s debate and having declared the discussion open now, I am impressed by the variety of mechanisms that have emerged as to the way in which the different Houses are constituted. On the one hand we have different mechanisms—the French, Slovenian, Romanian and Swiss Parliaments are all very different, but they have evolved mechanisms to deal with conflict. That is of great interest, but there must be times when conflict overrides the mechanisms that exist, which is something that would be interesting for us to discuss. Dear colleagues, the floor is open. Who would like to contribute to the discussion?

48 Mr Milan Štěch, President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (Translation.) Dear colleagues, one of the significant aspects that we face at present is that, due to the crisis, many of our institutions are called on to reduce their costs and Parliaments are often told that they should become smaller. World experts in general are declaring that Governments are losing their capacity to lead and that financial authorities have a much stronger influence. If we accept that Parliaments are losing their importance, that will be particularly detrimental to democracy. A bicameral Parliament is a great advantage. We know that everywhere, although more in some places than in others, there are representatives of lobbies who can present practical issues, but also other lobbyists who have a more serious intent and who are looking for some sort of economic gain from the process. When we have a well functioning bicameral system, these lobbyists have a much smaller influence, especially when the Second Chamber consists of Members who differ politically, regionally and geographically. A Second Chamber is a good way to defend ourselves from lobbies that act in an unscrupulous way for financial ends and do not respect society.

The Lord Speaker Signor Grasso would like to speak.

Mr Pietro Grasso, President of the Senate of the Italian Republic (Translation.) Thank you very much. I would like to give more details about Italy—I did not have time to talk about them earlier. In the Italian system, the British system and other systems, joint bicameral Committees of Parliament may be established. This is especially the case for Committees of inquiry; we have one such Committee on Italy’s state-owned television company. We have established Joint Committees with an equal number of Senators and Deputies, and that was the case with the Committee on organised crime. Then we have Committees monitoring and overseeing the intelligence community. There is parity between the two Chambers in Italy with respect to this aspect.

49 In the Senate’s outreach programme we are moving towards the public. We do not want the Palazzo to be seen as totally separate from the rest of the world—from civil society and the public. I often organise meetings with young people in the main Chamber of the Italian Senate, to bring them closer to the institution and make them feel part of political life. We adopted an initiative whereby schoolchildren aged 11 to 13 came to the Senate with a Bill, which was called “The Bill I would like to see”, according to the requirements of their age. Then we had a mock session: they came to the Senate to talk about their Bills, they voted on amendments to them and then the best proposals received a prize, so it was a competition.

On another occasion 60 schools from Italy demonstrated what they had done, in the form of a contest on the Constitution. They came to the Senate’s main Chamber and illustrated what they thought of the main principles enshrined in our Constitution. I believe that this is an aspect of our relationship with the public that should be enhanced in order to curb the anti-political feelings that are growing within public opinion. People see Parliaments and Governments as places of privilege rather than places where we try to create a future for the country and for young people. Within that framework, we should describe the spending review, which is an issue that we must take into close consideration. Citizens are challenged by this crisis, so they are sensitive to that issue.

The Lord Speaker Thank you, Signor Grasso. This issue of savings, cuts, expenditure on Upper Chambers and the debate that goes on is something that we are going to have to talk about. It would be very interesting to hear your views on that. Meanwhile, I ask Madame Zrihen to speak.

Ms Olga Zrihen, Senator, Senate of the Kingdom of Belgium (Translation.) I heard one of our colleagues say earlier that one Chamber would do politics with a capital “P” and another with a small “p”. I simply want to say that the work of the Senate, at least in Belgium, does not react to every burning political subject of the day—which is of course itself legitimate—so that the Senate is a space where maybe, with a bit of distance, we can work in depth and with substance on

50 matters as fundamental as the one that my Italian colleague has just mentioned. I believe in working with young people to make them think what democracy is and what a Constitution means.

In Belgium we do a lot of work on the past and how wars have occurred, particularly the fratricidal wars in Europe. Then we look at fundamental matters such as violence against women at the international level. We also work on issues such as in what ways tomorrow’s society is being built, the end of life, the concept of the family—all sorts of fields that, even if they are not always immediately burning questions, are the very foundations of living together in a society.

Even if we see convergence between the two Assemblies of a single national Parliament on European matters, where I think it is important that representation should be as fair and as good as possible, we need some space for thinking that should allow us to take the time necessary so that the society that we represent feels that we are truly in phase with the in-depth problems and moral dilemmas that they are experiencing. Here, too, there can be sharing, leaving one Chamber to be superactive, hyperactive and even proactive with regard to immediate problems and daily life. There is a need for our parliamentary work to do much more if we want truly to be representative of that deeper, more intimate part of our citizens.

The Lord Speaker I think that Speaker Mayer wishes to say something.

Mr Edgar Mayer, Speaker of the Federal Council of the Republic of Austria (Translation.) Thank you very much, Lord Speaker. You asked how far administrations in Parliaments worked together. In Austria we have close co-operation between the two parliamentary Chambers. Of course there are also synergies that can be used, and we use them. We have also carried out reforms and savings, as several speakers have mentioned. Once in a while the media like to talk about abolishing the Second Chamber; that is an issue that we are also dealing with at the moment. However, we get a lot of support from the federal state in Austria. We get a lot of support from

51 Councillors at the federal level because they were the ones who restructured and rebuilt the Republic after the war and they are an important part of our democracy. We are very much against centralism. In Austria even the word “centralism” is not well received. People are very frightened of it; there is a general Alemannic tremble whenever that word is used.

There is also the national context of Parliaments, such as we heard about in relation to the Swiss Parliament. We also recently met representatives from the Czech Republic and President Štěch. Yesterday, I talked to President Kretschmann from Germany, and I will speak with the Italian President in two weeks’ time. It is important that we do not just meet once a year; I have also learnt in our conversations that our Members meet at various locations throughout Brussels and there are many bilateral talks. The administrations, and particularly the Parliaments, should conduct exchanges to learn from each other. If there are reforms, it is always good to look at what other countries are doing, especially our neighbouring countries, so that we can integrate the lessons learnt there. How things work in other countries is also very important. This meeting is a very good impetus for that, but I encourage us all to ensure that it happens more often at the bilateral level as well.

The Lord Speaker Mr Lombardi?

Mr Filippo Lombardi, President of the Council of States of the Swiss Confederation (Translation.) Thank you. I agree with the Member from the Czech Senate. We must defend a strong role for Parliaments because they represent the role of politics, especially the economically strong powers and all sorts of lobbies. We must defend Parliaments. We must not see our role being reduced. Maybe we should make savings and be more effective, but that does not mean that we should reduce our role or the weight that we have with respect to economic powers, the Executive and what in most countries unfortunately is becoming the true strong power, the administration. Someone has to control the administration and often the

52 Government is unable to do it, so sometimes it is the role of parliament to maintain popular representation and to have control of economic and administrative power. Parliament has to fight for this because otherwise, as Kafka said, you have administrative ecstasy that tends to extend ever more through our countries.

Bicameralism should help us, as we have seen in the situations described here today. There are always two elements, stronger or weaker, but one is operational. In other words there are checks and balances, with one Chamber controlling the other to get the balance between the two different legislative powers. The institutional identity, which varies from country to country, representing territorial and maybe federalist identities, can be very important and must be strongly defended. I think only 16 or 17 countries in Europe have Senates. We must have a true alliance of the Speakers in these European Senates in order to defend our importance and not allow any anti- democratic proposals that might lead to the elimination of Senates in this or that country.

I conclude by taking up fully what our colleague Mr Mayer from Austria said: to strengthen ourselves mutually, our bilateral relationships between Speakers must become greater. An annual conference is good but the more bilateral relations we can have, the more public opinion and the media in our various countries will see the value of the role of these Chambers. Journalists may want to see this or that Senate abolished in this or that country, but maybe they talk about Senates only when something important occurs, so that something important could be when the Speaker of a Senate from a friendly country comes to visit. We must strengthen these relationships as an instrument to put forward the value that we represent.

The Lord Speaker Speaker Borusewicz?

Mr Bogdan Borusewicz, President of the Senate of the Republic of Poland (Translation.) The Speakers of Senates from states with a decentralised structure have an easier situation. In those cases, the Senates represent the federal states and different regions. The justification for their existence is clear and simple. In my

53 country, Poland, we have quite a homogeneous structure, so it is a homogeneous state. At the same time, though, the Polish Senate was reborn in 1989 as a result of round-table agreements. The Senate was supposed to counterbalance the President, elected by the Parliament, but at that time the President came from the other end of the political spectrum—the Communists. Being a fully democratic Parliament, the Senate had a similar mandate to veto Acts and so on. Now that 20 years have elapsed we have a fully fledged democracy, with a Lower Chamber elected in fully democratic elections and a President also elected in a fully democratic general election.

The historical reason for the existence of the Senate is no longer valid, so the discussion that we have in Poland and indeed other states keeps coming back. It is a heated discussion and of course the chief argument is financial and economic. In the Lower Chamber there are 460 Deputies while in the Senate we have only 100 Senators, so the argument is: “Let’s just get rid of the Senate and democracy in Poland will become cheaper”. My counterargument is always the following: whenever I speak to the media I say, “Why don’t you just get rid of the Lower Chamber? Then you’ll get rid of 460 Deputies and democracy will become even cheaper. That’s a real bargain”. It is difficult to engage with their arguments so I end up by mocking them, because democracy has to cost something. The cheapest democracies would have just one Deputy, the Government and the other bodies of power. That would be the cheapest option but of course it is quite absurd.

In Poland the discussion keeps recurring. The Senate is not threatened for now because we do not have a constitutional majority in this term of office, while in the next I do not think it is possible for anyone to get such a majority. The Senate is needed. We cannot function in a similar way to the Bundesrat. We cannot follow the German or Austrian model because that would require the reconstruction of the whole state. If we have a homogeneous state, there is no point in us going in that direction, so we are looking for other solutions.

The situation is even more difficult because the terms of office are the same for both Chambers. If the term of office in the Lower Chamber comes to an end, the same

54 goes for the Senate, so the political majority is recreated in both Chambers. I always try to point out that in the Polish Parliament we should change the terms of office so that the Chambers counterbalance each other politically and reflect different political trends. As I have said, though, discussions in Poland about the existence of the Senate are far more difficult than those in other countries.

To wrap up, I agree with the Speaker from the Swiss Senate: we should support each other. Bilateral contacts and visits strengthen the position of the Senates as a whole. I ask you to take the decision to have more bilateral meetings. It is clear to us that bicameralism is better than a Parliament with only one Chamber; there are possibilities to streamline the system to pass Acts which are better, more polished and less political and which have been deeply reflected on.

The Lord Speaker Thank you, Mr Borusewicz. I ask for a brief, last intervention.

Mr Ognjen Tadić, Speaker of the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Translation.) We in Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot be eliminated, because we would have to vote for such change and constitutional reform. The Upper House is one of two equal Houses that together can amend the Constitution. I do not agree with Mr Borusewicz when he says that one country can be homogeneous. No country can be homogeneous. Each country is the image of its society, and its society is heterogeneous. In a democracy, generally speaking, individuals have their place in Parliament, but society is composed not only of individuals but of social groups that must be represented somewhere—ethnicities, nationalities or whatever. They differ from country to country but each country must have representatives of its structures and communities. In my country we use the term “legal entities”.

In that sense, the Upper House is not a question of tradition and the past; rather, it asks the question, “Can we understand what we face in the future? Can we understand what social structures will exist then?” We should assume that for the time being we are preparing how to react to our constitutional questions, so we

55 should give our Senates the functions that enable them to face the future in the manner in which they should. I am sure that in the future the financial questions about Upper Houses will not be discussed, because people will understand that through these Upper Houses they can consider economic problems in the future. They will understand that the role of the Senate is to solve these issues, among others.

In my opinion, we should not be afraid of the impact of the lobbyists or business people. They should have an impact on the Upper Houses and on the work of Senates. At the same time, citizens can have a direct impact on Lower Houses. We do not have such an impact right now because these lobbyists and the business people are having an impact on Lower Houses and cutting the links with the Upper Houses. If we look at the problem from this point of view, we can say that the image of the social structure of each culture requires democratic organisations with two Houses: one, the Lower House, to represent individuals; and the other, the Upper House, to represent the collective.

The Lord Speaker Thank you. Monsieur Bel?

Mr Jean-Pierre Bel, President of the Senate of the French Republic (Translation.) To continue the debate that has started, I would like to say that the issue of the two-Chamber system has been initiated by a new kind of system for us within the Fifth Republic. The new Constitution that was brought in by General de Gaulle, with its more egalitarian two-Chamber system, had an impact on the Senate, which basically established itself as the main power to resist the will of General de Gaulle. He basically wanted to cut out the Senate in 1969 by transforming it into an economic and social commission, but lost the referendum that aimed to remove it. Power in France has been left on that note ever since.

Since then, the two institutions and indeed the existence of the Senate have been questioned in a very different way. Questions are being raised about the legitimacy of Assemblies such as ours. The legitimacy is of a dual nature. First, there is democratic

56 legitimacy. Having two Assemblies within one country gives democratic legitimacy because it is preferable for democracy to have more options for debate by two different Chambers. If you ask what a single-Chamber system would result in, particularly within a semi-centralised system such as ours, it would probably be what we term an “expeditive” regime. We have resolved the issue of democratic legitimacy in France because for the past 50 years the same majority has held power in the Senate. In the past 18 months the Senate has reinforced its legitimacy because we have had a different power in France and the Government have mostly represented the French left. However, the situation has changed recently.

The second aspect of legitimacy is functional legitimacy. The French Senate represents the local authorities, and you can see how useful it is, particularly in terms of the implications of the institutions. The issue that is being raised in France is not an economic one but is linked more to the will of the popular movements in our different countries, which call into question in general the system of parliamentary democracy in our countries.

The issue for us is to know how we can make the two-Chamber system evolve. We are particularly aware of these issues. We would look favourably on a renovation of our system, particularly to have better representation of territorial areas, but we do not want to go towards a German system—I respect the German system, which reflects the characteristics and the nature of the German federal state—although that is the kind of system that is often suggested in our country. Rather than the Senate being got rid of, it is mentioned as potentially a specific Chamber for representing local authorities. For me, though, that is not something that we can envisage. We have a general legislative authority and we need to retain it.

The development that we would prefer would be to make our Assembly the Chamber for long-term thinking and reflection, the Assembly where we would be able to look into the deeper societal issues, not under immediate pressure—the “dictatorship of urgency”—but more by thinking about the deeper, fundamental issues. I am talking not just about global warming but about other, more general issues that affect our generations. These are the different avenues that we are trying

57 to think along: how we can work over the longer term and have a deeper kind of reflection.

The Lord Speaker Speaker de Graaf will have positively the last intervention before Mr Mayer.

Mr Fred de Graaf, President of the First Chamber of the States General of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Thank you very much. I have a short comment about how we operate in the Netherlands. We share the same set-up as many countries, but is not so long ago that a famous Senator in the Netherlands refused to cross the square because he did not want anything to do with the Lower House. That was about 25 years ago. Nowadays we share a lot of services, such as security, fully digitised stenographic services and ICT. This is on the technological side rather than with regard to policy. We have succeeded in fully digitising all our meeting documents in the Senate, but the organisation of the Lower House is too big to do that at short notice.

That is one side of the coin. The other side is that we in the Netherlands are regularly faced with a problem. The Senate is elected every four years after the elections of the provincial Parliaments, on the basis of proportional representation. Because the provincial Parliaments are our electors, we have some regional representation in the Senate, because that is what the provincial Parliaments want. However, over the past 10 years we have had five elections to the Second Chamber, the Lower House, so the changes in the Lower House are more frequent than in the First Chamber. When the Government has a majority in both Houses, people complain about the fact that the Senate always votes along the same lines as the Lower House and say that therefore we do not need a Senate any more. Now we have a situation where the Government does not have a majority in the Senate but has a majority in the Lower House, and now other people are complaining that the Upper House is a trap for the policies that the Government is proposing.

There are always discussions about the Senate but we should keep our backs straight; we have a very important role to play. In the Netherlands we do not have a

58 constitutional court, so the Senate is the last instance or chance to correct things that go wrong in the Lower House where our lawmaking and policymaking are concerned. Since the Government do not have a majority in the Upper House any more, people rely more and more on the Senate to correct things that, in the eyes of the voters, are not correct. I think that the role of Senates will not diminish in the near future; it will only grow.

The Lord Speaker That is a very encouraging note. Thank you.

Mr Edgar Mayer, Speaker of the Federal Council of the Republic of Austria (Translation.) I would like to say one more thing. If I may refer to what Mr Borusewicz said about abolishing Senates, the mayor of Vienna gave a rather interesting response: he said that the Bundesrat costs the same as it would cost to construct 2 kilometres’ worth of underground line in Vienna. We are not prepared to swap our Bundesrat for 2 kilometres of subway.

The Lord Speaker Well said. Thank you very much indeed. Colleagues, we are going to break now. Thank you so much for all your contributions today; we are beginning to get going. Please keep your thoughts alive during lunch. Initially, though, we will have a family photograph. We will go down to the courtyard and then you will be escorted across it for lunch. Thank you once again. Let us go eat and be merry.

Meeting suspended at 12.50 pm and resumed at 2.50 pm.

Senates and the use of social media

The Lord Speaker Welcome, friends and colleagues, to what will be a very select meeting. As I said this morning, we are going to do this in reverse order. With your permission, I suggest

59 that we continue our debate and dialogue some more this afternoon and end at about 4.15 pm. Then you will have a choice of tea or champagne or both and the chance of a tour of the Houses of Parliament if you would like. I think that that would be better than to break and come back again, if you can sustain the pace. Is that agreed? Thank you very much indeed.

In this afternoon’s session, we discuss Senates and social media. As you know from what I said earlier today, this is something in which I have a particular interest. Indeed, it has come up from time to time in the presentations this morning: the need to have outreach but, in particular, to try to engage people in the democratic process when we are facing a world in which people are retreating from central politics. It is an uphill task but nevertheless a very worthwhile one.

I hope that this discussion will cover how we as institutions use social media, why we use them and what the risks and benefits are. I would be interested to hear how individual Members of other Senates use social media and what the Senates as institutions do to support them.

Social media and other methods of online engagement offer huge potential to reach people and to explain the role of Senates in political and public life, as members of the public are unlikely to have the time or inclination to travel to their country’s Parliament to attend a debate or to engage with Senators. In the UK, we have also seen a decline in good-quality direct parliamentary reporting in the traditional media, along with a commensurate increase in the space devoted to comment and analysis. This may be a phenomenon that many of you recognise from your own print and broadcast media. It leads to a significant void for interested members of the public who want to know what is happening in Parliament. The public are our paymasters— let us not forget that. Parliament belongs to them and we have a duty to provide them with the tools to keep themselves informed about parliamentary activity.

Here in the House of Lords, we as an institution are trying to use social media to provide that information and fill the gap that the decline in parliamentary reporting has created. We also have a number of Members who tweet. Regardless of the fact

60 that many of us are aged in our House, we are still learning how to tweet. Although the House as an institution is required to observe strict political neutrality in its communications, some of our Members are not at all shy in promoting their position online or in engaging in a frank exchange of views in cyberspace.

The House of Lords has had a Twitter account for nearly two years. In that time, we have attracted more than 16,000 followers. That is not quite like Madonna or David Beckham, but it is growing, and we have found it to be an excellent resource for informing the public about the business of the House. The Twitter account is run by our Information Office and, on the whole, it is used as a broadcast medium rather than a conversational tool. However, we believe that Twitter works best when users engage directly with followers. The challenge for us now is to work out a sensible way to do that while maintaining our impartiality. We answer direct factual questions from followers and on one occasion we sought public input into a Select Committee inquiry. This is a promising start, but there is certainly more that we can and should be doing. Again, I should like to hear from colleagues whether your Chambers have corporate Twitter or other social media accounts and how you balance the requirement for political neutrality with the need to engage.

As well as Twitter, we have Facebook and Flickr accounts and a YouTube channel. YouTube has been very effective in using video to explain the work of our Select Committees and the role of the House and its Members. I have featured in several YouTube videos and we are investing in our staff’s video production skills to ensure that our video content improves and that it meets expectations. This is all done on a very, very small budget. We do not employ video specialists. Perhaps other Parliaments represented here use video content online as a means to engage the public. Again, I should like to hear about that.

I turn for a moment to those Members of this House who are active on Twitter. One of our most prominent tweeting Members is Lord Sugar, who is a businessman and a reality TV star. He has nearly 3 million followers. We have found—Lord Sugar’s feed is one example of this—that there are risks for Members using social media; they can become targets for abuse. As our Members are appointed rather

61 than elected, the risks are to their reputation and patience rather than to their status as Members.

Again, I would be interested to hear from colleagues from elected Senates whether they help Members to manage the risks associated with social media. Do you aggregate Members’ social media contributions to a single site, for example? We are exploring the aggregation of contributions so as to make Members’ content easier to find and to make it easier for the public to identify which Members they might wish to contact, based on a search according to their interests. How to find the right Peer to talk to is a question that we are frequently asked as an institution; aggregating social media activity provides the public with an accessible way of finding out for themselves.

Another intriguing development has been the use of Twitter by interested third parties to highlight the work of Parliament entirely independently of our own social media mechanisms. Just last week, during the House of Lords debate on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, tweeting of the progress of the debate using hashtags created, independently of the House or its Members, a huge spike in online interest in the debate. Traffic to our website from Twitter simultaneously spiked. What we saw in this case was significant public engagement in the work of the House driven by social media and initiated by ordinary members of the public.

Clearly, social media provide benefits and risks for both Senates and Members, but it is clear that they are here to stay. If used properly, I believe that they can be of real benefit to the House of Lords and can give interested citizens information on Parliament that an increasingly uninterested media tend to ignore. They can also provide a means of participation, feeding into Committee work and debates. Finally, just a reminder that we encourage you to tweet—perhaps not immediately, here and now—about today's discussion. We will give you the hashtag.

I shall pass the floor to Mr Lombardi in a second, but I thought that I might just repeat some of the questions that I have raised in the hope that we can return to them in the discussion following our more formal presentations. Are we seeing a

62 decline in factual reporting of parliamentary business in the traditional media in your countries, accompanied by an increase in space devoted to comment and opinion? Is online video content a popular and effective means of engaging the public with the work that we do? How do we resource it? Should we employ full-time specialists? Should we offer training and support to Senators who use social media independently of our administrations? Should we take more responsibility for this and aggregate their contributions into a single site?

I look forward to your contributions, but let me add just one sentence. As Lord Speaker, I know that we have a flourishing programme of outreach which involves putting Peers into schools around the country to talk about the work of the House of Lords. This is a huge programme. The 1,000th visit was completed about a month or six weeks ago. Well over 50,000 children have been involved in the programme. The consistent answer that we get from the younger people—I am talking about people aged 15, 16, 17 and 18—is that it is the social media that will have an impact on them. It is quite obvious that they do not read the broadsheets. On the whole, they do not even really listen to television news. What they use are the social media. We have to pay attention to that if we want to extend our outreach.

So, dear colleagues, over to you. I ask Speaker Lombardi to speak. Thank you.

Mr Filippo Lombardi, President of the Council of States of the Swiss Confederation Thank you, Lord Speaker, for your interesting introduction and the challenging questions that you have posed.

(Translation.) Ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that the Arab spring, the Indignados, Anonymous, Occupy Wall Street and the flash mobs announce a new era—that of cybernauts, who are consumers of images and emotions, more about communities than communication. These cyber-citizens are influencing the web, which is turning into a collective and interactive space for debate. A new consensus will now emerge outside elected Parliaments. In short, we will have entered cyber- democracy fully and the elected representatives will be the only people not to know

63 that. There are others who fear that we will not be able to respond to the challenge of the net.

In Switzerland, two-thirds of our MPs, whose average age is a bit less than that of our Senators, regularly work through Twitter or Facebook, but only one Senator in 10 tweets or shares his or her impressions on Facebook. Contrary to what you might think, of the youngest elected representatives—those between 20 and 40— only 20% use the new social media, whereas more than 40% of those between 40 and 60 use them, including me. Women are not much different from their male counterparts in this area.

The reserve shown by most Swiss Senators with regard to social media has something good in it. The Senators are no doubt aware of the time and the skills that their presence in all official languages on social networks would demand. It is better, in my view, to refrain from using them if one cannot include all citizens in one’s thoughts.

Moreover, there are several ways of being on the web—in a private capacity, through personal blogs, through the parliamentary site, through company or party sites, discussion fora and online encyclopaedias, such as Wikipedia, not to mention Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others.

Dear colleagues, I do not believe that Members of the Council of States are indifferent to what is at stake with the social web or to their cyber-reputation. However, they live in a different time-space from that of new media. Our Chamber does not just accept or refuse proposals in a binary mode; it reflects on, discusses and weighs interests and it seeks long-term consensus. Legislative work requires one to take some distance and to look at things objectively.

Dialectical argument, which this work involves, is ill suited to the modern cult for immediacy. Soundbites, as required by the 140 characters permitted by Twitter, cannot do justice to the complexity of what is at stake in the political field. They are inadequate to reflect the patient construction of majorities or, as political wisdom

64 often feeds on slow growth, the senatorial rhythm of which Jean de La Fontaine spoke.

Through their simplicity, the new media could even represent a danger for Parliaments, as can be seen in the guide to Parliaments published by the Inter- Parliamentary Union. For example, it encourages parliamentarians to divulge, accidentally or otherwise, information that is the basis for our votes in preparatory Committees, whose debates are secret. There is also a great temptation to go beyond confidentiality in order to be the first to give information on the social media. Finally, there are two concepts of politics at opposite ends of the telescope: online politics and offline politics.

WikiLeaks has shown us that, in the internet age, the political struggle is now about the skilfully orchestrated leaking of sensitive data. This can create exorbitant expectations and put elected representatives under pressure, threatening their freedom and independence. No doubt the new media are becoming ever more important, but I could never say that Facebook and Twitter are the best means of facilitating direct dialogue between citizens, activists and elected representatives. Nevertheless, the new media link the political world and civil society. They are good observation towers for opinion, especially during election campaigns.

On the web, cybernauts are attracted by the sources and public figures who confirm their own point of view and their vision of the world. Classical media, such as the printed press, television and radio, continue to take on currents of ideas and opinion leaders. They enlighten debate and put together different tendencies. Of course, social media bring an added dimension to political life and others will take those places that are left empty. However, these new media cannot transform or change in depth the tone, speed and nature of democratic dialogue.

In our country, in particular, where there is direct democracy, the force of proposals may make recourse to what is called the initiative right or referendum. Collecting signatures is second nature to our citizens. It involves our citizens daily, not just every four years when there are elections. Believe me: we will not see the electorate

65 making its will known electronically tomorrow. Nothing replaces direct dialogue between elected representatives and the electorate in the marketplace or through knocking on doors. Social networks may make it possible for one to take the pulse of society, but they cannot allow one to determine the health of society.

If becoming a “connected” Senator is not the prime concern of Members of Upper Chambers, that is not a bad thing, but it is not a reason for restricting social media to gadgets or for neglecting dialogue with the electorate. When I go on the web, I often get the impression that I am reading juxtaposed monologues or soliloquies, which are of little interest.

Installing direct democracy through the internet is an illusion. As democratic instruments, social media can lead to the creation of what Claudio Magris calls “an Assembly with an indistinct pulse”, which is the negation of democracy—de Tocqueville talked about this 150 years ago.

Dear colleagues, when we see the explosion of interest groups on the net, elected representatives must remain cool and have concern for the public interest in the noblest sense. Our Senates must never lose sight of what is really at stake in communal life. Social media can be a massive echo chamber, in which the sound of other democratic forms is drowned out and music does not get better or more harmonious.

It will never be possible for a tweet to reboost the economy in a country or for a Facebook contribution to create jobs or stimulate innovation. Senators must resist the siren song of populist discourse and emotional grandstanding. They must continue to explain and persuade to inform the political consciousness of their fellow citizens. If social media can contribute to that, good; if not, never mind. Thank you.

The Lord Speaker I understand that you are extremely enthusiastic about social media!

66 Mr Filippo Lombardi, President of the Council of States of the Swiss Confederation I use them, but I do not want them to be misused.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much indeed. We will now hear from Mr Umakhanov.

Mr Ilyas Umakhanov, Deputy Chairman of the Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation Distinguished Lord Speaker and distinguished colleagues, many years ago, the genius Albert Einstein used to say, “I never think of the future—it comes soon enough”. These days the future comes even sooner than in the times of Einstein. Familiar things pass into history, giving way to new tools and possibilities. Today almost everyone has a mobile device with a much higher performance than that of the computers that 30 years ago would not fit in this room. Electronic communications have long ceased to be something elitist, reserved to a small group of hi-tech specialists. They do not require any special knowledge and are already used by most people. Paper books give way to electronic ones, traditional newspapers to internet portals and radio and television to internet channels.

A few days ago in Perm, the capital of a region in central Russia, I had the opportunity to give a speech at a conference on Russian language development problems. While about 300 people were physically present in the room, a few thousand participants from over 50 countries took part in the event via the internet. In recent years, we have been living and working in an entirely different world. This calls for changes in the modes of work of Members of Parliament.

Until recently, most politicians considered social networks to be fun stuff for young people and technical savvies—it was more about fashion than need. In practice, though, one today understands that this is a convenient tool of communicating with a large audience, which has an important feature that distinguishes it from television and newspapers—feedback.

67 Today, it is possible in just a few minutes from almost anywhere in the world to upload on to social networks any information, which can be viewed or commented on by dozens and even hundreds of thousands of users within a couple of hours. That information can bring either positive or negative results. The Arab Spring has shown that social networks are actively used for co-ordinating protests. Therefore, some countries have chosen to restrict this medium. There is the issue of use of personal data on social network users to invade privacy and limit the political freedoms of citizens. However, we believe that it is practical to stay connected, be actively engaged and use the positive capacity of social networks as a means of interacting with people. At the same time, protection of personal data is a core value in this sphere and its breach cannot be justified by political expediency.

Although 10 years ago the estimated number of web users in Russia was less than 6 million, it increased to some 30 million over the following five years to reach more than 70 million today, covering the majority of our population. Most of those people are socially concerned citizens willing to be involved in the politics of their country and to take part in public debate about the present and the future of their state. For example, when last year the Federation Council brought up for public discussion a draft law addressing the way of forming the Parliament’s Upper Chamber and proposals to enhance its role in the national political system, about 90,000 people participated in those public consultations, with 2,500 making practical proposals on the draft document. I believe that this number will continue to grow in the future.

The use of the internet for public communication is becoming one of our priorities. Public bodies have set up their online portals; sessions and other meetings of the Federation Council are broadcast on the internet. Several months ago, the Russian Parliament channel started to broadcast on the web and an updated and more sophisticated version of the Federation Council website was launched. For us, as a Chamber of the regions, it is of crucial importance to have separate sections on each of 83 entities of the Federation and on each of the more than 100 peoples and religious groups.

68 Unfortunately, the popularity of official internet resources cannot compete with social networks. The visitors to our website are a limited number of specialists, journalists and those interested in questions of state administration and legislative process. We are at the beginning of our journey, trying various platforms and accumulating experience. It is important to form properly the composition of the group or friends page in social networks in order to ensure the required quality of experts. The Lord Speaker asked whether we should employ people in this area full- time. We have a small group of people working on our internet television, but on the whole we hire experts. In the regions, we involve them in different forums, discussion groups and consultative councils. This enables social media to shape public opinion, including about the Parliament.

I believe that social networks can also be used to establish co-operation between legislators from different countries, to exchange experience and to discuss supranational issues. In January 2013, at the 21st session of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Vladivostok, Russia launched an initiative to create permanent online platforms for communication by young parliamentarians from the states of the Asia-Pacific region. I believe that the time will come when social networks become an important channel of interparliamentary and interregional co- operation and communication. I am confident that such online communication in social networks will allow us better to understand each other during live communication.

In conclusion, let me thank our hospitable hosts for their wonderful organisation of this forum. The first thing that we will do when we get home is to post on our pages on social networks information about the forum and the hospitality of our hosts. I wish you every success in your work and I look forward to seeing you in Russia next year. Thank you.

The Lord Speaker Thank you, Mr Umakhanov. Meneer de Graaf will speak next.

69 Mr Fred de Graaf, President of the First Chamber of the States General of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Dear colleagues, as of this year, nearly one in four people worldwide are social network users. More than 360 million Europeans are on social media. In my country, eight out of 10 people use it every day, and the numbers are rising each year.

There is no denying the widespread popularity, power and influence of social media, not only on a private or commercial level but on a political level. We have seen what it can achieve in the Middle East. Social media can bring people together. It can bridge the gap between politics and society. Communication on a local as well as a global level is easier than ever before. But it is not always effective in the end, as Egypt and Turkey show.

However, there is also danger in social media. I am not just talking about car accidents as a result of posting a tweet or employees losing their jobs over pictures they put on Facebook—there is political danger as well. To me, that danger lies mostly in something that is currently occurring in several Parliaments: the debate behind the debate. By that I mean the debate that is held on Twitter before, after and—shockingly—during a plenary debate in Parliament. There are known examples of MPs who are actively discussing on Twitter something that has just been said by a Member who has the floor. Before that Member even has a chance to return to his seat, the discussion has already started. In my opinion, this completely undermines the political debate. In addition, it makes the job of chairing such a debate even harder. Posts on social media, as short and perhaps private as they may seem, require carefully tailored content.

Of course, social media can support greater transparency and create an opportunity for Senators to make their ideas and beliefs known to the public in a way that is much faster, more personal and direct than the traditional media. That in itself is an admirable goal, but the potential for a discussion to move rapidly and beyond your control has to be taken into account. Also, the rules of etiquette and protocol do not apply. In Parliament we have created these rules in order to maintain a fair and

70 respectful debate. When two debates are held simultaneously, those rules are undermined.

This does not mean that Senates or Senators should not take part in social media. As I said, it is a unique way to bridge the gap between politics and society. Social media can be useful in making parliamentary information more accessible to the public and for transmitting society’s signals to the parliamentary system. As long as it is used in a cautious, conscious manner, which does not obstruct the parliamentary debate, social media can be a great asset to modern communication.

You are probably wondering how active I am on social media. Well, I am not. To be honest, I have no desire to participate in that form of communication. Perhaps forgivable due to my age and upbringing, I am not one of the eight out of 10 people in the Netherlands who do so, but luckily the Dutch Senate is active and in the end that is what essential. As a matter of fact, a message on this important conference, with photos taken here an hour ago, has already been published on our website and further reference to this message has been posted on our Twitter account.

To conclude, I fully agree with our Swiss colleague that one of the dangers of Twitter, Facebook and all the other media used is that you will be brought out of balance by the storm that is coming over you. Most of the time you cannot say that the quality of the message is testimony to any knowledge of what is going on. These messages are short and spontaneous and most of the time they contain criticism. There are fewer people tweeting who agree with politicians than people who say that they disagree. When you are too much impressed by those messages, it could influence your decision in a way that it should not. We should all bear in mind that tweets and Facebook messages are not giving testimony of public opinion as a whole. That is one of the warnings that I would give. Thank you very much.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much, Mr de Graaf. We will now hear from Monsieur Bel.

71 Mr Jean-Pierre Bel, President of the Senate of the French Republic (Translation.) Thank you. I am going to continue along the lines of what has just been said but will start by saying that, for the French Senate, institutional or political communication has always represented an almost existential challenge. The Senate, like all Second Chambers, is facing an image problem and ongoing questions about its role.

We are elected by indirect suffrage, and often the second to be brought into the loop on texts with heavy political content. The Senate finds it harder than the National Assembly to justify its existence. We often hear in France that a law has been passed because it has gone through the National Assembly. So questions arise. What purpose does the Senate serve? What is its role? Why do we need a Second Chamber, or an Upper House, as it is called in English? We discussed that this morning. We also want to have a very purposeful position with regard to the media, the social media in particular, in order to communicate with the citizens.

I will share some information about the French Senate. The French Senate has several means of communication. Some are traditional, which is not the subject of our meeting today. We have full and summary records of proceedings, parliamentary documents, et cetera. We also have some more modern means of communication: our website in particular, and the TV channel, Public Sénat, which is well subscribed to compared to other channels in our country. In our desire to give maximum exposure to our conceptual and forward-looking studies on legislative topics, we have always sought to strengthen our relations with the print and audiovisual media through press releases, press conferences or meetings, as well as the direct retransmission of meetings on current affairs or thematic questions, which we deal with in a more English-style manner.

With regard to the internet, although I understand the caution of our Swiss and Dutch colleagues, many of our citizens, particularly the younger generation, use these means of communication. They are on the internet almost 24 hours a day and are less interested in reading the print newspapers, listening to the radio or watching television, as has already been mentioned. In other words, the internet has become

72 the preferred means of communication and for some people it is often their sole source of information. In these circumstances, an internet presence has become a priority for Parliaments, and not just through an official website. They also need to go out and find people where they are—in other words, on the social networks.

The French Senate was, I believe, one of the first to go down this route in 2009 when it created a multimedia editorial unit within its Communications Directorate and set up official pages on the social networks. It had three objectives: first, to provide better information on the activities of the Senate; secondly, to facilitate strategic monitoring of the institution; and thirdly, to guarantee respect for pluralism.

With regard to the first objective, we do not use just the traditional media nowadays. The French Senate has sought to make use of all sorts of enriched content: videos, computer graphics and articles written in a more cutting-edge style to explain what it is doing from day to day. Every day on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and LinkedIn, we are offering this new-style content to web surfers to keep them informed of our activities. We are also developing our information-gathering tools. We open up hearings very widely to the press and public; we provide on-site video reports of fact-finding missions to show how the Senators work; we have a large number of chats on Twitter and YouTube once the reports have been produced; and we develop public relations around the main work themes of the Senate, in order to form new relationships with experts who are active on the internet. Today in France the Senate is the fourth-largest public institution on Twitter, with 100,000 followers; 1,500 journalists have signed up and many experts regard Twitter as their main source of information on the activities of the Senate. Whether we want it or not, it has become insurmountable.

The second objective was to facilitate strategic monitoring of the institution and its areas of work. The social networks are not just a communication tool but a formidable monitoring tool. Whenever the Senate addresses a particular topic, the multimedia editorial unit identifies the dozens or even hundreds of influential actors on the web who might be interested in that topic, and sends them information or

73 invitations to attend round-tables. Knowing what is being said about the Senators or about the Senate itself is vital to our ability to react and defend our image.

The third objective was to guarantee respect for pluralism, in order to enhance the role of the institution and the Senators to the greatest possible degree. This is something that I hold particularly dear, as it represents a fundamental principle of parliamentary work and, therefore, of the Senate’s communications: respect for plurality. As I requested when these new tools were being put in place, a precise count of the number of quotes and the speaking time of each political group is made on a monthly basis and passed to all group presidents, in order to ensure the non- partisan use of these means of communication. In the same spirit, we have also provided Senators with a guide to social networks and social networking training workshops. In response to the Lord Speaker’s question about the need to train the Senators, about 40 of my colleagues have enrolled and then opened Twitter accounts.

The temptation to overestimate the importance of social networks is a risk, but I am convinced that social media do not cover all our citizens, although they enable us to continue to represent the diversity and the plurality of our electorate. Our French citizens are not all connected, but we have a number of people who continue to use these means of communication. Our recent experience shows that more and more people are using the social networks. In developing communication on the social networks we should not forget the other, traditional forms of communication, which may be more institutional but retain their full value as a means of reaching the greatest possible number of our fellow citizens and making our democracy a living thing, which is something that we have often been reminded of.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much, Monsieur Bel. We will now hear from Mr Štěch.

74 Mr Milan Štěch, President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (Translation.) During my first speech, I looked at the relationship between the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. Mentioning now the Upper Chamber and social media, I will follow up on this theme more closely.

The Czech Senate does not have such a strong power position as the Lower Chamber does, but I dare to affirm that it exceeds it by the quality of its communication with the public. It follows its own unwritten rule that invites a maximum level of openness towards our citizens.

Relations between the Senate and society are strengthened in very diverse ways. Besides purely political communication, a very broad cultural and educational communication takes place. The Upper Chamber has become known thanks to it as an excellent platform for the organisation of not only conferences, hearings and seminars, but concerts and historical and art exhibitions.

The organisation of these or similar events would certainly not have such broad publicity if the Senate did not follow the times in the area of communication technology. It has been a while since you could only rely on co-operation with television and radio stations or the press. Recordings of Senate proceedings are broadcast on public television in full.

The exchange of information through the internet represents important progress for us. It allows for an immediate, constant but also measurable feedback from the content recipients. Moreover, at minimal expense, young voters, who today often feel alienated from politics and politicians, are getting closer to parliamentary politics.

In the use of new means of communication, the Senate is truly on solid ground. Besides the official web pages, which are appreciated by specialists, there are also youth pages and it goes without saying that we have had an active Facebook profile for quite some time. The majority of the Members of the Upper Chamber have a

75 personal profile, despite the fact that, as you know, Senators are usually over 40. YouTube is not forgotten; the Senate runs its own channel on it. Users may see video recordings of all the press conferences, recordings of major speeches of Senate representatives and reports from key events.

However, I have to add one important thing to what I have already mentioned. While the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is fully aware of the importance of social media when communicating with citizens, nevertheless it understands the role of communication as such. It should always be an objective and never a means. What is important is what we are communicating and what we can obtain for our work as legislators. Thank you for your attention.

The Lord Speaker Thank you. That brings us to the end of the formal presentations on this subject. I think that we have a variety of views. Not many of you would disagree with the fact that social media exist; they are there. Statistics show that they are used extensively and intensively. That is not going to stop. Therefore, the choice is ours as to whether we try to use the social media in our own interests or whether we bypass them. I strongly suspect that, apart from Mr Lombardi, we will decide that they need to be used in a way that has been described well by a number of the presentations. I am thinking in particular of what Monsieur Bel has said; there is clearly sophisticated use of social media in the interests of the Senate in France. I wonder whether people would now like to come in on points of discussion about social media. We have 10 or 15 minutes to do that, after which I will make a poor attempt to sum up and bring together, in some wonderful confection, the entire conference. Over to you.

Mr Filippo Lombardi, President of the Council of States of the Swiss Confederation (Translation.) Thank you, Lord Speaker. There are specific aspects of the new media compared to the traditional media. That is very clear. That said, the fundamental issue is a societal problem, which is pretty much independent of one or the other means of communication.

76 The issue is also about our Parliaments. The very names of our institutions present a particular risk. A Parliament is a place where you parlay, where you speak. In a society where the traditional media and now the new media multiply the different possibilities of speaking and the ways of communicating messages about different things, what capacity do we still have for listening? The risk of a Parliament is that everybody speaks but nobody listens. This is the problem of society. We have never communicated as much as we do today and yet we have never listened as little as we do today. We all have such a mass of information and so many influences that there is less time, fewer possibilities and even less ability to discern what is coming in in order to understand the message. This is a fundamental issue that we need to resolve in terms of understanding the developments of our society and of our Parliaments within our societies. In order to govern well, we need to be able not only to foresee and plan for the future, but to listen.

Social media may enable us to better listen to what is going in society, but we must have no illusions about their quality. By nature, they are not a statistical representation of what is going on in society. It is often the case that those who are most vocal are not necessarily representative of the majority. It was the same in the past. When people wrote to a newspaper, they were the particularly vocal people; 20 people would send letters to the editor left, right and centre and that was not necessarily representative of the general opinion. We need to have similar caution in terms of listening to the information but remembering that it does not have statistical value. If you have 10 or 20 bloggers who send a particular message, that does not represent 20% of the population. We need to use social media in the right way.

I have a final, slightly tongue-in-cheek observation. We have talked in the past about dictatorial regimes spending half of their budget to stop people expressing what they want to express and the other half trying to find out what they wanted to say. This is something that we need to implement. We need to have the capacity to listen on the one hand and also to be able to weigh up the different interests and positions that are represented in society. Thank you.

77 The Lord Speaker Who has some really penetrating aperçus about the debate?

Mr Fred de Graaf, President of the First Chamber of the States General of the Kingdom of the Netherlands I have a small remark. In general, I have noticed that knowledge of the mother tongue in the Netherlands is degrading with a very quick tempo. I am absolutely sure that this has a lot to do with the use of social media, the internet and so on. I read an article by an American female professor some months ago who had done some research on a population of younger people between 12 and 16 years old. One of her results was that when the youngsters were confronted with one another, person to person, they were barely able to communicate. In some instances, they took their phones and, while they were standing a metre apart, they were sending messages to one another. It is unbelievable, but it is happening today. That is a threat to communication in general.

The Lord Speaker I have to say that I agree with that.

Ms Olga Zrihen, Senator, Senate of the Kingdom of Belgium (Translation.) On social media, there is a very interesting field relating to music or works of art. Thanks to these media, there has been the possibility to discover artists who otherwise would not have been able to carry out certain types of production because they would have been lost in the masses. The mobilisation of all sorts of people to sustain this, even financially, really delights me.

The second point that I find important is that there is some democratic censure in social networks with respect to homophobic or anti-women positions. That censure is very stigmatising. Reactions can be very quick and very positive.

Some petitions gather a significant number of votes via the social media. We see that there is significant interpenetration of different countries and different worlds, especially with young people. Also at the European level, we have launched a citizens’

78 initiative through Mrs Reding. In the event that people, including young people, are interested in a proposal, if they can get 1 million votes from 27 member states, applying a degree of proportionality, one should not forget that by using social media the issue can be put on the agenda of the European Parliament.

What I am saying is that one cannot deny the power that this could have in the future. Of course, there is slippage and the unfortunate kind of continuous intimacy that people want to draw you into. Personally, I am quite shocked by the fact that social media can show ultrasounds of babies. That is not good in terms of image or intimacy and is leading us into areas where children should not be.

It is not good, either, that sometimes systems may provide false information. The problem with information is that as soon as it is stated, even if it is wrong, it can cause significant damage. The best recent example relates to Nelson Mandela. Last week, some people very quickly said that he had passed away, even though he is still receiving intensive care. Therefore, as politicians, we have to make sure that we do not get carried away by that kind of thing.

On the other hand—and I am part of the generation aged between 40 and 60, Mr Lombardi—it becomes difficult for us, but we have a culture of controlling our emotions and it may be that that is more important, keeping some distance and knowing when to intervene or not, to take part or not, while making sure that we do not expose ourselves to misuse.

Social media can be useful. However, when one provides information on the rate of inflation, the situation in Europe or an economic position, 20 or 25 people will be interested, whereas if you say that you have kissed Rihanna or whomever, I can tell you that you get a massive response. It is up to you to choose what is good for your publicity.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much. Mr Tadić?

79 Mr Ognjen Tadić, Speaker of the House of the Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Translation.) I will always remember 1980. In that year Josip Broz Tito died, which was very important for my country, and the computer came into my life—the first computers came into our countries. Since that time, until today, I have been witness to a constant dilemma—how to manage this area, this space. After almost 35 years—and I am talking about myself—I can see that still the biggest problem is the issue of the legitimacy of what is said through the social media. Lying or causing offence does not seem to carry the same weight as when you have direct communication. When it comes to internet communication, even decent people are ready to tell lies about other people or offend them. I am not trying to direct this discussion, but I want to send a message of advice to our colleagues. Perhaps cyberpoliticians should stop promoting lies about their colleagues, particularly their private lives. Perhaps that should be the first standard of behaviour when one considers Parliament’s attitude towards social media and the internet. Society as a whole will probably adopt that standard and the social networks could be friendly for us. Perhaps we would not be afraid of these networks any more.

The Lord Speaker Thank you very much for your comments. Does anyone have a view about how one can present a corporate image without getting involved in political statements? Is that desirable, or indeed possible? Again, I imagine that those Senates that have a very advanced system of communication and have adopted social media have developed a corporate image.

Mr Fred de Graaf, President of the First Chamber of the States General of the Kingdom of the Netherlands On the website of the Dutch Senate we constantly provide information about what is going on, but it is objective, non-political and so on. Everyone has access to the website and can react to it. The image of your institution is very important in deciding in what way you are going to use social media, especially the internet. An objective picture of what is going on is very important. Sometimes we have had comments from Senators that they thought our civil servants were adding political content to the messages on the internet. We corrected that and said, “No, if you

80 cite what one of the Senators said, do it exactly. It is their speech and you mustn’t make an interpretation of it. You cannot shorten it or whatever”. You must be careful to be objective because it is the image of your institution.

The Lord Speaker But I assume that that is very difficult to achieve via Twitter.

Mr Fred de Graaf, President of the First Chamber of the States General of the Kingdom of the Netherlands That is correct. We are rather hesitant and reluctant to engage with Twitter, but sometimes you cannot avoid it. Of course we receive Twitter messages, but we are very cautious about reacting immediately to them.

The Lord Speaker As a body?

Mr Fred de Graaf, President of the First Chamber of the States General of the Kingdom of the Netherlands As a body, yes.

The Lord Speaker Are there any other comments that people would like to add? Then let me spend a very few minutes in trying to highlight some of the issues that have come up this morning and this afternoon.

I do not think that we necessarily have solutions, but it has been a pretty rich discussion, simply because, in the English aphorism, there are many ways to skin a cat. There are many different ways in which Senates can interact with their opposite Houses. One of the issues that came up time and again in your presentations was the questioning of the value and role of the Upper Houses or Senates. I was talking to the Romanian press representative earlier and I know that in many of your countries there is huge discussion about whether or not Senates provide value for money and whether they should be abolished. I cannot remember who it was—I think it may

81 have been Mr Borusewicz—who turned the tables around and said to those critics of his Senate, “Well, why not abolish the Lower House and keep the Senate?” In many of our cases that probably would not work too well.

The functions of the Senates are largely similar in the various presentations that we have heard, in that they are essentially revising and scrutinising bodies. The amount of power that the Senates have in different countries varies enormously. In the case of the House of Lords, for example, we do not have the power of veto but we have the power of delay. On the whole, it seems to me that the way in which Senates have emerged in Europe, in those countries that have bicameral Parliaments, is that the Senates are usually less powerful than the Lower Houses, if I can call them that. Of course, that depends to a large extent on the way in which the Senates are composed, and I thought that this came up in nearly everyone’s presentation— whether or not Members were appointed, elected or a mixture of both; whether they represented regions; whether they were full-time and professional or whether they were part-time; and whether they represented particular constituencies, in the sense that they were experts included in the Senates who brought their expertise to bear on the draft legislation before them.

It is fair to say that form should ideally follow function and, once functions have been defined, the form can be decided. Many of you will know that there is a great deal of debate and discussion here in the UK, as I touched on in my discussion, about the function—well, perhaps not so much the function, because people are generally not very knowledgeable about that, but certainly the form—of the House of Lords. As you know, we are an appointed House. In that sense, we are perhaps closer to some of you who have made presentations whose Houses—such as in the Dutch case, which is elected but is a part-time job, with Members having full-time jobs outside— have Members who therefore bring a kind of life other than politics to bear and bring expertise into the House. In a sense, that can be a strength, but it can also be a weakness.

A House of Lords Reform Bill has been on the way for the past 100 years or so, but the most recent version was about two or three months ago. The reason why it

82 failed was that there was a sudden realisation that if the powers of two Houses were equal—that is, both were elected and had equal powers—without having evolved sufficient adequate mechanisms to deal with conflict, there would be a stalemate in the legislative process. That was rather worrying to the people we refer to as being “down the other end of the Corridor”, in the House of Commons.

That also brought up a lot of discussion about the different ways in which conflict between the two Houses is resolved. There are many different ways in which that occurs, but it strikes me that most of you talked about systems that had evolved over time and have become well entrenched and were therefore not necessarily questioned by everyone, so that you did not get a stalemate in the parliamentary or legislative process. One person suggested that, if there was conflict between the two Houses, the Government itself should mediate. I am not convinced of that.

Another issue that came up was the politicisation of the two Houses—whether the Upper Chamber, or Senate, should be engaged in politics with a small “p” rather than a big “P”. Again, that certainly reflects more closely what happens in the House of Lords. It is a much less party-political House, driven rather more by issues than by party-political considerations. It seems to me that having that degree of distance is important. The Federation Council in Russia is almost entirely non-political. It is a way of representing the regions, so the regions’ views come into play in the political process, not the party politics. That is an interesting variation on the way in which Senates can be composed, consisted and established.

In those Senates where there is a representative role, this question is raised: representative of whom? If one is elected on a party list by proportional representation, that is one method of representation. If it is on a regional basis, that is another mechanism, although they might often coincide to some extent. If those in the Senate who have responsibility for revising legislation represent various constituencies within the wider community—maybe the academic community, the medical community, the trades unions, business and whatever it might be—that is a thematic representation. There is obviously a mixture of all those things in many of your Parliaments.

83

Something that came up time and again is that Senates feel the need to justify their existence because they are often criticised. To that end, the question came up whether we should have stronger bicameral get-togethers of the Senates in order to strengthen our hand. The question then arises as to whether bicameral Parliaments are well established and entrenched in Europe, or whether they are a diminishing institution. If they are a diminishing institution, is there anything that this congregation would like to do about it, making our European partnerships stronger?

We move, then, on to the opportunities and constraints on the use of social media. Again, to repeat the obvious, social media exist. They are used hugely and increasingly, almost exclusively by the younger generation but by others as well. Most Parliaments and Senates have accepted that and have adapted to it, in the sense of trying to make the parliamentary process in the Senate much more accessible to a wider public. There are various ways in which we can do that.

The risks that were raised by many people around the table were well recognised, and are indeed real. The one that has most resonance for me is this unfortunate picture of two young people, standing 2 metres away from each other, communicating via an electronic medium. You may well have the experience among you or your children or grandchildren sitting with the family of an evening with the television on, but with their phone beside them and their laptops in front of them. They feel completely naked unless they are covered by all forms of electronic media. That is unfortunate. However, one will fly in the face of majority rule if one tries to stop that. The onus on us is to ensure that, in a parliamentary sense, the often very good message that we have is as attractive as possible to the wider public and that we can convey it regularly.

Another question that came up was whether the views expressed on social media, particularly on Twitter, which is a powerful and potent organising mechanism, truly represent the views of a population. Again, it was said by me and Mr Lombardi that they do not. They are used by a specific sector of the population and do not reflect it entirely. It is therefore a kind of illusion if one feels that same-sex marriage is

84 either good or bad as reflected in Twitter messages. That is a not a true reflection of what the community feels, in part because nothing is ever quite as black and white as Twitter likes to make it. We are all, of course, intimately aware of that. It does not necessarily reflect opinion, but that does not mean that we should not continue to try to use and improve social media.

Many other strands have come up and it would be arrogant of me to try to sum up and say, “This is what we have arrived at”. This is not a conference where we have a communiqué, thank goodness. We all have our views and we all share our experiences. We are good friends, and becoming increasingly so.

We are extremely grateful to the Russian delegation for offering to host the next meeting of the Association of European Senates in Russia next year. We look forward to that enormously. I have heard a slight rumour that we may be able to get to Slovenia in due course, perhaps for the year after that, which would be wonderful.

Mr Fred de Graaf, President of the First Chamber of the States General of the Kingdom of the Netherlands The year 2015 is already reserved for the Netherlands, because we are celebrating 200 years of the Senate.

The Lord Speaker I am very sorry, Slovenia, but you are going to have to wait. I apologise. I look forward to that enormously. Thank you very much indeed.

Thank you so much, all of you, for coming—indeed, not only for coming but, for many of you, for staying. I thought that it was perhaps going to be me talking to myself this afternoon, so that is very nice of you. I appreciate it. It is lovely to get to know you better. Long may it continue. I suggest that you now come and have tea or champagne, preferably both, before having a tour of the Houses of Parliament. God speed. Have a safe journey.

The meeting ended at 4.07 pm.

85