NATOs Parlamentariske Forsamling 2009-10 NPA alm. del Bilag 28 Offentligt

STANDING COMMITTEE

155 SC 10 E Original: English

NATO Parliamentary Assembly

SUMMARY

of the meeting of the Standing Committee Hall C, Kipsala International Exhibition Centre Riga, Latvia

Monday 31 May 2010

International Secretariat June 2010 155 SC 10 E i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Attendance List ii

1. Opening of the Proceedings 1

2. Adoption of the Draft Agenda [129 SC 10 E] 1

3. Adoption of the Summary of the Standing Committee Meeting held in 1 Memphis, on Saturday 27 and Sunday 28 March 2010 [127 SC 10 E]

4 Organization of the Plenary Sitting to be held on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 1

5. Activities in 2010 and Perspectives on 2011 [125 SC 10 E] 1

6. Finance 2

7. Future sessions and meetings 3

8. Miscellaneous 4 155 SC 10 E ii

ATTENDANCE LIST

President John TANNER (United States)

Vice-Presidents Assen AGOV (Bulgaria) Jane CORDY (Canada) Jean Michel BOUCHERON (France) Sven MIKSER (Estonia) Hendrik Jan ORMEL (Netherlands)

Treasurer Pierre Claude NOLIN (Canada)

Former President José LELLO (Portugal)

Former Vice-Presidents Karl A. LAMERS (Germany) Bruce GEORGE ()

Secretary General David HOBBS

MEMBERS AND ALTERNATE MEMBERS

Albania Leonard DEMI Gent STRAZIMIRI Belgium Yolande AVONDTROODT Bulgaria Dobroslav DIMITROV Canada Jane CORDY Croatia Kresimir COSIC Czech Republic Jiri ZAK Denmark Helge Adam MØLLER John Dyrby PAULSEN Estonia Mati RAIDMA Sven MIKSER France Josselin de ROHAN Germany Karl A. LAMERS Ursula SCHMIDT Greece Eftychios DAMIANAKIS Hungary Not represented Iceland Not represented Italy Not represented Latvia Vaira PAEGLE Lithuania Andrius MAZURONIS Luxembourg Marc ANGEL Netherlands Hendrik Jan ORMEL Simon van DRIEL Norway Erna SOLBERG Marit NYBAKK Poland Wladyslaw SIDOROWICZ Portugal José LELLO José Luis ARNAUT Sever VOINESCU-COTOI Slovakia Jan KOVARCIK Slovenia Branko GRIMS Spain Jesus CUADRADO Ramon ALEU Turkey Vahit ERDEM Yahya DOGAN 155 SC 10 E iii

United Kingdom Bruce GEORGE Lord JOPLING United States John TANNER Dennis MOORE David SCOTT

COMMITTEE CHAIRS

Defence and Security Julio MIRANDA CALHA (Portugal) Economics and Security Hugh BAYLEY (United Kingdom) Political Karl A. LAMERS (Germany) Science and Technology Michael MATES (United Kingdom) Mediterranean and Middle East Vahit ERDEM (Turkey) Special Group

SECRETARIES OF DELEGATION

Albania Dritan DELIJA Belgium Frans van MELKEBEKE Bulgaria Borislav PENCHEV Canada Jim LATIMER Croatia Maroje KATALINIC Czech Republic Iva MASARIKOVA Denmark Flemming Kordt HANSEN Estonia Tania ESPE France Frédéric TAILLET (Assemblée nationale) Etienne SALLENAVE (Sénat) Germany Claudia RATHJEN (Bundestag) Annemarie BÜRSCH (Bundesrat) Greece Vassiliki IOANNIDOU Hungary Karoly TÜZES Iceland Stigur STEFANSSON Italy Alessandra LAI Latvia Sandra PAURA Lithuania Snieguole ZIUKAITE Luxembourg Pia BISENIUS Netherlands Arjen WESTERHOFF Norway Atle Konta MIDTTUN Poland Michal GARGANISZ Portugal Patricia GRAVE Romania Irina BOJIN Slovakia Jarmila NOVAKOVA Slovenia Tamara GRUDEN-PECAN Spain Mercedes ARAUJO Turkey Yesim USLU United Kingdom Sarah IOANNOU (incoming) Libby HAMMOND (outgoing) United States Melissa ADAMSON

ACCOMPANYING THE DELEGATIONS

Belgium Patrick DELODDER France Sylvie BIZZOZZERO Greece Christina DIMITROU Italy Pia CALIFANO Netherlands Wilma KOOIJMAN 155 SC 10 E iv

Poland Grzegorz KOWAL Agata WOJCIESZEK Barbara WRONSKA Spain Jozefina MENDEZ United States Kathy BECKER Paul BELKIN Tom SHUBERT GUESTS Wieslaw KURZYCA, Member, NATO International Board of Auditors

INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT Robert ADAMEK Andrius AVIZIUS Sébastien BOTELLA Helen CADWALLENDER Roberta CALORIO Paul COOK Christine HEFFINCK Mike HENNESSY Dominique GINS Susan MILLAR Jacqueline PFORR Ruxandra POPA Gill RAWLING Steffen SACHS Zachary SELDEN Alex TIERSKY Vincent VIVES Claire WATKINS 155 SC 10 E 1

1. Opening of the proceedings

The President opened the meeting at 9:05 and gave the floor to Vaira Paegle (LV). She thanked the staff of the Latvian parliament for all of their work in arranging a successful session.

2. Adoption of the draft Agenda [129 SC 10 E]

The agenda was adopted.

3. Adoption of the Summary of the Standing Committee Meeting held in Memphis, United States, on Saturday 27 and Sunday 28 March 2010 [127 SC 10 E]

The summary of the previous Standing Committee meeting in Memphis was adopted.

4. Organization of the Plenary Sitting to be held on Tuesday, 1 June 2010

The President announced that there would be a minute of silence in remembrance of the victims of the air disaster at Smolensk that claimed the lives of many of Poland’s political leaders. The President asked the head of the delegation of Poland to comment. Wladyslaw Sidorowicz (PL) thanked the members and stated that the disaster was still under investigation.

5. Activities in 2010 and Perspectives on 2011 [125 SC 10 E]

The Secretary General, David Hobbs, noted some changes to the proposed activities for 2010. The New Parliamentarians Programme scheduled for July will be postponed because most high-level NATO officials are unavailable at that time. Rather than have the programme participants meet with relatively low level officials, the Secretary General decided that it would be better to postpone the programme until the appropriate individuals could attend.

The Secretary General also stated that another visit to Afghanistan is likely to be arranged for sometime in the autumn of 2010.

The Secretary General then raised the question of “streamlining” the activities of the Assembly for 2011. Several delegation leaders had expressed concern about the duration of sessions and had also indicated that their delegations had to limit their participation in other activities. This was not simply a desire to reduce the costs borne by member delegations; it was also a matter of the demands made upon members’ time, and how participation in Assembly activities might be misperceived domestically.

Regarding activities, the Secretary General explained that the overall number could be reduced by combining events such that Sub-committees might hold joint meetings or be associated with seminars. The Secretary General said that the International Secretariat would seek to increase the proportion of joint activities unless the Standing Committee directed otherwise.

As for Sessions, these could be shortened in variety of ways, most obviously by eliminating the traditional excursion. This matter had been discussion extensively in early 2009 but circumstances had changed since then, and several delegations had told him that the length of sessions was a real problem. For instance, during an annual session, some members would have a day and a half with no formal commitments between the end of their committee meeting and the start of the plenary sitting. This was not only an additional expense but also a political liability for some members. 155 SC 10 E 2

It would be useful for the Standing Committee to provide guidance on this matter for future Session hosts.

José Lello (PT) said that there was a clear mood in the Assembly to economize, but that we should not change the core business of the Assembly. He stressed that the Standing Committee should not make decisions based on rumours and that an open discussion today would ensure that the Standing Committee was not be being guided by a vocal minority.

Erna Solberg (NO) agreed with the Secretary General’s assessment and added that it was difficult for the Norwegian delegation to travel for long periods of time. She believed that the current session arrangements would pressure some delegates to leave before the plenary. She explained that shorter sessions would be better because voters demand efficiency in the current economic climate.

Pierre Claude Nolin (CA) stated that Canada plans to cut its delegation’s budget by one-third and that the Assembly cannot continue with business as usual. Bruce George (UK) noted the high degree of public scrutiny of parliamentary expenses and stressed that the Assembly should act quickly to demonstrate its sensitivity to the issue. Jane Cordy (CA) noted the importance of public perceptions of expenditures for Assembly activities and stressed that it is important for political leaders to set an example of budgetary restraint. Vahit Erdem (TR) said that there is room for rationalization of Assembly activities without sacrificing substance. The Working Group on Assembly Reform had looked at these issues previously and could return to them for further consideration at its next meeting which was provisionally scheduled for 25 September.

Ms. Paegle described how Latvia was able to improve public perceptions of the expenditures for the Riga session by underlining how the funds spent remained in the country and helped to boost the local economy.

Karl Lamers (DE) agreed with the suggestion that the Working Group on Assembly Reform should study the issue. There should be more joint visits and a reduction in the duration of sessions. This would send the right message in today’s climate.

The Secretary General concluded by saying that he understood Mr Lello’s concern that changes should be based on a proper assessment of the prevailing views and that had been the reason for placing this matter before the Standing Committee. On the basis of views expressed in the meeting and in other conversations during the Session, he was convinced that a strong majority favoured shorter sessions and fewer activities. He would therefore seek to produce a draft programme of activities for 2011 which would be condensed by greater emphasis on joint meetings. He would also work closely with future session hosts to explore all the options for reducing the duration of sessions.

6. Finance:

 Draft Report by the Treasurer on the results of the Financial Year 2009 and of the current Financial Year [119 FIN 10 E]  Report of the NATO Board of Auditors on the Financial Audit of the Accounts of the NATO PA for the Financial Year 2009 [120 FIN 10 E] presented by Wieslaw Kurzyca, Member of the International Board of Auditors for NATO  Letter of Representation [028 SC 10 E]  Statement on Internal Controls [027 SC 10 E]  Audited Financial Statements at 31 December 2009 [014 FIN 10 E bis]  Audited Provident Fund Financial Statements for 2009 [012 FIN 10 E]  Draft budget for 2011 [118 FIN 10 E]

Treasurer Pierre Claude Nolin introduced Wieslaw Kurzyca of the International Board of Auditors at NATO to present his report on the audit of the Assembly’s finances. 155 SC 10 E 3

Mr. Kurzyca gave an unqualified opinion that the NATO PA accounts fairly represent the state of the organization’s finances and are in compliance in all significant aspects with the financial regulations. Issues that were raised in previous audits have been resolved. He offered two suggestions for the future. The first is that it would be useful to include a cash flow statement in the financial statements. The second is to provide more information in the financial rules on the accounting principles used by the NATO PA

Mr Nolin presented the draft budget to be adopted in November in Warsaw. He called for a 1.15% increase and noted that inflation in Belgium is projected to be 2% in 2010. He said that the draft would be reviewed before Warsaw to take account of any changes in the projected rate of inflation and possibly new session formats for next year.

Lord Jopling (UK) asked if it would be possible to freeze the budget given the current financial pressures and use the reserves to make up the difference.

Mr Nolin replied that this had been done in the past and that it took years for the Assembly to recover from the budgetary freeze. The Assembly is obligated under Belgian law to increase the salaries of its employees according to the inflation index. Therefore, Mr. Nolin explained, it is prudent to have a small increase now or the Assembly will simply create a larger financial problem for itself in the coming years.

The Secretary General underscored Mr Nolin’s point noting that if reserves were used to pay mandatory salary increases due to inflation, when the reserves were no longer available, the budget would have to rise in one leap to the new real level. In other words, it would be necessary in some future year to have budget increase well above the prevailing level of inflation.

Mr Nolin added that he was attempting to increase the salaries of the International Secretariat whenever possible to make them more comparable with NATO staff salaries. In his opinion the quality of the Assembly staff was high, but they are paid considerably less than their counterparts at NATO.

7. Future sessions and meetings

 Sessions and Meetings from 2010 [018 GEN 10 E rev. 1]  56th Annual Session, Warsaw, Poland, 12-16 November 2010 [079 SESA 10 E rev. 1]  Meeting of the Standing Committee, Ponta Delgada, San Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal, 1-3 April 2011  Spring Session, Varna, Bulgaria, 27 - 31 May 2011  57th Annual Session, , Romania, 7 - 11 October 2011

Mr. Sidorowicz presented a brief video of Warsaw and outlined the plans for the upcoming Annual Session. He noted that all the meetings for the session will be held in the parliamentary buildings in Warsaw.

Mr. Lello said that plans for the Standing Committee meeting in Portugal in 2011 were proceeding.

Jan Hendrik Ormel (NL) asked if it would be possible to change the location of the Standing Committee meeting in Portugal from the Azores islands to Lisbon. He noted that this would reduce the travel time as well as the expense to the participants and the host. Lord Jopling agreed with Mr. Ormel’s suggestion adding that it is difficult to justify to the public why it is necessary to travel to the Azores islands for a one-day meeting and asked the delegation of Portugal to consider moving the venue to Lisbon. 155 SC 10 E 4

Mr. Lello responded that the venue of the meeting is to be decided by the host country and that Portugal had decided to hold the meeting in the Azores islands. He noted that the UK decided to hold the Annual Session in Edinburgh even though London would have been more convenient for most delegations.

Dobroslav Dimitrov (BG) discussed the Bulgarian delegation’s plans for the Spring Session in Varna, Bulgaria and noted that the current session in Riga set a high standard. Mr. Dimitrov said that they had originally planned to offer an excursion, but after the discussion in the Standing Committee, the Bulgarian delegation would consider cutting the excursion from the programme.

Sever Voinescu-Cotoi (RO) discussed the 2011 Annual Session to be held in Bucharest. He said that the parliament building was large enough to hold all of the meetings for the session and he was looking forward to a new format for sessions as Romania is facing budget restrictions.

Julio Miranda Calha (PT) said that it would be possible to hold all the entire session over a two- day period in Romania. The Delegation Secretaries could meet for an hour at the beginning of the first day, followed by meetings of the political groups. The five Committees could then meet until the end of the day. The Standing Committee would meet during the morning of the next day and the plenary sitting would take place during that afternoon. Any excursion could take place on the third day for those who wished to participate.

Mr Nolin pointed out that there were practical difficulties associated with holding five meetings simultaneously but the Working Group would examine alternative session structures in detail at its next meeting.

8. Miscellaneous

The President noted that Bruce George and Michael Mates had not sought re-election to the UK parliament and would therefore be leaving the delegation. He thanked them both for their invaluable contributions to the work of the Assembly.

Lord Jopling noted that with the upcoming closure of the Western European Union Parliamentary Assembly (WEU PA), there would be no parliamentary oversight of the development of the European Union’s defence and security policy. He said that this might be achieved by attaching oversight of EU defence issues to the NATO PA. He therefore asked if the Bureau and the International Secretariat could be asked to study how scrutiny of EU defence policy might somehow be attached to the NATO PA.

Josselin de Rohan (FR) disagreed with Lord Jopling, stating that this is a European issue and a transatlantic body such as the NATO PA is not the appropriate venue for parliamentary oversight of any aspect of the EU. Marit Nybakk and Julio Miranda Calha agreed with Mr. de Rohan.

______