Introduction

The Technical Sub Group on the Assembly of Caribbean Community Parliamentarians (ACCP) was established by Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, in his capacity as Chairman of the Prime Ministerial Expert Group, which was mandated by the Heads of Government at their twenty fourth meeting held in Montego Bay from July 5 - 7, 2003, to follow up on the decisions adopted by that meeting on various aspects of Regional Governance. The mandate of the Technical Sub-Group on the ACCP is to examine the functioning of the Assembly with a view to recommending possible changes that could enhance the effectiveness of the regional parliamentary process thereby contributing to the furtherance of democracy and good governance in the context of a maturing regionalism.

Background to the Establishment of the ACCP

The Assembly of Caribbean Community Parliamentarians (ACCP) was established in 1994, as an instrument to foster greater involvement of the people of the region in the integration movement in recognition of the fact that such involvement is central to the success of the movement.

Provisions of the Agreement Establishing the Assembly

The Agreement establishing the Assembly contains a number of specific provisions dealing with its membership; objectives; functions and powers; periodicity and structure of its meetings as well as their organization and management.

The main principles reflected in these provisions may be summarized as follows:

(i)      The Assembly, which, among other things, serves as a forum for the people of the Community to make their views known, is a deliberative and consultative forum as opposed to a legislative and decision making body, for the discussion of policies, programmes and other matters falling within the scope of the treaty. In this context, it makes, inter alia recommendations to the Conference, the Council, Institutions, Associate Institutions and the Secretariat; discusses and makes recommendations on any matter within the scope of the objective of the Community; discusses and makes recommendations on any matter referred to it by the Conference, the Council or any institution or Associate Institution; and adopts resolutions on any issue or matter arising under the Treaty.

(ii)      Representation in the Assembly is provided by representatives of Member States and Associate Members elected by their Parliaments or appointed in such a manner from their membership as the Parliaments shall decide. This provision is premised on the notion that the involvement of the people of the Community in the Assembly would be effected through their representatives in Parliament.

(iii)      Its membership comprises up to four (4) representatives from each Member State and up to two (2) representatives from each Associate Member. Provision is nevertheless made for alternates to speak and vote in the Assembly in the absence of members for whom they are appointed.

(iv)      The definition of observers is limited to representatives of non-Member States or non-Associate members of the Community;

(v)      Matters of domestic concern are specifically excluded from the deliberations of the Assembly;

(vi)      Meetings of the Assembly are to be held once a year based on the principle of rotation among Member States and Associate Members, although other meetings may be convened by the speaker, provided a majority of the Assembly so decides.

(vii)      The quorum for meetings is established on the basis of one third of the representatives of member states;

(viii)      Meetings are to be conducted in public

(ix)      The election of the Speaker of the Assembly takes place at each meeting and his/her term continues until the election of a new speaker at the subsequent meeting of the Assembly;

(x)      The Clerk of the host country Parliament is appointed as the Clerk of the Assembly;

(xi)      A senior official of the Caricom Secretariat is designated to assist in the work of the Assembly and to liaise with the principal organs, institutions, associate institutions and other bodies of the Community in relation to the deliberations of the Assembly.

Meetings of the Assembly

Since its establishment in 1994, the Assembly has held three meetings in Barbados (1996); Grenada (1999); and Belize (2000). Following the Belize meeting, the government of Dominica had expressed an interest in hosting the fourth meeting of the Assembly but the September 11, 2001 event and the subsequent economic difficulties experienced by that country have made it difficult for it to do so. Consequently, plans are currently being made to convene the next meeting of the Assembly in St. Lucia.

Problems Experienced by the Assembly

A review of the operation of the Assembly suggests that it has encountered a number of problems which have prevented it from functioning optimally.

First, while it is stipulated that the Assembly should meet annually, the cost of hosting the Assembly (estimated at US$25,000 - US$30,000) as well as the cost of participation by Member States and Associate Members has operated as a major constraint.

Although the representatives of Member States and Associate Members are expected to play an active role in preparing the order paper for meetings of the Assembly, the CARICOM Secretariat has experienced some difficulty in obtaining these inputs. Even when the Secretariat takes the initiative in submitting suggestions on the subject, feedback is not always forthcoming. Moreover, seeing that the various papers for the meeting of the Assembly are prepared by the Secretariat, representatives are sometimes not comfortable speaking to the issues addressed in the papers because of the lack of knowledge in the various subject areas, which emphasizes the need for delegations to ensure, where feasible, that they possess a wide range of expertise and experience in order to deal with the subjects on the agenda. However, given the limited resources available to some governments, the Secretariat will need to continue to play an active supporting role in the organisation and management of meetings of the Assembly.

In recognition of some weaknesses in the functioning of the Assembly, it was proposed that support should be sought for the establishment of an ACCP Research Centre in order to develop an appropriate research capability in respect of issues such as governance, human rights, parliamentary practice, regional integration as well as overall development concerns and the establishment of a database utilizing modern electronic technology. A project document on the subject was prepared by a UNDP consultant for possible funding under the UNDP Caribbean Regional Programme but could not be advanced at the time for reasons of sustainability. However, while the proposal is interesting it should ideally be made contingent on the prior rationalization of the basic functions of the Assembly.

Similarly, while the original Agreement does not specifically mention opposition members of Parliament as participants in the Assembly, opposition parliamentarians have participated in national delegations to the Assembly, This participation was reinforced by the Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community at their Eleventh Intersessional Meeting held in St. Kitts and Nevis in March 2003 when they agreed that 'the Assembly of Caribbean Community Parliamentarians (ACCP) was an appropriate institution through which Opposition Leaders would be able to meet and discuss issues critical to the Region's development'.

Of special concern is the fact that the current procedures for appointing the Speaker of the Assembly, which stipulate that the Speaker should be elected at each meeting of the Assembly and should hold office until the election of a new Speaker at the next meeting, has created some confusion in respect of the preparations to be made for convening meetings of the Assembly since in accordance with the existing provision the incumbent speaker is legally responsible for making preparations for the meeting even though in reality the prospective host country would need to play an active role in the process.

Finally, the limited definition of the category of observers in the agreement together with the assertion of the principle of participation through elected representatives in Parliament, has prevented genuine popular participation in the work of the Assembly.

Proposed Revision of the Standing Orders of the Assembly and the Agreement Establishing It

At its inaugural meeting held in Barbados in 1996, the Assembly adopted Standing Orders which were based essentially on those governing the operation of a national Assembly. However, in recognition of the shortcomings of doing so, at its second meeting held in 1999 the Assembly appointed a three member Committee (comprising representatives from Barbados, Dominica and Trinidad and Tobago) to examine the Standing Orders and to report to the next meeting of the Assembly.

The Committee which met at the CARICOM Secretariat in Georgetown, Guyana, in October 2000 (just prior to the third meeting of the Assembly in Belize) concluded that the Standing Orders adopted at the first meeting of the Assembly were more suited to a national Assembly than a regional body such as the ACCP and therefore made a number of important recommendations for amending the Standing Orders and, consequently, the Agreement establishing the Assembly.

Specifically, the Committee recommended changes in the procedure for selecting the Speaker of the Assembly; the appointment of a Deputy Speaker of the Assembly; an expansion of the definition of the category of 'observers', modifications in the membership of the Business Committee which it considered too large in terms of its current composition; modifications in the procedure for appointing select Committees; the establishment of a Standing Committee to review the Standing Orders from time to time; and the appointment of a Finance Committee to seek funding for the Assembly and to make recommendations from time to time relating to the financing of the Assembly.

In respect of the procedure for amendment of the Standing Orders and the Agreement establishing the Assembly, the Committee noted that the provisions of Article 13 of the Agreement required that a proposal for amendment of the Agreement adopted by a majority of the representatives present and voting and representing three fourths of the Parties to the Agreement, if approved by the Conference of Heads of Government, would be subject to ratification or acceptance by the parties to the Agreement. Such amendment would enter into force thirty days after the deposit of the instrument of Ratification or Acceptance with the Secretary General of CARICOM. However, given the time it would take to effect amendments to the Agreement and the Standing Orders, the Committee recommended that the Assembly might wish to consider suspending the Standing Orders in relation to specific amendments in order to give effect to the proposed amendments which are found acceptable. In addition, it was felt by the Committee that in cases where a proposed amendment to the standing orders was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Agreement, the amendment, if found acceptable, could be adopted by a majority of representatives of the Assembly present and voting.

The report of the Review Committee on the Standing Orders was tabled for discussion at the third meeting of the Assembly held in 2000. However, since the actual representation of Parliamentarians at the Georgetown meeting was quite limited and bearing in mind that the Committee was in fact chaired by the Legal Adviser in the Caricom Secretariat, the Assembly decided that its recommendations should be reviewed by a Committee comprising a larger number of Parliamentarians. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to convene a meeting of the proposed enlarged Committee.

Recommendations of the Technical Sub-Group Aimed at Ensuring the More Effective Functioning of the Assembly

Based on the analysis of the problems facing the Assembly and taking into account the recommendations of the Review Committee on the Standing Orders, with which we are in basic agreement, the Technical Sub-Group on the ACCP would like to make the following recommendations aimed at ensuring the more effective operation of the Assembly:

(i)      the Speaker of the Parliament of the Host Country should be elected Speaker of the Assembly and should function in that capacity until his/her report on the proceedings of the Assembly chaired by him/her is submitted to the Secretary General of CARICOM which should be done within three months from the date of conclusion of the Assembly.

(ii)      The appointment of a Deputy Speaker of the Assembly who should be the Deputy Speaker of the Parliament of the host country and, who should serve for the same period as the Speaker. Neither the Speaker nor the Deputy Speaker should have a casting vote and in the event of a tie in the voting in the Assembly the motion in question should be rejected.

(iii)      The membership of the Assembly should be as follows:

(a)      Up to four (4) representatives from each Member State;

(b)      Up to two (2) representatives from each Associate Member

(c)      Observers

Notwithstanding the reservation expressed on the issue of Observers at the inaugural meeting of the Assembly, the observers category should be expanded to include not only representatives from non Member States and non Associate Members but also institutions of the Community; non governmental organizations; and international, regional and national bodies. In the case of NGOs, it is recommended that in cases where an umbrella NGO organization exists, the NGO representative should be selected by that body. In cases where no umbrella organization exists, the selection of the NGO representative should be done by the government in consultation with the NGOs concerned. An extract from the Report of the Inaugural Meeting of the ACCP held in Barbados in 1996 which summarises the discussion of the motion to consider a proposal for Caribbean Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to be granted Observer status in the ACCP is attached as an Annex for information.

Bearing in mind the decision of the Heads of Government to include opposition parliamentarians in the work of the Assembly, it is proposed that at least one opposition parliamentarian, selected by the government in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition should be included in national delegations. In cases where there is more than one Opposition Party, selection of a representative from the opposition parties should be based on the advice of the Leader of the main Opposition Party.

(iv)      the Assembly should adhere to the provisions of the ACCP Agreement to meet annually on the understanding that other meetings could be convened by the Speaker if a majority of the Assembly so decides.

(v)      The Assembly should continue to be a deliberative and consultative body exercising the responsibilities and functions set out in the original agreement. It is recommended however that should the proposed Caricom Commission or other executive mechanisms be elaborated, the Assembly should be provided an opportunity to comment on recommendations emanating from such a Commission or executive mechanism.

(vi)      Having regard to the difficulties experienced in convening meetings of the Assembly, it is recommended that a special provision be made in a separate line in the Secretariat's budget to fund meetings of the Assembly. However, one member of the Group proposed that financing of the meetings of the Assembly could be met from a fund financed from the proceeds of a $0.10c tax on the sale of every airline ticket by regional carriers.

(vii)      Meetings of the Assembly should be timed to capitalize on the convening of regional meetings of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA).

In addition to the abovementioned recommendations some members expressed the view that consideration should be given to changing the name of the Assembly to the CARICOM Assembly. However, others felt that the current name of the Assembly should be retained. In the circumstances, there was no consensus on the issue.

One area in which some additional ideas were advanced relates to the possible upgrading of the status and functions of the Assembly. Although no definitive conclusions were arrived at on the subject, the ideas advanced are considered sufficiently important to warrant mention in the report.

In this regard, some members of the Sub-Group expressed the view that a central weakness of the existing structure of the Assembly is the lack of legal clarity and force necessary to make it a credible and legally respectable agent in regional decision-making. It was felt that unless this was remedied the perception and perhaps the reality, that the Assembly is merely a 'talk shop' would continue. For this reason, it was suggested that the Assembly should be given functions and responsibilities that are juridically reviewable by our regional court since this will enhance its juridical nature and its deliberations and will integrate it more fully into the correspondingly widening role being envisaged for regional institutions. Moreover, on the assumption that the judicial arm will be reconfigured in the form of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and that executive powers will be exercised by the proposed Commission, there are good arguments for enhancing the role of the Assembly to complete the overall architecture of the structure of regional governance.

In advancing these ideas, it was pointed out that nothing as far reaching as the functions and responsibilities of the European Parliament was being proposed. However, it was felt by some members of the Sub-Group that legally enforceable powers in respect of consultations, recommendations, notice, etc. would serve the purpose described without in any way giving the Assembly a veto over decision making.

In seeking to identify possible new areas in which the Assembly could exercise its consultative functions it was proposed by some members of the Sub-Group that consideration might be given to the following:

(i)      the right to be notified (within strict time limits) of certain proposed appointments/decisions (e.g the appointment of the members of the proposed Commission;

(ii)      the power to make recommendations (within strict time limits) to the Conference regarding certain proposed appointments/decisions;

(iii)      the right to debate and make recommendations to Conference in respect of certain multilateral treaties prior to their acceptance by Caricom member states.

(iv)      the right to make recommendations on certain budgetary matters (e.g. contributions from member states; amounts to be spent on certain regional activities); and

(v)      the specific power to make recommendations in respect of matters of clear regional import ( e.g. the protection of the Caribbean Sea from risks posed by the transshipment of plutonium).

In carrying out these responsibilities the Assembly would make its determination by way of resolution for which a simple majority should be sufficient, although it is conceivable that, in exceptional cases, a qualified majority might be required for the passage of some resolutions.

It was felt that the advantage in enhancing the consultative role of the Assembly in this way was that its agenda would be set largely by the legal requirements to discharge this role in relation to regional policy making. The Standing Orders provide that the Business Committee shall invite the Clerks of the respective Parliaments of Member States and Associate Members of the Community to submit items for inclusion in the Order Paper. The Business Committee would have greater clarity on the range of issues that may be included in the Order Paper. This would be preferable to the Secretariat setting the agenda for the Assembly.

In advancing these proposals it was recognised that the Assembly should normally meet annually, although, as was noted earlier in the Report, other meetings could be arranged provided the members so agree. The periodicity of annual meetings, however, might prevent the Assembly from acting with the urgency that would be required to deal with certain issues and that this might therefore cause delays which could have a negative impact on regional decision-making. For this reason the proposals advanced by some members of the Sub-Group will clearly require further study in order to determine their feasibility.

The Sub-Group feels that the recommendations presented in the report would ensure that stakeholders in CARICOM are more fully involved in the deliberations on regional integration and thus respond to an ongoing concern that the discussions on these issues are too confined to government officials. It is also felt that the recommendations are in keeping with the perceived need and growing demand for fuller popular participation in the affairs of the Community. It is hoped therefore that the recommendations will contribute to a further improvement in the mechanisms of regional governance and thus expand democratic practice in the region.

October 24, 2003

REP. 96/1/48 ACCP

ANNEX

Extract from the Report of the Inaugural Meeting of the Assembly of Caribbean Community Parliamentarians, held at Sherbourne Conference Centre, Barbados, 27-29 May, 1996

MOTION TO CONSIDER PROPOSAL FOR CARIBBEAN NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS (NGOS) TO BE GRANTED OBSERVER STATUS IN THE ASSEMBLY OF CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY PARLIAMENTARIANS

(Agenda Item 2)

15.      In his introduction to this item, the Guyana Representative noted the increasingly greater role played that is being played by NGOs in the UN and in other organisations of importance on the global stage. He reminded the Meeting that, under the current Lomé IV arrangements, funds were identified for NGO financing. He noted that at its Sixteenth Meeting, the Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community defined a role for NGOs and posited that if the NGOs were granted observer status to the ACCP, it would redound to the benefit of the Region.

16.      Representatives of Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica and Saint Lucia also spoke to this motion.

17.      There were several expressions of support for the proposal by Guyana, even though the absence of eligibility criteria under which NGOs could obtain observer status was recognised. The view was expressed that those NGOs which were already recognised, such as the Caribbean Congress of Labour, could be admitted as Observers, while others could be evaluated whenever they applied. It was argued that the ACCP should be a forum of CARICOM's social partners since whenever such partners are involved in the decision making process, they participate more effectively in the implementation of those decisions. Their expertise could be used in a manner similar to what obtains in the US Congress where expert evidence is given.

18.      On the other hand, it was articulated that a chamber of parliamentarians such as the ACCP should not be diluted through the granting of observer status to NGOs since it may not be desirable for them to have free access to the floor at meetings of the ACCP. It was noted that the Agreement only made provision for representatives of countries, not being Member States or Associate Members of the Community, to be admitted as observers to deliberations. Such observers could only speak on the invitation of the Speaker. Having regard to the existing provisions of the Agreement, any decision to grant observer status to NGOs would require an amendment to the Agreement.

19.      THE MEETING

Agreed that the NGOs should not be granted observer status at this time and to defer further consideration of this motion. It was noted that the ACCP should be given the opportunity to mature and develop prior to an in-depth consideration of this issue.