| |
| Clearly a great deal of further
primary research is required in this area in order to compile a complete
picture of comparative arrangements for involving non-members. |
| |
| This part of the report begins
with the summary of parliamentary arrangements in Austria and Germany drawn
from our interviews. We then go on to demonstrate the sort of mechanisms
that are in place for encouraging and shaping the direct participation of
non-members in the work of parliamentary committees. These mechanisms generally
take the form of guidelines that are issued to witnesses appearing before
committees. This section closes with a brief discussion of the 'rapporteur'
system and its significance in promoting contact with non-members. |
| |
| Section 2: Involvement of Non-Members in the Work of Parliaments
Case Studies |
| |
| 2.1 Germany |
| |
| 1. Are there any formal mechanisms
where by the opinions of non-members are considered during the legislative
process? |
| |
| There are no such formal mechanisms
on either the regional or federal level in Germany. This applies to the
preparation of legislation as well as the process in the respective Parliaments. |
| |
| Nevertheless, at a federal level
there are some consultation mechanisms. These are the result of a long-term
practice, i.e. before any legislation is initiated by the government, the
respective Ministry issues a draft and asks organisations and 'interested
groups' for their point of view. This may be compared to the British 'Green
Paper' system. Seeking these views is often done by invitation to a hearing
held in the respective Ministry. For in-stance, during the hearings in the
Ministry of Justice or Economy, there are usually 33-50 economic
associations present and 1-4 trade union associations. |
| |
| However, the procedure only concerns
the initiation of legislation by the executive. There are no such rules
for the initiation of legislation by Parliament |
| |
| On the regional (Länder) level
the procedure is similar. For example, there are no formal mechanisms in
the Bavarian Landtag for the social partners to be heard during the legislation
process, except in the Committee for Economy and Socio-political Issues.
Occasionally there are formal hearings initiated by the representatives
of these committees. These are often organised by 2-3 Committees. |
| |
| Informally, party factions gather
information themselves in special faction hearings. Furthermore, it may
be the case that the party factions' working groups inform social partners
via information visits. However, as these procedures are not formalised
there are no statistics available. In addition, one should take into account
that during the preparation of a legislative initiative on a government
level, there are some hearings with associations. This is laid down in the
Bavarian Constitution (Art. 5: Par. 4) and plays a significant role. |
| |
| In North Rhine Westphalia the
social partners have the right to present their opinions in oral, as well
as in written form, in response to draft proposals and these views are frequently
taken into account. Committees can also call for the advice of experts (according
to North Rhine Westphalian constitution Art. 31, par. 1), this may include
the social partners. If the committee calls for a public hearing they can
consult various experts. If 25% of a committee demand such a hearing,
it must take place. |
| |
| 2. Are non-members ever co-opted
onto Parliamentary committees to give specialist advice on legislation? |
| |
| On a federal level an
intense consultation procedure usually takes place in the respective Committees
after the first reading in Parliament. The committees are autonomous and
may call for hearings of social partners. This may even happen for the most
important and most controversial legislation proposals. Similarly, a Committee
may also decide not to introduce hearings - even if the social partners
believe this to be necessary. |
| |
| On the Länder level, Bavaria
used to be a special case because of its bicameral Parliament: |
| eleven seats were reserved in
the Senate for the unions and other social partners. The |
| Senate's powers included the
right of veto and the right to pass legislation. However a recent referendum
voted for the abolition of the Senate by 1999. From that point on any participation
will remain informal and voluntary (and depend upon the party structure).
The possible exception will be European Union legislation, specifically
EU's structural funds which support the 'bottom-up' process. However, this
procedure does not include joint decision-making rights. |
| |
| Otherwise, as in North Rhine
Westphalia, specific sub-committees can be established by committees which
may invite social partners to hearings for consultation. |
| |
| 3. At which point, if any,
during the legislative process are interest groups (Trade Unions, Business
organisations, pressure groups, voluntary organisations etc.) consulted
- before the first reading I second reading I committee stage etc., ? |
| |
what form does this take:
- general public invitation to comment
upon a proposed bill?
- public hearings?
- e written I oral submissions to
committees?
- through access to rapporteurs?
|
| |
| At the Federal level interest
groups are mainly consulted before the first reading (see Question 1), for
their input into the formulation of legislation by the relevant Ministry.
If a legislation proposal is adopted by federal government and presented
to both the Bundestag and Bundesrat, a consultation procedure
with social partners is only possible if Parliament wishes to do so (see
Question 2 - public hearings). |
| |
| At any stage, in dependent of
the co-operation procedures in readings, the social partner organisations
occasionally express their views without a formal invitation. |
| |
| At Länder level, consultation
again tends (officially) to only be before the first reading or by invitation
to public hearings should a committee deem it necessary. In North Rhine
Westphalia the contributions are collected and presented on the basis of
questionnaires issued by the respective committees. |
| |
4. If this process is largely
informal then is the degree of involvement by non-members shaped by:
- the area of policy under consideration?
- the particular political make-up
of the parliament?
|
| |
| At the Federal level both are
true, though, during the last 16 years of political life in Germany the
parliamentary opposition have been able to demand hearings on legislative
proposals. |
| |
| In Bavaria the Landtag and unions
agree that it depends on the policy area under consideration. However the
Parliament admits that the chances of a hearing taking place may depend
both on the political importance of the topic and the ratio of the political
majority. |
| |
| Similarly in North Rhine Westphalia
it depends on the policy area under consideration. A wide of range of institutions
may be questioned, since even small party factions have the right to call
non-member experts. Informal contacts and working processes exist between
various different interest groups, in order to exert influence. |
| |
| 5. If non-members are included
in the legislation process, is there an equal opportunities programme at
work? Do social partners follow an equal opportunities policy? |
| |
| According to the German Federal
Trade Unions organisation this is only true of the Trade Unions. |
| |
| At Länder level, selection of
social partners for a hearing takes place according to legal aspects and
must conform with the law. Special minority or gender issues do not play
a specific role, except if it concerns these areas directly. In that case
it is commonplace that representatives of women associations are invited
to present their points of view on 'women-related' legislation proposals. |
| |
| North Rhine Westphalia's DGB
union commented that equal opportunities was playing an increasingly important
role in the legislation process, though it is monitored at an executive
rather than a parliamentary level. |
| |
| 6. Do you have any
views about the effectiveness of the consultation process? Is there any
examples of the consultation process having an impact upon legislative proposals? |
| |
| The federal consultation processes
are usually effective. In the past years, the right to joint decision-making
has changed a few legislation proposals after weaknesses in the legislation
were pointed out (this was specifically the case with corporate governance). |
| |
| Originally, Trade Unions sought
to be part of an Economic or Social Committee on national, regional and
local level. These Committees would have the right to present their point
of views on any legislation proposals they thought appropriate and a right
to initiate legislation . However, these plans have not been realised on
the federal level. |
| |
| The effectiveness of these mechanisms
at Lander level is hard to measure but undeniably important. According to
the Bavarian Landtag: |
| |
| The various hearings are certainly
useful for political opinion-making. How-ever, one may not refer to specific
success stories, since influence in the prepreparation phase is too important
and also unknown. Nevertheless, I think that our political culture - which
is based on consensus and agreement - takes into account disapproval and
proposals from social partners. |
| |
| However the Bavarian union representative
commented that the process was: |
| |
| Not effective, specifically because
social partners have no say in the legislative amendments of Parliament. |
| |
| Similarly, the North Rhine Westphalian
union spokesperson remarked: |
| |
| The present hearing, specifically
the oral one, takes the form of a continuous hearing of one statement after
the other. Usually, this leaves no room for a specific dialogue. Hence,
the efficiency of this is questionable. |
| |
| 2.2 Austria |
| |
| 1. Are there any formal
mechanisms where by the opinions of non-members are considered during the
legislative process? |
| |
| Social Partnership in Austria
is symbolised by the four social partnership organisations (Austrian Federation
of Trade Unions, Chamber of Labour, Chamber of Economy and the Presidents
of the Chambers of Agriculture) which have co-operated in the so-called
Parity Commission since 1957. (For more details on Austrian social partnership
arrangements see page 44). The Commission is the most important body of
decisionmaking for social partners - although it does not meet often, informal
consultations between the 'big four' and government take place daily (for
instance by telephone). |
| |
| Furthermore, social partners
are included in the legislative process via the 'Assessment Procedure' of
legislation proposals for government, i.e. proposals are presented to the
respective chambers whose point of view is sought in the subject-matter.
Many interest associations are members of various committees or other official
committees of individual ministries. Hence they are - theoretically - included
in the political decision-making process. |
| |
| At the regional level, in Tirol
for example, the Constitution states that each legislation proposal, except
those laws which need to be dealt with quickly, presented in the Landtag
must be subject to an 'Assessment Procedure' (Art.36). This involves those
regional Chambers which legally represent those groups (unions, corporations,
groups, individuals) that are affected by the legislative proposal. Their
opinions are heard - in some cases, the respective representative may write
to other interest groups to seek their opinion. The absence of an assessment
procedure, however, does not affect the constitutional legitimacy of legislation. |
| |
| 2. Are non-members ever
co-opted onto Parliamentary committees to give specialist advice on legislation? |
| |
| This is often the case at national
level, but it is not always with the social partners, since their top officials
are themselves often MPs (also, traditionally the 0GB -the Federation of
Trade Unions - proposes the Minister for Social Affairs). |
| |
| There are no 'reserved' seats
for interest groups, but the top officials of social partners are usually
on party's voting lists. For example the head of the 0GB is an MP for the
Social Democratic Party, and the head of the Chamber for Economy (employers)
is MP for the conservative Austrian People's party. In this sense, employees
make up 4045 of 183 of National Parliament's MPs. |
| |
| In the Lander, committees are
also able to consult specialists. This advice is often gained from the social
partners as part of the role of the regional Chambers. However, this is
only possible case-by-case, since representatives of the social partners
may already be in Parliament as MPs. |
| |
| 3. At which point, if any,
during the legislative process are interest groups (Trade Unions, Business
organisations, pressure groups, voluntary organisations etc.) consulted
- before the first reading I second reading I committee stage etc., ? |
| |
| At both the Federal at Länder
level, consultation takes place before the drafting of the legislative proposal,
namely in discussions or within the framework of the assessment procedure
after written demand, (see above). |
| |
4. If this process is largely
informal then is the degree of involvement by non-members shaped by:
- the area of policy under consideration?
- the particular political make-up
of the parliament?
|
| |
| At the national level, both are
important factors. In addition to the formal mechanisms, there are also
informal possibilities of taking part in the political decision-making process.
For the success of these interventions, the political complexion of Parliament
plays a vital role, i.e. if party X has a majority, then like-minded NGOs
tend to be more successful (this is also called 'Column-making' [Versäulung]
in Austrian politics). This is, however, not the sole criteria. |
| |
| The area of policy under consideration
is important as the four social partner institutions are not solely restricted
to the classical areas of social and economic issues, since virtually everything
seems to be linked to both these areas. |
| |
| At the regional level both the
area of policy discussed and the political make-up of the Landtag is important.
Though the effect of either depends on the topic. Niederosterreich it is
said by the Landtag to depend on whether an MP initiated the legislation
(and sought opinion and advice independently), or whether it is the parties
(who seek advice from like-minded partners). |
| |
| 5. If non-members are included
in the legislation process, is there an equal opportunities programme at
work? Do social partners follow an equal opportunities policy? |
| |
| Nationally, for recognised minorities
(Slovenes, Croats, Hungarians and Romanies) there are some committees which
have a legal basis, which remain at the discretion of the Federal Chancellery.
For women (now 'Women and consumer protection'), there is a Ministry for
Women which has similar consultative structures. |
| |
| At Länder level this varies.
In Tirol there is a Women's Representative office, but generally the Landtag
expect and promote all groups to forward opinions at their own discretion.
In Niederosterreich, depending on the policy area it may be referred to
the women's committee |
| |
| 6. Do you have any
views about the effectiveness of the consultation process? Is there any
examples of the consultation process having an impact upon legislative proposals? |
| |
| For national legislation these
processes have been effective. Austria - being neutral until about 1990-
has always sought to include all political forces in the social consensus
and to satisfy all possible interests. In comparison to Germany, the Austrian
system has always been more open and more accessible for NGO's interests. |
| |
| From the domestic politics point
of view, the integration of all interests has not always worked, which has
led to occasional social instability: e.g. environmental issues: the violent
confrontations of the 1980s (between environmentalists, the police and construction
workers) at nuclear power stations, or the controversy over the introduction
(without the social partner's inclusion) of a new social security system,
which, in the end led to new elections in 1995/6 and a change in the head
of government. |
| |
| However, there is also currently
a debate taking place over whether and how far Austria's EU membership has
changed the participatory political system, namely whether this has weakened
the strong position of social partners. |
| |
| At Länder level the social partners'
input into the drafting process works well in the opinion of both the unions
and the parliaments where intensive discussions take place. The results
are brought forward to Parliament, so that legislation is usually the product
of these discussions. The main aim is to achieve consensus. The final shape
of the legislation does however depend on the political majority, but even
then the Social partners' views are pushed via their representatives in
Parliament. |
| |
| Section 3: co-optees and the experience of local government
women's committees |
| |
| The use of co-optees as advisers
is a well established practice in local government. Cooptees act as participants
in the determining of policy and as a two way channel of information with
the wider community.49 Local government women's committees, which were
particularly active in the 1980s and early 1990s, made extensive use of
the power to co-opt local women into membership in order to include their
perspectives in their work. Women's committees drew inspiration from the
decentralised democracy of the women's movement.50 They co-opted community representatives who could
convey locally identified needs and concerns and experimented with open
meetings to draw local women into policy-making process. This was motivated
by the desire to change existing conventions of representation and empower
women to change the priorities of government. The 'face to face' participation
of decentralised democracy became an important element in the practice of
women's committees. |
| |
| The co option of 'ordinary' people
or representatives of equity groups onto committees can be seen as a democratic
measure which allows people who are usually excluded from the policy process
to have a voice. Conversely, co-option may be challenged on the grounds
that community representatives are unaccountable and unrepresentative. In
addition, there are issues about the extent to which such initiatives to
increase community involvement in government go beyond tokenism. The strategy
of co opting outsiders onto local government women's committees demonstrated
a new openness in local politics but was potentially vulnerable to abuse
by highly organised groups who were not representative of the local community
but were instead promoting the interests of a specific minority or cause.
The experience of the Greater London Council (GLC) women's committee is
an early and extreme example of the problem: |
| |
| Two Co optees from the notoriously
sectarian King's Cross Women's Centre attempted to take control of the committee
and had to be voted down by a wide coalition of members opposed to 'bullying
tactics' .51 |
| |
| Committees varied in terms of
selection procedure; in some authorities a relatively closed system of appointment
operated, others had extensive systems of public nomination and appointment.
Considerable efforts were made by some committees to recruit, train and
support women with no experience of public service or community activism.
Co-optees (usually called community representatives) had an advisory role,
since only elected members could vote on fill' committees and since sub
committees and advisory groups, where they might vote, were without decision-making
power. However, they had fill' speaking rights and were also permitted to
present reports to committee and sub committees. Some authorities initiated
co-optee pre-meetings which allowed co-optees to prepare for meetings with
the help of council equality officers. Pre meetings also provided opportunities
for co-optees to encourage each other and for experienced members to pass
on skills and information. Stokes study of the use of co-optees on s committees
notes a number of pros and cons. In terms of disadvantages, there was a
tendency for community representatives to become 'professionalised' and
gaining expertise that rather distanced them from their communities. She
also notes issues of incumbency; co-optees tended to serve for long periods
of time, and processes of re-selection were less than rigorous. These features
raise issues of both accountability and representativeness. Raised expectations
of community involvement were sometimes frustrated by the council's other
priorities, which raises issues of responsiveness. |
| |
| In terms of advantages, the co
optee system gave skills and experience to women about how government works
and how they might influence it; it provided a pathway to elected office
for a significant number of women; there is evidence that co optees did
have some success in influencing the policy agenda; important channels of
communication were maintained between committees and communities. Stokes
argues that despite shortcomings, the co-optee system produced high levels
of responsiveness and accountability and was good democratic practice. |
| |
| Women's Committees were a
very small experiment within a resistant structure; they achieved a lot
in terms of evolving ways of combining representatives with different sources
of legitimation and different forms of accountability.52 |
| |