Union interparlementaire inter-parliamentary union
The sitting was opened at 2.30 pm
Download 469.13 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The Representativeness of the Senate
- The transparency and accessibility of the Senate
- Senate’s involvement in international policy
- New Development Plans after Self Evaluation
- Structural Reform of the Secretariat General
- Annex RECOMMENDATIONS The Senate
- Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President
- Mr Said MOKADEM (Maghreb Consultative Council)
- Mr Sarith OUM (Cambodia)
- 2. Communication from Mr Damir DAVIDOVIC, Secretary General of the Parliament of Montenegro, on “Parliamentary autonomy in Montenegro”
- 3. Communication from Mr Austin ZVOMA, Clerk of Parliament of Zimbabwe, on “The challenges parliamentary committees face in exercising oversight functions on the Executive”
The sitting was opened at 2.30 pm1. Communication from Mr Sarith OUM, Secretary General of the Senate of Cambodia, on “The Cambodian Senate: from a self- evaluation exercise towards a new development plan” Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invited Mr Sarith OUM, Secretary General of the Senate of Cambodia, to present his communication, as follows: “Today I have the honor and great pleasure to be here with you and to share experiences we have received from implementing our new development plan after the Cambodian Senate finished its self evaluation after 10 year performance which, as I recall, started on 28 April 2009 and ended on 12 October 2009. The evaluation was done using guidelines and toolkits as recommended by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and comparing with the criteria of a democratic parliament. This evaluation process was divided into four stages: the formation of Special Evaluation Committee, working group division to answer the IPU’s questionnaires, workshop arrangement to collect recommendations from Senators, development partners and the public and the last stage was getting the approval from the Standing Committee. This evaluation was intended to find out strengths and weaknesses of the Cambodian Senate after its 10 year operation (1999-2009) in order to be able to set goal for improving legal framework and procedures, techniques and other policies as to strengthen the implementation of the three functions of the Senate such as Legislation, Representation and Oversight and also for improving quality service of the Secretariat General. After cautious studies and a number of reviews on recommendations collected from the workshop, the working group prepared all the findings and submitted them to the Standing Committee for approval. After giving approval, the standing committee encouraged the committee to study various provisions and policies in order to make effective reforms aiming to address all the negative points that have been found as follows: The Representativeness of the Senate
The Senate oversight over the Executive
Senate
The transparency and accessibility of the Senate
The accountability of the Senate
Senate’s involvement in international policy
New Development Plans after Self Evaluation After receiving recommendations from the Standing Committee, the Senate established three Sub-Commissions to support the special evaluating committee in reviewing, and proposing amendments to various existing provisions and establishing additional provisions and procedures. The three Sub-Commissions are: 1-Sub-Commission for reviewing Laws on the Senate’s Election: the role of this Sub-Commission is to basically study and review the contents of the Law on Senate’s Election by focusing primarily on the composition of the Senate Members for the new legislature and the increase of the number of women candidates in the election. 2-Sub-Commission for reviewing Internal Regulations of the Senate and Code of Ethics: the role of this Sub-Commission is to study and propose amendment to Internal Regulations of the Senate, improve procedures of the plenary sessions and to legalize all informal procedures, especially the inclusion of oversight and informative roles of the specialized commissions into the Internal Regulations which were not stipulated earlier in order to promote and ensure the rights of Senators in debating and to facilitate their role implementation. Additionally, this Sub-Commission is also responsible for drafting Code of Ethics of the Senators as well. The draft Code of Ethics has been made with the purpose to protect the rights, benefits and dignity of Senators and also to promote the respect of Constitution, Laws and other Legal Instruments in order to escalate public confidence and transparency. 3-Sub-Commission for studying the Constitution and Law on Congress of the National Assembly and the Senate: the role of this Sub-Commission is to review and propose amendment on various articles of the constitution relating to roles, duties and obligation of the Senate aiming to balance the work between the Senate and the National Assembly in implementing the three key roles: Representation, Legislation and Oversight. The role of the Senate as representative of local administration will also be proposed to be stipulated more clearly in the Constitution. Amendment proposal on article 116 of the Constitution in 1999, which requires to have Law on Congress of the National Assembly and the Senate to enable both Houses to convene a Congress in order to resolve political deadlock, ensure national reconciliation and stability during political crisis of the country, has already been drafted and sent to the National Assembly for reviewing. Besides studying and making amendments to the above provisions, the roles and duties of the nine specialized commissions were also studied and reviewed in order to ensure that the three functions of the specialized commissions: representation, legislation and information are fully and effectively implemented. To strengthen the representation and oversight roles, Senators have been organizing various regional forums and public consultations in the eight regions, so that they could share and exchange information, promote decentralization and de-concentration policies, follow up the development process and law enforcement at the localities, disseminate laws and assess the progress of activity toward achieving Cambodian Millennium Development Goals. Structural Reform of the Secretariat General In order to ensure effectiveness and to improve quality service sustainably, the Secretariat General decided to modify its organizational structure and to improve the roles and duties of several departments. Among the newly established departments particularly, Department of General Research and Department of Woman Affairs were established according to the recommendations made after the self evaluation. These two departments have the roles to analyze social and economic aspects of draft laws and also to assist in making gender policy in order to provide basic information to support Senators, particularly women Senators and promote women officials participation in socio-economic and political sphere. In addition to existing policies, the Secretariat General has successfully completed the five year Human Resource Development Plan (2010-2014) which will serve as vector to identifying strategic goals in building capacity and providing better and more effective quality services to the institution. The Strategic Communication and Public Relations Plan has also been completed that will guide us on how to strengthen relations between the Senate and Commune/Sangkat Council, national institutions, civil societies, national and international organizations and the public, and to increase cooperation with other parliaments in the world. We also have jointly made the ICT development plan in the Senate according to the IPU standard.
The decision to establish Sub-Commissions for studying provisions and various policies reflects the strong political will of the Senate’s Leaders in making in-depth reform aiming at promoting democracy through parliament. In the first legislature, Senators were appointed but in the second legislature Senators were elected through non universal election which clearly shows that the Senate is reforming itself for the people and is stepping toward a parliament with accountability, transparency and openness so as to protect the rights and national interest. The election for the Senate’s third legislature will be held on 29 January 2012 and we expect to have stronger legal base, provisions and policies as a mechanism to enable us to draft and adopt more laws so as to cope with social development, especially to perform the oversight role more effectively. However, despite having efficient legal ground, the capacity of Senators is still limited which requires us to continue to build up their capacity to respond to new working approaches. Lastly, I would like to thank Excellencies; Ladies and Gentlemen for your kind attention and I would also like to call for your further support in our reform process so as to enable us to successfully attain our goals.
A-Organizing forums in 8 regions B-Organizing forums between women Senators and women members of commune/sangkat council in the regions C-Organizing forums for the league of commune/sangkat councils and the association of commune/sangkat councils in the capital and provinces and report to the Standing Committee of the Senate D-Organizing annual national forums between the Senate and the league of commune/sangkat councils, association of commune/sangkat councils in the capital and provinces and other institutions involved with the policy of decentralization and de-concentration. 3-Continue to strengthen the Senate’s legislative and oversight role through capacity and skill development programs delivered to the Senators and supporting staff, especially the capacity to collect and analyze and give recommendations draft legislation. 4-Continue to focus on problems of the voters in the regions and people all over the country in order to find solutions for them by referring to the three key roles of the Senate. 5-Every specialized commission of the Senate shall have to strengthen and broaden relations with national institutions, civil society organizations and other international organizations so as to exchange information from each other more effectively. 6-Conduct public surveys to find out the major needs of the voters and to increase confidence of the people all over the country. 7-Review and study unofficial procedures previously used by the Senate and add them into internal regulations to make a more systematic structure. 8-Specialized commissions shall have to keep reports of their own field so as to be able to report to the Standing Committee of the Senate and the Senate’s sessions. 9-Specialized commissions shall have to make their own program and working plans more clearly and accurately. 10-Learn to express opinions and give recommendations on various legal texts in either reports or meeting sessions of the Senate. 11-While in Senate’s sessions or giving recommendation on legal texts, there should be at least one representative from each political party that has seats in the Senate to stand up and express their opinions or make other suggestions reflecting their respective political stances. 12-Consider establishing a political group. The Secretariat General 1-Continue to provide better quality and effective services to the institutions. 2-Continue to seek assistance support from development partners and other friendly parliaments for institutional development. 3-Make structural reforms relating to its own administration, roles, duties and responsibilities in order to give better services to the Senate, in accordance with the international standard of democratic parliaments. 4-Update the strategic framework and plan of action in order to promote the capacity of the Cambodian Senate. The above recommendations are just initial steps. As regards the medium and long-term strategies, the ad-hoc commission realized that it would have to further continue its research on legal provision and procedures as stated in the constitution, internal regulations, Senate election law, statute of Senators, and roles, duties and competencies of the specialized commissions and the Secretariat General. It would also have to study standards and parliamentary procedures in a regional and global framework in order to come up with effective measures and changes for better institutional development.” Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, thanked Mr Sarith OUM for his communication and invited members present to put questions to him. Mr André GAGNON (Canada) thanked Mr OUM for an interesting communication. In the Canadian Parliament, self-evaluation and internal audit exercises took place regularly, with the aim of discovering how effective the Parliament and its administration were. This was not always an easy task: quantity of output was not necessarily a measure of effectiveness. He asked how questions such as this had been approached in the Cambodian evaluation. Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, asked if the IPU’s self-assessment questionnaire or a similar document had been used in Cambodia, and whether this questionnaire had been completed by parliamentary staff as well as senators. He also asked for more information about the Code of Ethics, and how parliamentarians had reacted to the requirements of this code. He asked furthermore if ICT support was provided with assistance from the IPU and the Global Centre for ICT in Parliaments. Finally, he asked if Senators in Cambodia were all elected, or if some were also appointed. Mr Said MOKADEM (Maghreb Consultative Council) asked for more information about the development of the Human Resource Development Plan. Mr Zingile DINGANI (South Africa) asked if the self-evaluation conducted by the Cambodian Parliament was only inward-looking, or also considered the impact of the Parliament’s work on the lives of the people of the country. Mr Sarith OUM (Cambodia) replied to Mr Gagnon by saying that the exercise had studied the entire body of work carried out by the Senate during the decade from its foundation in 1999 to 2009. The IPU criteria had been used, and both Senators and administrative staff had responded to 80 questions about the performance of the Senate. A special committee made up of the nine committee chairs led the process, with the involvement in addition of every head of department. The need for a Code of Ethics had arisen during the process of self-evaluation, as a way of helping Senators to manage potential conflicts of interest. Mr OUM thanked Mr Casini from the Global Centre for sending three groups of experts to Cambodia to help with the development of parliamentary ICT. The Human Resource Development Plan was prepared by the special committee mentioned above, with final decisions taken by the Standing Committee of the Senate, the governing body. Another deficiency identified by the process of self-evaluation was that, while the Cambodian constitution provided for a joint meeting of both Houses where required, the rules for such a meeting were not specified. This was now being rectified. Attempts were being made to increase the representation of women in the Cambodian Parliament to 30%. Senators were by and large indirectly elected – two, however, of the total of 61, were appointed by the King. Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, congratulated Mr OUM for the efforts he was making to develop the Cambodian Senate for the better. Mr Sarith OUM thanked the French, Canadian and Australian senates for their support over the years. Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, thanked Mr Sarith OUM for his communication as well as all those members who had put questions to him. 2. Communication from Mr Damir DAVIDOVIC, Secretary General of the Parliament of Montenegro, on “Parliamentary autonomy in Montenegro” Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invited Mr Damir DAVIDOVIC, Secretary General of the Parliament of Montenegro, to present his communication, as follows: “It is my pleasure to address the ASGP on behalf of the Parliament of Montenegro. Also, I have to apologize in advance for a bit longer presentation, but, since this is the first time that a Secretary General of the Montenegrin Parliament has the honor to address you, I believe that this is a proper opportunity to give you more details about the parliament and parliamentary life of the youngest UN member state. Countries develop parliament and parliamentary practices in different ways. Various cultural ambient, political environments, traditions, etc. make the search for a single formula very difficult or virtually impossible, but at the end each parliament is assessed through how well it represents the citizen, makes laws and performs oversight over the executive. In order to provide for this principle to be functional in practice Parliament must achieve a considerable level of autonomy over its internal operations. My presentation today reflects some of my experience gained in efforts to improve autonomy of the Parliament of Montenegro, as well as achieved results and challenges to come. I will also share with you some thoughts about the concept of parliamentary autonomy itself and its application in the Montenegrin context. Historically, the roots of parliamentarism in Montenegro go back to the 17th century when general gatherings of Montenegrin people as first bodies of a representative nature were established. Throughout the 17th and 18th century, Montenegro advanced as the state with first state bodies being formed, representing important pillars in strengthening the entire state system. With the beginning of the 20th century, Montenegrin parliamentary life has entered into modern stage. Namely, in 1905, the first elections in Montenegro were held for the Montenegrin People’s Assembly whose task came down to passing the first Constitution. The first elections for a legislative assembly were held the following year. There were 76 MPs in the first convocation of Parliament in 1906. The President, Vice-Presidents and two Secretaries of Parliament were elected by secret vote while MPs enjoyed certain immunities. After World War I, though Montenegro was on the allies’ side and while within the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Montenegro lost its state. In the later Yugoslav Parliament, which had over 300 MPs, eight to ten MPs from different parties were delegated from Montenegro. After the Second World War, the Montenegrin Parliament was a single-party parliament until 1990, when the first multi-party elections for the Parliament of Montenegro were held. It was a Republic parliament as Montenegro at the time was a part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and later the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. In May 2006, Montenegrin people decided to renew independent state at a democratic referendum. The Parliament of Montenegro has adopted a Resolution on independence, by which Montenegro has regained its independent state status after 88 years. Soon after, parliamentary elections were held and 23 Convocation of the Constitutional Parliament was elected whose task was to adopt the county’s highest legal act - the Constitution. They managed to do so in October 2007 and, with it, the ground was set for Montenegro’s further development as a modern and democratic country. Position, role, election, mandate, leadership, etc. as well as the number of MPs of the Parliament are defined with articles 82 to 94 of the Constitution. The Parliament of Montenegro as the unicameral legislature consists of 81 members, each elected for a four-year term. MPs are elected directly by citizens, based on general and equal suffrage and by secret ballot. The election system entails proportional representation (PR) based on a single national list. This system, some claim, weakens the direct connection between MPs and voters, strengthening the connection between MPs and party leaders, even though, the character of Montenegrin society is such that MPs are associated with a municipality or region – even if not directly elected from there. Currently, MPs from 11 political parties are organized in six party clubs plus four representatives of four Albanian parties. This introductory information was necessary to understand the context in which the Montenegrin Parliament exists and functions and now I will address in more detail the issue of the autonomy. As you can see the recent history of the country itself was rather eventful, which of course, has influenced significantly the status, role and position of Parliament in political, economic and societal spheres of the country’s being. In transition to a multi-party democracy, the Montenegrin parliament has undergone some significant changes. With Montenegro becoming an independent state and with almost unanimous public and political support for European integration the Parliament has entered a new phase of reform enabling it to meet the challenges of joining the EU. Procedures have been changed with new Rules of procedure in 2006 in order to provide for more constructive parliamentary debates and more efficiency in the oversight work. Focus of parliamentary work has shifted from plenary to committee sessions, which provides for more focused and articulate debates. New instruments such as parliamentary hearings and inquires have been introduced and the old ones such as question time, interpellation, etc., have been strengthened to provide for a higher level of oversight over the executive. A lot has been done in terms of increasing the transparency and openness of parliamentary operations including development of capacity for direct broadcasting of plenary sessions, creation of a modern web portal and live streaming of parliamentary sessions. Our intention is to use ITC technologies further to facilitate the legislative process as much as possible. Parliamentary autonomy is a complex concept and not easy to introduce and adhere to especially in countries with relatively short tradition of multiparty systems and relatively long periods of government predominance over the parliament and its function. In Montenegro, the power is regulated following the principle of the division of powers into the legislative, executive and judicial, as well as on check and balance principle as set by the new Constitution. It took some time to learn more and accept more, first within the institution itself and then outside. And while a concept may appear so logical, rational and rather widely accepted and therefore easy to implement, it is not always the case. It requires structural changes of not only the system, but of the people’s mind set, as well, where the latter is the precondition for the former. Nevertheless, we have managed to make significant improvements in this respect and I will present some of them later. There are three aspects of parliamentary autonomy that have been of particular interest to our parliament: 1) to be able to regulate its own procedures, 2) to be able to regulate its own human resources, and 3) to be able to regulate its own finances. Parliament for the most part has regulated its procedures and it has been so since the introduction of the multi-party system. The most important act in that sense, beside the Constitution, is the Rules of Procedures. Significant changes to this act were made in a general consensus in 2006 so as to provide for more transparency of work, shifting the focus from plenary to committee work, and stronger oversight mechanisms. A debate was held at the time whether the rules should be adopted as a law. The fact is that rules of procedure do not deal only with internal operations of parliament. For this reason, there are examples of countries with rules of procedure adopted in a form of a law. As far as Montenegro is concerned, rules are not a law, but the intention was to emphasize the political responsibility throughout the process, and by doing so strengthen the right of Parliament to demand information from governmental representatives or to demand their presence at parliamentary sessions. Today, we can say that it never happens that a governmental representative would fail to appear before the Parliament if demanded to do so in accordance with the set procedures. As you can see from the previous procedural autonomy, it was not and is not a big challenge, but as far as financial and human resources autonomy are concerned the situation is not as good. I have to say that in the last several months we have managed to make significant improvements in these fields, but still a lot of work remains to be done. Currently, the Law on Budget determines procedures for preparation and planning of the Montenegrin budget, as well as for its execution. According to the law, Parliament is one of the spending units and it follows the same procedure as described by the Law on Budget, like every other spending unit within the Government or Judiciary. In the process of budget planning, Parliament submits a request to the Ministry of Finance for allocation of budget funds, after which the Ministry of Finance evaluates it, holds talks with the Secretary General of the Parliament and proposes for the adoption budget how it sees appropriate. Hence, the budget for every spending unit is proposed by the Government and then sent to Parliament for adoption. There are also a number of countries with similar proceedings, which may be considered as a partial autonomy considering that in the course of parliamentary procedures, amendments may be tabled by MPs and adopted in the plenary. Having in mind that debates for the adoption of the state budget last one month, the practice has shown that Parliament and its needs are rarely in focus even from the side of the MPs. On the other hand, there are examples of countries, where parliament proposes its budget to the government and the government may not change it, which is either defined by law or is a matter of a good practice. In my humble opinion, having in mind the concept of parliamentary autonomy, government should not be allowed to change the budget proposal of Parliament during the preparation of the overall state budget if the proposal is prepared in accordance with a set of criteria defined in advance. This is something to be regarded in the long run for us. However, even a bigger challenge for us, not so long ago, was the fact that the Parliament could not decide on the dynamics of expenditures within the sum allocated to Parliament by the Law on annual budget. Dynamic by which the money was released towards the Parliament was the same like for every other budget unit or ministry and it was ultimately decided by the Ministry of Finance. With the latest changes of the Law on Budget, prepared by Parliament’s administration and supported by all parliamentary clubs, Parliament independently decides how it will spend its budget in accordance with the set priorities. How Parliament spends its budget is under very detailed monitoring by NGOs. In terms of human resources autonomy, the challenge lied with the Law on Civil Servants, which regulates the status of all civil servants. Also, in July, amendments to this Law were adopted, allowing Parliament more autonomy from the Ministry of Finance specifically, as it no longer has to consult with the Ministry over the financial preconditions for new employments in the Parliament Administration, which was the case before. For being able to have a new employee Parliament needs to have planned budget resources as well as free position within the organizational structure. The process of recruitment is implemented by the Governmental Human Resource Administration, which implements it on the basis of conditions set by the Parliament, while the Parliament makes the final decision on employment. Administrative capacities have been and still are one of the most important challenges for our Parliament. Efforts have been made to strengthen it with the establishment and/or modernization of several organizational units such as ones dealing with research, documentation, library, public relations, protocol, internal audit, etc. Besides this work, our Parliament still employs a very small administrative service of 97 persons or 1.2 employees per MP. Competent administration is crucial for the autonomy of the Parliament since it is a precondition for MPs to be autonomous and to get full support within the house, as well as to avoid the situation that MPs are dependent in the decision making process on the information prepared by the Government. One of the results of the previously mentioned processes, I believe, clearer understands of MPs and general public that Parliament has to strengthen its capacities in order to perform its constitutional role in a proper way. There is general understanding that parliament needs resources in order to be able to act more efficiently and more independently from the executive branch. Having in mind the specifics of parliamentary ambient, political sensitivities because of a lack of resources on a more general level, we have tried to achieve the understanding that a stronger and better resourced parliament is in the interest of all. We managed to avoid partisan attacks and politicization of Parliament’s development process because steps taken for the development of a more capable parliament should not have much to do with party politics. In addition, the public relations unit, and the entire team as well, has had a role to play in making sure that the public knows about the important work of Parliament and its relevance to the everyday life of a citizen. This has proved to be very significant because analysis has shown that we have to present work that is being done in the Parliament in a better way and daily. Otherwise, the general public just perceives parliament through plenary debates which are broadcast, often measuring its efficiency only through the number of MPs sitting in plenary. With more resources and more rights, along comes a need for Parliament to demonstrate responsibility in using the funds rationally and transparently. As the supreme legislative body in a democracy charged with regulating the country’s social and economic relations, Parliament must find a way to bring together different interests and to set public interest as a common goal, which intention must be recognized among the citizens. In order to meet the two mentioned requirements, the Montenegrin Parliament started issuing annual reports on its activities and in July this year it has published its first semi-annual report. Annual financial reports are also made public with the obligation of the Secretary General to testify before the Committee for Budget and Finance about how the funds were used twice a year. These activities are open for the public and they have been recognized as a positive step by both NGOs and the general public. We intend to continue and, where needed, improve this practice in future by providing as much information about our work as possible. There is, of course, still significant room for improvement and some actions, that have to be taken in the period before us, are becoming clearer. On the other hand, experience has shown that it is important to gradually introduce changes, as well as that they have to be understood by all as part of an ongoing process. Timing is also very important since our mutual goal is to introduce new and better practices in time when their potential for reform is most significant. Parliament must act responsibly with the new competences provided with the said changes. It must continue to walk the path of progress keeping in mind that doing the work in the public interest is its ultimate goal.” Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, thanked Mr Damir DAVIDOVIC for his communication and invited members present to put questions to him. Mrs Jacqueline BIESHEUVEL VERMEIJDEN (Netherlands) said that in her country Parliament set its own agenda, and members of the government had to come to Parliament when requested to do so. She asked whether this also held true in Montenegro. Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, asked how many female Members there were in the Montenegrin Parliament, the extent to which the courts intervened to restrict parliamentary autonomy, whether the Finance Ministry attempted to restrict parliamentary spending and whether elected Members intervened in recruitment to the parliamentary service. Mr Damir DAVIDOVIC replied that the Parliament had full freedom to organise its own agenda, but the number of government bills did tend to dictate business priorities. Government ministers did always in practice attend Parliament when asked to do so, in committees as well as in the Chamber. The Prime Minister and Cabinet attended Parliament to answer questions at least once every two months. Approximately 10 of the 81 MPs were women. The Constitutional Court was the only superior body that could challenge parliamentary rules of procedure. Recruitment to the parliamentary service was carried out by the government human resources department, and vacancies were publicly advertised. Vacancies were judged against criteria chosen by the parliamentary service. MPs had no involvement in recruitment, but did not have personal assistants, and this was causing some pressure. 3. Communication from Mr Austin ZVOMA, Clerk of Parliament of Zimbabwe, on “The challenges parliamentary committees face in exercising oversight functions on the Executive” Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invited Mr Austin ZVOMA, Clerk of Parliament of Zimbabwe, to present his communication, as follows: Directory: sites -> default -> files -> documents documents -> North Mankato Taylor Library documents -> In the Red and Brown Water documents -> - documents -> Cbp and Trade Automated Interface Requirements Appendix: pga december 22, 2015 documents -> Ace abi catair customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements documents -> Ace abi catair customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements documents -> Mobile audio/video recording systems documents -> The south australian government gazette documents -> All public acts appearing in this gazette are to be considered official, and obeyed as such documents -> Plymouth University Academic Partnerships Cornwall College Camborne Programme Quality Handbook for Download 469.13 Kb. Share with your friends:
|