Thank you Mr. Chair. At the outset, we thank the Russian Federation for organizing this meeting on a topic that all elected members of the UNSC would like to contribute to.

 
2.​A more representative, effective, and transparent Security Council is a key pillar of India’s overall approach to the subject of reformed multilateralism. While the issue of “improvement in working methods” is one of the five pillars of the overall cluster of the reform package as outlined in UNGA Decision 62/557, and need not be seen in isolation,  the working methods of the Security Council remain work in progress. While there has been some improvement over the years, we are still far from a truly inclusive Security Council in which all its members, elected and permanent, equally share the burden of contributing for international peace and security. India therefore recognizes the need of consistent, outcome-oriented discussions aimed at improving all aspects of working methods, including the subject of penholdership.

 
3.​The subject of penholders and copenholders has been discussed on several occasions at the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Procedural Questions, and indeed has resonance with many member states.

 
4.​The penholder is an informal arrangement for Council members to initiate and chair the informal drafting process, as per Note 507.  Para 79 of the note states that any member of the Security Council may be a penholder. The note encourages Members of the Council to act as the penholder(s) and that more than one Council member may act as co penholders, taking into account as appropriate the expertise and/or contributions of Council members on the relevant subject.  

 
5.​ We believe that a democratic and inclusive process of assigning pen and copenholderships is one of the best ways to enhance the decision-making process in the Council. It will help to foster greater levels of transparency, participation, and accountability. Besides adequate burden sharing, it will also bring perspective and confidence among those within the Security Council and those outside.

 
6.​The elected members have, time and again, made known their desire to take the pen on files of their interest and expertise. However, invariably these have been ignored in the final decision making. We would therefore like to submit the following points for consideration:
 
• Penholdership cannot be based on archaic factors or colonial past. The contemporary global reality should guide decisions on penholdership.
 
• The members who are penholders on a particular file are expected to be well versed with the complexities surrounding the issue. In the case of country files, who better to understand the complexities than countries that are in the neighbourhood and belong to the region. Therefore, as far as possible, neighbouring countries of the topic concerned need be considered for penholdership and co-penholdership.
 
• The suggestion made by some members for Chairs of the subsidiary bodies to be invited to be co-penholders on issues related to their activities, is also welcome. This will provide useful linkages and help elected members take part in negotiations at the early stages of the process.
 
• The subject of penholders and co-penholders could be discussed annually immediately after the elections are held to the Security Council. These can be informal discussions (such as the Sofa talks) with all Security Council members and the incoming Five, on what files can be reconfigured. This needs an informal agreement among all members.

 
7.​ The issue of penholdership has been discussed threadbare on various forums in the Security Council and still a practical way forward continues to elude us. Therefore, it is important that informal arrangement on penholdership, as arrived at within the in the incoming membership be respected to begin with. It could then be suitably taken forward, with current penholders handing over penholdership and stepping into a co-penholders role. This would ensure guidance to the new pen and also assist in enabling continuity.

 
8.​There are no better alternatives to this process than one which is consultative and consensual, especially if the informal status with its “credibility kept intact” is to be preserved. The responsibility thus lies with the principle penholders, particularly the P5, to relinquish some tasks from their basket in favour of a more inclusive process within the Security Council. At the same time, whenever the concerned penholder prioritizes political factors over objective considerations in moving an outcome document members also need to show solidarity amongst themselves in ensuring the necessary amendments.

 
9.​ Penholdership cannot be claimed as a “matter of right” by the P5 alone.  It is important that we address this long standing anomaly and ensure a fair and equitable distribution of responsibilities between elected and permanent members..
 

Thank you, Mr. Chair