ELEVEN former MPs are among a group that will be representing the UK’s national interests on an influential European assembly meeting this week, but no SNP member has been chosen to join the delegation.
The 11 – along with nine peers and 15 sitting MPs – are on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), which includes among its duties conducting inquiries to uncover human rights violations and questioning presidents and prime ministers on any topic it chooses.
The British delegation has 35 members with a mix of Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrats. It even has a place for the Democratic Unionist Party – but there is no SNP member.
Delegations to PACE are nominated by national governments, which are given a maximum of six months following an election to submit details of their new members.
They are supposed to reflect the political balance of their nation, and the timescale reflects the political horse-trading between the parties to decide who is nominated.
The UK Government has not yet chosen its new delegation, but must do so by November.
However, sources in Strasbourg have suggested the UK has indicated it will not name its new delegation until next year.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) said last night that the new delegation to PACE would normally be appointed up to six months after an election.
However, a spokesman did not know when the announcement would be made, as the appointments were a prerogative of the Prime Minister.
Speaking to The National from Tunis, SNP MEP Alyn Smith said if the delegation were not to be put in place until 2016, it would be a “democratic outrage”.
He said: “After our referendum, it is more important than ever – especially when we’re facing an ugly Brexit – that Scotland’s voice is heard in Europe.
“If the UK Government is using sleight of hand to stop that voice being heard it is a democratic outrage and I will be investigating this when I return to Strasbourg.”
What will happen in practice is that the old delegation will stay in place for the current session. Thus, former Scottish Labour MPs Michael Connarty, Jim Sheridan and Sandra Osborne are entitled to take their places at the Assembly, along with the likes of Lords John Prescott and Donald Anderson.
This week, PACE is debating the humanitarian and political response to the migration and refugee crisis in Europe and the urgent need for a real European asylum system.
Yesterday, it criticised the “the lack of political will” of some states to fully and rapidly implement judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and urged the Council of Europe’s ministerial body – which oversees implementation – to “take firmer measures” with those who fail to comply.
In a resolution, it also expressed “deep concern” at the high number of court judgments that have still not been implemented by the states concerned – a figure that it says remains stable at nearly 11,000 cases.
Almost 80 per cent of the backlog came from only nine countries – Italy, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Greece, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria – where deep-seated structural problems were often generating repeat cases, it said.
These included poor prison conditions, domestic court cases taking too long, or a culture within security forces that permitted ill-treatment.
The Council of Europe is the (non-EU) guardian of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and includes the European Court in Strasbourg. Nicola Sturgeon has said Scotland wanted to stay in both institutions, while the UK Government wanted to lead UK out of them.
Although it does not have the power to pass binding laws, PACE sets the agenda for change through a dialogue with governments and international organisations. About 40 per cent of the Council of Europe’s 200 conventions – or treaties – were inspired by the Assembly.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here