Since being appointed Leader of the UK Parliamentary Delegtion to the Council of Europe John has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the work of the Council and the delegation. On 15th June he led a debate in Westminster Hall to promote this further. Below is the text of John's opening speech. The debate can also be watched online.
The speech reads:
It pains me to start on a slightly sour note. But we are having this debate here in Westminster Hall because successive Leaders of the House have said ‘no’ to us being allowed government time for a debate in the main chamber. Given the number of people who have put in for this debate, and the many more who have expressed interest in it, I believe that expresses the greatest of interests in the subject and it is a shame that we will be unable to hear the full richness of contributions from members of the delegation and others due to time constraints. That is no criticism of Westminster Hall as a setting for this debate, Dame Maria. But it is a request to the Minister to provide us with assistance in trying to raise the visibility and importance of the Council of Europe.
More people now understand what the Council of Europe is and what it does. As a delegation we work hard to make our contribution in the plenary sessions of the Parliamentary assembly. In the committee meetings that take place between the plenary meetings. And more generally. We publish, for example, a summary after each plenary meeting of what we discussed and the character of the meeting. I brief lobby journalists before we go. We issue press releases on key subjects such as the position of Russia, or the fate of the British individuals sentenced to death. We have held seminars, well attended with, for example, Vladimir Kama Murza, a Russian dissident now in prison, and with Ahmet Yildiz on Turkey. Finally, I raise written questions on the subjects of the debates we have had after each meeting. I think that this has dramatically increased the profile of the Council of Europe amongst parliamentarians and perhaps more generally amongst members of the public. I do, however, appreciate that there is still a lot more to do to make sure that people don’t confuse us with the EU, an organisation about half the numbers of countries as us.
And the reason for saying this is that the role of the Council of Europe has never been more important. For me, one of the proudest moments was when we expelled Russia from membership of the Council. I am told, that I was the first person to ask for this to happen in current days in a letter that I sent to the Secretary General asking for their expulsion. I was also pleased to see the support from the delegation for this action. Thank heavens the Covid crisis has diminished substantially. The sort of diplomacy required simply cannot be carried out by zoom or remotely. It is great to be back in person for our effectiveness. And I am pleased that newer members of the Delegation can now see that what I said all along about it being clearer what the Council stood for was best achieved through personal attendance is absolutely true. I am sure that other members will want to comment on Russia in further contributions.
The Russian expulsion has however left the Council with a deficit which this time we are keen to see professionally filled. I appreciate the need for reform of the Council and we look forward to participating in that reform. It is bizarre that meetings have taken place at a Ministerial level in which there has been little contact with this Delegation which has tremendous experience of the Council and the work that it does. But I am grateful that the UK Government has agreed to provide an additional £2.8 million this year to help the Council out of the hole left by the expulsion of Russia. That gives us an opportunity to take advantage of the current situation to push the UK position forward in the full knowledge that we are participating fully in the future of the Council.
It is important to understand how the Council works. It works on the basis of putting forward conventions – international treaties – for countries to agree. These set standards across the wider Europe in key areas. Let me give one example of this and which goes a long way to answering the question what does the Council do for us. And that is the Istanbul convention.
The Government has set 31 July 2022 as the date by which it expects to ratify the Istanbul Convention (On Combating Violence against Women and Girls and Domestic Violence). Many of us regard the Istanbul Convention as a flagship convention of the Council of Europe and as the gold standard for the protection of women and girls in Europe. The Government signed the Convention in 2012 and has been working since that date to strengthen UK laws to better protect women and girls. We like to change the law in this country first before we ratify treaties.
The necessary Command Paper was laid in both Houses on Tuesday 17 May. I hope there will be no objections within the following 21 sitting days, and that the Convention will be ratified. There are two reservations within the Convention which the UK is allowed to make. The first concerns crimes in UK law which are not crimes in other territories and the second relates to migrant victims. Members are free to ask Ministers questions about these caveats.
This illustrates only too well how the Council works. A treaty. Not compulsory to sign. Where the arguments for or against are set out and debated. And where the successful signing of the treaty involves us a members of the Delegation in pursuing the diplomacy involved through for example Westminster Hall debates, by encouraging meetings between Ministers and the President of the Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, and by our membership of the Parliamentary Network Women Free from Violence.
The Council is also active in the field of human rights. Never has there been a greater need to be on top of this issue internationally. I have already held a debate in the main Chamber on the future of the court because it does need reform. here is too much influence of NGOs. Some of the judges could be more suitably qualified. It is not just Russia’s judges which were sent back for examination. The same has also happened with Iceland. But one of the biggest tests for the court is occurring in Turkey where the Committee of Ministers – the second chamber – has begun infringement proceedings against Turkey. The key question here is are we to allow Turkey to infringe the Court or are we to take action? And what should that action consist of? Does it mean the expulsion of Turkey from the Council or are there other routes to follow since we cannot do nothing. As one of the rapporteurs for the Council on Turkey, let me explain the situation in relation to Osman Kavala. Kavala is a leading businessman and campaigner who has been sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment after a period of pre-trial detention. The Turkish authorities argue that the original court case has been complied with in that Kavala was released to be rearrested the following day. The court argues that its judgement applies to the whole of the evidence base for all charges brought against Kavala which is lacking in any evidence. That is the source of the current impasse with the Turkish government. Now, I know that Turkey faces many attempts at terrorism. I have great sympathy for it in this. But the question has to be asked as to the extent these anti-terrorism laws are too restrictive and contravene human rights. There are other examples besides Kavala of course.
What this illustrates is the important work that the Council does in monitoring countries to ensure that they are complying with the three pillars of the Council – human rights, the rule of law and democracy. This and election monitoring are important functions. While I can see there is room for doing joint monitoring exercises with the Committee of Ministers this is an important element of what the Council does, and I would not like to see it given away to other organisations and the Council not having a role in this.
Of course, there is plenty of opportunity for the Council to work with other organisations such as the OSCE. I have already had discussions with the head of the UK Delegation to the OSCE. We are looking at ways of working together more closely. But it would be wrong to see the OSCE in having more experience of election monitoring or in monitoring more generally.
A key question though remains what role for the Council of Europe in the future. I welcome the UK Government’s support for Kosovo joining the Council – a role we too support. There have already started many discussions about this in which we can, should and do participate. The recent Turin Ministerial meeting is one such example. I am grateful for the attendance of the Foreign Secretary. Another is the debate which took place in Dublin at the Standing Committee on the future discussions that will take place. Personally, I think there is so much more that the Council can do in the area of the rule of law and in promoting democracy across the wider Europe. In both these areas there are in many countries gaps and knowledge is needed to help them get the right answer. We stand ready to work in promoting this area. And it is one where we would as a Delegation value the chance to have more extensive discussions with the Foreign Office and indeed with other Ministers. We do have the experience of putting programmes in this area together.
Let me conclude by saying that in putting down written questions after each debate at the Council of Europe should have brought home to all of us just how wide the debates have been and how what we do affects policy across Government. Those debates which relate to the Foreign Office number some 30%. The rest cover a range of Ministries from DWP to Culture. I ask these questions partly to show the range of debates we conduct. Partly to make sure that there is a written answer on record for the issues which have bene discussed and so that we understand what Government is doing. This is welcome – at least by us. But there is an issue on which we would also welcome the Minister’s help and that is making sure the Government’s position can be put across when rapporteurs visit the country on behalf of the Council and need to see a Government minister. I know this is a pain. But without this the result does not look good and can leave us in an embarrassing position.
I am extremely grateful not just for the work of all the Delegation. We try to operate on a genuinely cross-party basis wherever possible. We also have an utterly brilliant secretariat led by Nick Wright to whom we would all like to pay our thanks. And finally, I would on behalf of us all like to pay thanks to three people in Strasbourg. First, Alan Mitchell, the chairman of the Committee on the Prevention of Torture. Second, our judge at the court (ECtHR), Tim Eicke, who we are grateful to for getting to know us and sharing with us his expertise and experience. And, thirdly, our permanent representative, Sandy Moss, whose assistance and cooperation with the delegation is second to none and has been very helpful.
The Council of Europe is crucially important for our relationship with the wider Europe particularly after Brexit. It sets a method of co-operation that I feel can alienate no one. It is a major part in our international diplomacy and the departure of Russia offers us an opportunity to make real change. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
