1. Introduction
1. At the meeting of the Bureau of the Assembly on 25
January 2010, issues relating to the credentials of national delegations
were raised. As a result, the Bureau instructed the Committee on
Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs to submit
an opinion on the criteria by which to ascertain whether the parties or
political groups in national parliaments are fairly represented
in the national delegations (Rule 6.2.a of the Assembly’s Rules
of Procedure).
2. The committee adopted an opinion on 26 April 2010 and forwarded
it to the Bureau of the Assembly. At its meeting on 30 April 2010,
the Bureau instructed the committee to prepare a report on “fair
representation of political parties or groups in national delegations
to the Parliamentary Assembly”.
3. This report presents measures taken to ensure fair representation
of political parties and groups in national delegations, recalls
their origin, and provides information on how they are interpreted
and put into practice in the Assembly. It also submits a proposal
to the national parliaments and the Assembly itself, setting out
the principles to be taken into account when assessing the pluralistic
composition of national delegations.
2. Current
provisions and their origin
2.1. Background
4. The Council of Europe’s Statute says nothing about
the political composition of national delegations to the Assembly.
However, the need to observe the democratic principles enshrined
in the preamble to the Statute of the Council of Europe places a
moral obligation on member states to ensure that the composition
of their parliaments’ delegations to the Assembly are “pluralistic”.
The Assembly’s Rules of Procedure formalised this obligation
by
laying down detailed criteria for the composition of national delegations.
5. On the subject of their political composition, the current
Rule 6.2.a states:
“Insofar as
the number of their members allows, national delegations should
be composed so as to ensure a fair representation of the political
parties or groups in their parliaments. … Each parliament shall
inform the Assembly of the methods used to appoint seats on the
delegation.”
6. A national delegation’s still unratified credentials may be
challenged on procedural grounds based on “the principles in Rule
6.2, that national parliamentary delegations should be composed
so as to ensure a fair representation of the political parties or
groups in their parliaments …” (Rule 7.1.b).
2.2. Origins of Rule
6.2.a
7. The rule on the political composition of national
delegations was first added to the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure
in 1989 and was amended twice thereafter, in 1996 and 1999.
8. In 1989,
Resolution
932 (1989) amended Rule 6.5 as follows:
“Credentials which give rise to
an objection or are contested shall be referred without debate to
the Committee on Rules of Procedure. In every case where there is
an objection or credentials are contested, the reasons shall be
stated and shall be based upon one or more of the relevant provisions of
the Statute (in particular Articles 3, 25 and 26), including the
democratic principles set out in the preamble to the Statute, notably
the principle that national parliamentary delegations should reflect
the various currents of opinion within their Parliaments.”
9. In 1994 and 1995, the Bureau discussed problems relating to
the methods of selecting members of national delegations, including
the non-representation in national delegations of certain political
groups present in national parliaments. The Bureau therefore asked
the Committee on Rules of Procedure to examine the rights of minority
groups within the national parliaments to be represented in the
delegation to the Assembly.
Resolution
1104 (1996) on the designation of national delegations
to the Assembly, which was adopted as a result, enhanced the Assembly’s
means of monitoring compliance with the principle of pluralistic
composition of national delegations by amending Rule 6 as follows:
“5. In so far as this is possible,
given the number of their members, national delegations of the Assembly should
be composed so as to ensure an equitable representation of the political
parties or forces present in their parliaments.
6. When a parliament of a member state appoints a new
delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly at the opening of the latter’s
parliamentary year or following parliamentary elections, it shall
indicate the methods for the distribution of seats on the delegation
between the political groups existing within it.”
10. The current wording of Rule 6.2.a (see paragraph 5 above)
was adopted when the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure were revised
in November 1999 (
Resolution
1202 (1999)).
11. It is worth noting that, in the successive texts it adopted
between 1989 and 1999, the Assembly used different forms of wording
to reflect the principle it wished to establish of fair political
representation in national delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly:
- in Recommendation 1027 (1986) delegations
were to “fairly represent the political forces present in parliament”;
- in Resolution
932 (1989) delegations were to “reflect the various currents
of opinion within their parliaments”;
- in Recommendation
1104 (1996) delegations were to “ensure equitable representation
of the political parties or forces present in their parliaments”;
- in Resolution
1202 (1999) delegations were to “ensure a fair representation
of the political parties or groups in their parliaments”.
3. The interpretation
and practical use by the Assembly of the expression “fair representation”
in Rule 6.2.a
3.1. Background
12. The procedure followed by national parliaments to
appoint their national delegation to the Assembly is determined
by the respective parliament and so it can vary from one country
to another. Methods include appointment by the political parties
or groups themselves in proportion to their numbers, appointment
by common consent among political groups and appointment by the
speaker of the parliament after consultation with groups or parties.
13. The concept of “fair representation” has not been officially
interpreted by the Assembly and it has not established any detailed
criteria by which to assess whether a national delegation fairly
represents the political parties or groups which make up its parliament.
14. It is quite clear from Rule 6.2.a that the Assembly applies
a concept of fairness rather than mathematical proportionality to
determine whether the composition of delegations is politically
fair. As stated in the rules (“in so far as this is possible, given
the number of their members …”), national parliaments enjoy a degree
of discretion when it comes to the composition of delegations.
Obviously, a parliament’s political
groups cannot be accurately represented in the Assembly when there
are more groups than seats to be filled in the Assembly.
Furthermore,
it has been the Assembly’s longstanding practice that both Representatives
and Substitutes in a national delegation are taken into account
for establishing whether a national delegation is politically balanced.
Where both chambers of a member parliament are represented on the
Assembly delegation, it will be ascertained whether the delegation
as a whole (and not the “sub-delegations” of each chamber) ensures
a fair representation of the respective political parties or groups.
15. In exceptionally circumstances, and for a short period of
time, the parliament of a member state is sometimes represented
by an incomplete delegation because no (overall) agreement could
be reached among the political groups in the parliament or because
a political group entitled to one or more seats in the delegation was
not in a position at that time to make appointments. Such situations
do not cause any problem provided they do not last for too long.
The Assembly has ratified incomplete delegations’ credentials on
several occasions.
16. Other major considerations concerning the interpretation of
“fair representation” are to be found in the three reports which
form the basis of
Recommendation
1027 (1986) and
Resolutions
932 (1996) and
1104 (1996) (see
below). The absence of “fair representation” has been raised several
times in connection with the ratification of credentials and has
also been referred to on occasion in the Bureau of the Assembly.
These cases will be analysed below.
3.2. The discussions
in the Assembly on 29 January 1996 and in the Standing Committee
on 7 November 1996, and the relevant reports
17. The reports on which
Recommendation 1027 (1986) and
Resolution 932 (1989) were
based indicated that the Assembly should avoid any involvement in
a detailed analysis of the composition of delegations from national
parliaments. The Assembly was simply to ensure that the main political
currents present in a parliament were represented and, in particular,
that the delegation included opposition parties (
Doc. 5497, paragraph
7 and
Doc. 6101,
paragraph 11).
18. In the Assembly’s debate on 29 January 1986 on the amendment
of Articles 14 and 25 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, the
rapporteur said that “this does not mean that the membership of
delegations should be determined with the exactitude of a medical
prescription but that we should be given the assurance that delegations
to the Assembly are truly representative of their parliaments and
of the political spectrum in their respective home countries. ...
This is a very important provision that will help to enable us truly
to speak on behalf of our own countries.”
Other
important statements were made during this debate:
- a proposal to replace the expression
“fair representation” by “proportional representation” by two members
of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which had been
asked for an opinion on the report, had been rejected by the committee
because it felt that there was no difference in meaning between
the two words;
- it was pointed out that there is always a danger when
a Substitute on a delegation represents a small party, which is
not entitled to, and does not enjoy, a full member’s place, that
this Substitute member will not get the opportunity to speak in
the Assembly;
- attention was drawn to the need to ensure that each delegation
includes Representatives of the opposition parties.
19. The report on which
Resolution
1004 (1996) on the designation of national delegations
to the Parliamentary Assembly is based (
Doc. 7627) describes the methods
for appointing national delegations, including the special measures
in the case of bicameral parliaments. It contains several important
passages:
- There are no standardised
national procedures for appointing delegations to the Assembly (paragraph 1);
- In general, the seats in a delegation to the Assembly
are divided between the national parliament’s political groups either
on a proportional basis or as the result of an agreement among the
political groups; the parliaments (chambers) elect the members or
approve the agreement; in some parliaments, electoral lists comprising
less than 5% of the members are not considered for membership of
the Parliamentary Assembly (paragraph 8);
- The Assembly has always maintained that national parliaments
have a considerable degree of discretion in the appointment of their
delegation; it should avoid involving itself in a detailed analysis
of the political composition of a delegation (paragraph 15);
- At the same time, through the procedure of verification
of credentials, the Assembly is requested to uphold the Council
of Europe’s fundamental values (rule of law, respect for human rights
and pluralistic democracy) (paragraph 16);
- Except in urgent cases, the Assembly should not intervene
until domestic remedies have been exhausted (namely, appeal to the
relevant authorities of the national parliament or constitutional
appeal) (paragraph 17);
- It would be problematic for the Assembly to stipulate
that if one of a national parliament’s political groups (which can
claim, under the internal rules, to be represented in the delegation
to the Assembly) puts forward the requisite number of candidatures,
the parliament must automatically accept the candidature(s) (paragraph
23);
- Accurate representation of all political forces can never
be ensured in member parliaments which have a limited number of
seats in the Assembly and possess more political groups than there
are seats to be filled (paragraph 24);
- However, the Assembly cannot remain indifferent to designation
conflicts in national parliaments (paragraph 25) and it may consider
the possibility of making recommendations to any national parliaments
experiencing difficulties in appointing its delegation’s members
(paragraph 28).
20. When presenting this report to the Standing Committee on 7
November 1996, the rapporteur said that the aim of the resolution
was to ensure fair participation of all political groups or forces
in the national delegations of the Assembly (AS/Per (1996) PV 4,
item 16.a). The point was not to prescribe the method for designation
but to ask each parliament to inform the Assembly of the method
used so that the latter could verify it.
3.3. Role of the Assembly’s
Table Office when credentials are received and before they are submitted
to the Assembly for ratification
21. It is the role of the Assembly’s Table Office to
advise the President of the Assembly on all issues of procedure,
including credentials. Credentials sent to the President according
to Rule 6.1 of the Rules of Procedure are therefore first examined
from a procedural point of view by the Table Office before they
are forwarded to the Assembly (or the Standing Committee) for ratification.
22. This examination consists, in particular, of ascertaining
that the method used to allocate seats on a national delegation
(of which the Assembly has to be informed by the respective parliaments
under Rule 6.2.a) has been applied fairly and without discrimination.
In the event of difficulties, the Table Office may seek further clarification
from the secretariat of the national delegation concerned. This
has often made it possible to settle problems before credentials
were examined in plenary session. In other cases, the President
is informed that there may be a problem to be addressed.
3.4. Challenge of credentials
concerning fair representation
23. On six of the eight occasions
when
credentials of national delegations were challenged for procedural reasons,
the fair representation criterion (Rule 6.2.a of the Assembly’s
Rules) was referred to directly or indirectly. In the three most
recent cases (Albania, Armenia, Moldova), unbalanced political representation
was the main stumbling block:
- right
of a group to be represented in the delegation by a Representative
and not a Substitute (Armenia);
- appointment of a (incomplete) delegation in contradiction
with national provisions (formation of the delegation from the parliamentary
groups on the basis of proportionality) (Moldova);
- reduction in the number of seats allocated to Representatives
of the major opposition party (Albania).
3.4.1. Challenge of the
credentials of the delegations of Albania, Armenia and Moldova
3.4.1.1. Albanian parliamentary
delegation
24. In January 2010, the Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs was asked to look into the
composition of the Albanian delegation. The Albanian Parliament
had six political groups and four seats for Representatives and
four for Substitutes in the Parliamentary Assembly. The main political
group supporting the Albanian Government had about 48% of the seats
in the parliament and the main opposition political group had about
46%, while the four other political parties shared about 6%. However,
the main political group in the majority held two Representatives’
seats and two Substitutes’ seats in the Assembly delegation while
the main opposition party held a single Substitute’s seat (and the
two seats that were still vacant, one for a Representative and one
for a Substitute) and one Representative’s seat had been allocated to
a fourth political group in the Albanian Parliament which was not
a member of the government.
25. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs held that this composition complied with Rule 6 given that
the two vacant seats were reserved for the opposition. It considered
it appropriate to grant a second opposition group a seat on the
delegation, thus making it more pluralistic. In purely arithmetical
terms, this was disadvantageous for another political group, the
third in respect of the number of seats in the Albanian Parliament,
but that group was part of the government majority.
3.4.1.2. Armenian parliamentary
delegation
26. In January 2010, the Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs was also asked to clarify the
interpretation of the Rules on the place of the parliamentary opposition
in connection with the composition of the Armenian parliamentary
delegation. The committee noted that the opposition held two of
the eight seats in the Armenian delegation (one of the four Representatives’
seats and one of the four Substitutes’ seats) and found that the
composition of the delegation was in compliance with Rule 6.2 despite the
fact that a member of the opposition who had been a Representative
in 2009 had been made a Substitute in 2010. In arriving at this
conclusion, the committee applied the principle that political balance
should be assessed in the light of the total number of delegation
members regardless of their status.
3.4.1.3. Moldovan parliamentary
delegation
27. Lastly, regarding the credentials of the Moldovan
delegation, the Assembly was asked, in September 2009, to examine
whether the granting of three Representatives’ seats and one Substitute’s
seat to the four political groups supporting the government and
two Representatives’ seats to the political group forming the opposition
in parliament was compatible with the concept of fair representation.
Moldova has 10 seats in the Parliamentary Assembly (five Representatives
and five Substitutes). In the Moldovan Parliament, the four majority
parties held 53 seats while the opposition held 48. The committee
found that this situation complied with Article 6.2. As to the other
objection raised, namely the fact that the Moldovan delegation was
incomplete, the committee pointed out that this was not an exceptional
situation and that the Assembly had ratified the credentials of
incomplete delegations on several occasions. It did, however, invite
the Monitoring Committee to instruct its co-rapporteurs for Moldova
to ask the Moldovan parliamentary authorities, as a matter of urgency, to
specify their intentions in regard to the four vacant seats for
Substitutes on the Moldovan delegation.
3.4.2. Challenge of the
credentials of the United Kingdom delegation
28. The report of 1992 on the credentials of the United
Kingdom delegation (
Doc.
6610) contains important information on the subject of
fair representation. Admittedly, it was drafted when the decisive
provision in the Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs had a weaker wording than at present (“... the principle that
national parliamentary delegations should reflect the various currents
of opinion within their parliaments”). In paragraph 12 of the report
it is stated that the Committee on Rules of Procedure has no authority
to examine the detailed political balance within the United Kingdom
delegation or, for that matter, within any other delegation in the
Assembly. In the rapporteur’s view, the relevant provision deliberately
does not require the balance of parties and opinions in the parliament
to be reflected exactly in the composition of the delegation. The
rapporteur also refers to the principle that the Assembly should
seek to avoid interfering in the internal political composition
of a national delegation. To do so might be invidious in more cases
than one.
3.4.3. Challenge of the
credentials of a special guest delegation (Armenia)
29. A parliament with special guest status must appoint
a delegation reflecting the various currents of opinion within it.
In 1998, the credentials of the special guest delegation from Armenia
were challenged on the ground that the largest opposition faction,
consisting of 50 out of a total of 149 members of the Armenian parliament,
had been excluded from the delegation to the Assembly. The Committee
on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs concluded
that a delegation which omitted from its ranks a representative of
the main opposition faction could not be considered to reflect the
various currents of opinion of that parliament; it recommended that
the Assembly should ratify the delegation’s credentials on the condition
that a seat would remain vacant for a Representative of the opposition.
In a second report, prepared following
a visit to Armenia (
Doc.
8292, Addendum I), it was pointed out that it was not
the rapporteur’s role under the Assembly’s Rules to repair perceived
injustice in the composition of the delegation in the past or take
account of the composition of the delegation of the Armenian Parliament
to other international organisations. Any evaluation of the representativeness
of the Armenian delegation had to be made on the basis of figures available
for the current parliament as it stood. It may be noted that both
reports referred to “main” opposition and “main” currents of opinion.
4. Summary and
proposals
30. Appointment by the parliament of a Council of Europe
member state of a delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly in which
the political parties or groups in that parliament are fairly represented
is an important duty. In principle, the national provisions concerning
this appointment ensure that political parties or groups are proportionally
represented on delegations to the Assembly which are elected or
approved by the parliament.
31. However, experience in the Assembly shows that there are often
conflicts – albeit limited to some member states – concerning the
appointment of delegations in national parliaments, in which the
Assembly has to get involved.
4.1. The Assembly’s
scope for intervention
32. It is difficult to establish the extent to which
the Assembly may “monitor” how national parliaments have fulfilled
the condition of “fair representation” of political parties and
groups in the delegations. This difficulty is due to the need to
balance two competing principles which come into play.
33. On the one hand, the Assembly is entrusted by the Statute
of the Council of Europe (Article 28.c.iv) with the examination
of credentials. Due to the strong commitment of the Council of Europe
to European values (the rule of law, respect for human rights and
the principle of pluralistic democracy), it goes without saying
that the Assembly will also wish to uphold these values with respect
to its members’ credentials. Their examination is a test of democratic
legitimacy. Furthermore, the Assembly cannot remain indifferent
to designation conflicts in national parliaments which, over and
beyond the tensions normally existing between political groups,
betray a certain “malaise” regarding the way in which pluralism
is practised as well as deficiencies in the method of designating
the members of certain parliaments’ delegations.
34. On the other hand, since there are no provisions in the Statute
of the Council of Europe or other European texts concerning the
details of the appointment of national delegations to the Assembly
by national parliaments, parliaments have a wide degree of discretion
in this respect. The delegations to the Assembly are generally elected
by national parliaments and thus have considerable legitimacy.
35. Consequently, prime responsibility for ensuring fair representation
of the political parties and groups of a national parliament in
the delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly lies with the national
parliament. Through its verification of credentials, the Assembly
has an important but nevertheless subsidiary role in this respect.
In the event of problems with the appointment of delegations, all
possible national remedies should be exhausted before the matter
is raised at Parliamentary Assembly level.
36. This limits the Assembly’s scope for intervention. However,
the Assembly should have, and has taken, the liberty of expressing
its views whenever there are formal or procedural deficiencies because
of non-compliance with national procedural provisions and where
manifestly unfair and indefensible decisions have been taken concerning
delegations. If, in particular, there are no opposition members
in a delegation, its credentials cannot be ratified.
37. In the case of problematic credentials, it would be useful
if the Assembly could more frequently ask the parliaments concerned
to provide information and address more recommendations to any national
parliaments experiencing difficulties in designating its delegation’s
members. In such cases, the Monitoring Committee has been put in
charge of the relevant procedures.
4.2. Other measures
4.2.1. Information to
be provided when credentials are submitted
38. The provision in Rule 6.2.a, under which “each parliament
shall inform the Assembly of the methods used to appoint seats on
the delegation” is not followed strictly by all parliaments as some
of them fail to provide this information when they submit new delegations’
credentials. It would be useful if the Secretary General of the
Assembly could draw this situation to the attention of the delegations
concerned.
39. It would also be very useful if, when submitting credentials
to the President of the Assembly, parliaments stated whether political
groups were members of the majority or the opposition in the state
concerned. Their correspondence could also describe any problems
they had in appointing a full delegation or provide any other information
likely to help the Assembly to understand their choices when appointing
delegations (for example, balancing of the delegations sent to other
international bodies).
4.2.2. Guarantees as to
the participation of Substitutes in Assembly and committee work
40. An additional problem which has emerged in connection
with the composition of delegations is ensuring that members of
the opposition, when they are represented in the delegation only
by Substitutes, can participate in plenary sessions and committee
meetings
and that they
are given the opportunity to replace Representatives during plenary
sessions and committee meetings, thus enabling them to speak and
vote.
41. Substitutes can only make their voices heard in the Assembly
if their travel expenses to Strasbourg are covered. There is a danger
that more and more parliaments will contemplate no longer paying
for the attendance of Substitutes at plenary sessions in Strasbourg
and at Assembly committee meetings. Already in 2009, the Committee
on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs expressed
its concern at the idea that a delegation may not fill its whole
quota of seats for budgetary reasons.
42. For the time being, such considerations are still negligible,
and the Assembly has not yet reached the point where it has to determine
whether a national delegation fairly represents the political parties
or groups in its parliament on the basis of Representatives alone.
Obviously, if the current budgetary restrictions in parliaments
were to prompt them to reduce the participation of their members
in the Assembly’s work, the Assembly would have to ensure that this
was not restricting the proper participation of Representatives
of opposition parties.
4.3. Draft principles
designed to ensure that political parties or groups are fairly represented
in national delegations
43. In view of the Assembly’s limited scope for intervention
(see paragraphs 32-36 above) and the need for flexibility when ascertaining
whether the political parties and groups in a national parliament
are fairly represented in a national delegation to the Assembly,
it would not be appropriate to add strict provisions to the existing
rules on how “fair representation” is to be ensured.
44. A wiser approach would be for the Assembly to lay down certain
principles to be taken into account when ascertaining fair representation
of political parties and groups in national delegations. These could
ultimately be included in the complementary texts to the Assembly’s
rules.
45. The following principles, which are derived from the reports
and practice of the Assembly (described in paragraphs 12-29 above)
relating to the verification of national delegations’ credentials,
shall apply when an assessment is being made as to whether political
parties or groups are “fairly represented” in national delegations
to the Parliamentary Assembly:
45.1. As
“fair” is not as such defined in the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure,
it is reasonable to use the usual meaning – honest, impartial, just,
equitable, non-discriminatory – when examining the question of a
“fair representation”.
45.2. It is the national parliaments which decide upon the composition
of their delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly. As there are
no standardised procedures for national parliaments to appoint delegations
to the Assembly, the national parliaments’ political discretion
must, in general, be respected. The Assembly should avoid becoming
involved in a detailed analysis of the political composition of
a delegation.
45.3. Parliaments’ decisions on appointments must respect national
procedural rules and be, on the whole, “fair”: that is to say, honest,
impartial, just, equitable and non-discriminatory. The national procedural
rules should also be in accordance with the Council of Europe’s
fundamental values (rule of law, respect for human rights and pluralistic
democracy).
45.4. On the basis of information received from parliaments
on the methods used to allocate seats on their delegation, the Assembly
assesses merely whether the representation of political groups of
the parliament is fair, not whether it is proportionate.
45.5. According to Rule 6.2.a of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure,
each national parliament informs the Assembly of the methods used
to appoint seats on the delegation. The Assembly’s Table Office examines
the credentials of a delegation from a procedural point of view,
before forwarding them to the Assembly (or the Standing Committee)
for ratification.
45.6. In case of difficulties, the Table Office may seek further
clarification from the secretariat of the national delegation concerned.
The Table Office should inform the President of the Assembly if
there is a potential problem which needs to be addressed.
45.7. Both Representatives and Substitutes are taken into account
when determining the political balance of a national delegation
in order to assess “fair representation”.
45.8. In the case of bicameral parliaments, fair representation
is assessed at the level of the delegation as a whole (not the members
of each chamber).
45.9. Parliaments with many political groups but with a limited
number of seats in the Assembly may justifiably invoke difficulties
in fulfilling the condition of “fair representation” (Rule 6.2.a:
“Insofar as the number of their members allows ...”).
45.10. Where a parliament is made up mostly of two major political
groups, representing the majority and the opposition, and several
very small opposition parties, it is preferable not to distribute
the seats equally among the two “bigger” groups alone but to include
other groups in the delegation to make it more pluralistic. For
the duration of the legislature, the possibility of annually rotating
membership of the delegation may be contemplated for small political
groups.
45.11. Where there are problems appointing the members of a delegation,
the political group(s) supporting the government might be asked
to make “compromise efforts”, in particular to promote a better
representation of the opposition. Candidates proposed by a political
group should in general be accepted as members or Substitutes if
they meet the criteria of the national procedural rules.
45.12. If, because of the limited number of seats of a delegation
and the small size of the opposition parties, it is not possible
to appoint at least one member of the opposition as a Representative
on the delegation, it should be ensured that opposition members
who are Substitutes can travel to Strasbourg and that they are given
the opportunity to replace Representatives on their delegation.
46. National parliaments are invited to take account
of the above principles relating to the interpretation of the concept
of fair representation when appointing their national delegations.