Protest against Strasbourg seat
As you may know, we have long campaigned against the waste of having two seats for the European Parliament (click here www.oneseat.eu to support the campaign) Some years ago, when our attempt to protest against having to sit in Strasbourg by voting to hold only eleven sessions annually was overturned by the European Court of Justice upon an application by the French Government, we voted instead to meet there only four days a session by finishing Thursday afternoons. 

Less scrutiny
This has had the perverse effect of making us much busier and the week more tiring than before.  This is partly due to the regular need for ‘extraordinary’ committee meetings on the Monday and Tuesday evenings biting into full session time.  Another consequence, which is definitely a malign one, is that the time allocated to oral questions to the Commission and the Council on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings is quite often taken away if a debate or a statement by the Council is deemed more important.  This seems to happen at the convenience of the Council when a suspicious mind might think it preferred to avoid answering certain questions.  My colleague Philip Bushill-Matthews MEP does a valiant job complaining about this loss of scrutiny and accountability. 

Working late
This week we had to hold a committee meeting on the Monday from 9pm until 10.45pm in order to vote on a number of reports.  This meant that after a long day’s travel I had to spend the time saying “Amendment XX, those in favour, those against, abstentions, that is adopted/rejected” occasionally breaking the routine with “I’m not sure about that one I would like an electronic check, the vote is open, has everyone voted, the vote is closed, X members voting, Y in favour” etc.  I barely have time to break for a sip of water so the old voice can take a bit of a battering.  But, with hundreds of amendments to get through, needs must. 

Then and now
The point of all this is to compare how things are now with when I was first elected in 1994.  Then the week seemed to stretch out endlessly to Friday afternoon when we would start the long

journey home.  Now I am so busy that I barely have time to think about it until Thursday afternoon.  The irony is that I now use Thursday afternoons and early evenings, after the final votes, to catch up on paperwork and planning before having an early night prior to my long return journey Friday mornings.  I am grateful to have too much to do rather than too little because it makes the time go by fast and I prefer to travel during the day rather than late in the evening after a full day’s meetings.

Informal meetings innovation
One way we get around the constraints on allocation of committee time is to hold ‘informal’ meetings.  That means there is no interpretation as we work in one language and getting a room is much easier.  This works surprisingly well.  This session we held such a meeting to discuss the review of the Euratom Treaty in the run up to the 50^th anniversary in 2007.  This covers nuclear safeguards, ie control over fissile material to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, and safety issues. 

Informal trialogue
Another innovation aimed at streamlining the legislative process is the ‘informal trialogue’.  We held one this session at 8.30am on the Thursday to close the package on the Seventh Framework Programme of European Research and its Rules for Participation.  Trialogue means a three way discussion between the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission so as to reach a compromise agreement on a legislative proposal. 

On track for 2007
The main reason we are using this fast track procedure is that we all want the legislation in place and operative as from January 1^st 2007 so the research community can start submitting bids for project funding.  And the reason we ran out of time for the normal procedure is that the Member States only agreed the financial perspective, the overall budget for 2007-13, in late spring.  We could not start our work until we knew the financial settlement.  The original proposal was for €74 bn and the final sum was €54 bn, some difference.

Comment

 Hungarian Anniversary
This October session of the European Parliament we observed a significant anniversary.  The President of Hungary came, as Head of State, to make a speech marking the 50^th Anniversary of the uprising in Budapest against Soviet dictatorship.

 Solemnelles
Usually I give the so-called session solemnelles or formal sittings a miss but on this occasion I made a point of going into the chamber to listen.  I can remember the coverage of the events in Hungary fifty years ago and my frustration that we were unable to help. 

Low point
Combined with the Suez crisis and our humbling at the hands of Nasser and the Americans it all seemed a low point in our history let alone the fate of the poor brave Hungarians. 

Rising to the challenge
I rejoice that they are now free to experience the pangs of democracy, as seems to be the case at the moment.  They face considerable challenges in making up for the lost time under Soviet communist command economics and political oppression.  And if it costs us a bit to help them in the process it seems only fair as some recompense for when we stood back and watched. 

Final thought
It is only necessary for good men to do nothing to allow evil to prevail!