The parliamentary session in Strasbourg this month coincided with the 50^th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising. The Hungarian President, Laszlo Solyom, (the Prime Minister is still in disgrace for telling the truth) addressed MEPs in a formal sitting to commemorate this. Ignoring the sad fact that heavy-handed policing had just led to uproar in Budapest he noted that: “the real reason for this commemoration and joy is that this joint celebration is taking place in a Hungary that is independent, sovereign and democratic, where there is the rule of law, and where the country can become a member of international organisations such as the European Union of its own free will.”

 

The attitude of Britain and France, then both absorbed in the Suez crisis, still rankles though and the President referred to the fact that “neither the American nor the French or British governments intended to intervene and they made this clear to the Soviet leadership”. I remember all this vaguely: we had Hungarian refugees in Penzance identifiable by the little Hungarian flags sewn on their jackets. I remember seeing them on the promenade - perhaps the sea made them homesick for Lake Balaton. I remember Suez too. At the age of 9 I was a strong advocate of British intervention. Not for any reasons of real politik but because a neighbour who was a member of the TA had promised to bring me back some Egyptian stamps, perhaps with valuable emergency overprinting, for my collection – which he duly did.

 

Politically the main event of the parliamentary session was the adoption by a margin of 321 votes to 311 of a resolution on the peace process in Spain. This welcomed the announcement of a permanent ceasefire made by the Basque separatist terror group ETA, called on the Council and Commission to take “appropriate action” [unspecified]; condemned violence as morally unacceptable and incompatible with democracy; and supported “the fight against terrorism and the peace initiative   in the Basque Country undertaken by the Spanish democratic institutions within the framework of their exclusive competences”

 

The Spanish MEPs in our political group, who belong to the Opposition “Partido   Popular”, were dead against this. They believe ETA cannot be trusted: it has not   apologised for its actions in causing many deaths, and to them is still a threat. I supported my Spanish colleagues by voting against the resolution but rather wish that I had not. It seems to me that the lesson of Northern Ireland is that pride on all sides has to be swallowed at some stage if a peace process is to get started. But Spanish     politics on this point are about 20 years behind what has happened in Northern Ireland, and the two main parties can’t stand each other.

 

October is the month when the Parliament holds its first reading of the EU annual budget, where the rapporteur this year is a British Conservative, James Elles. MEPs made their traditional bid to restore cuts made by the more parsimonious Council of 25 finance ministers and the outcome was the adoption of a budget of some £80 billion in payments next year, equalling just 1.04% of the EU’s gross national income.

The Parliament put in more for “sustainable growth”, for cross-border rail projects, for rural development, for the agency managing the EU’s external borders, plus smaller amounts for such possible projects as a “Euroglobe”, described as a “Globe theatre aiming to promote an open European space for debate, culture and study”. The Council will now winnow these bright ideas before our second reading.

 

The difficulty the Commission faces in micro-managing the budget when many small sums are spent in a programme where all 25, soon to be 27, member states are eligible was well illustrated this month in the story of the LIFE programme. LIFE was largely created by the Parliament as a means of giving financial support to projects improving the environment, rescuing endangered species, protecting habitats etc. A south western example is the project on Salisbury plain to protect, and to some extent to create, the habitat of the stone curlew, an ungratefully ugly bird, but nevertheless precious. The Commission is now proposing that management of LIFE should be delegated to the member state governments. This seems to me eminently sensible and I led the Conservative MEPs in backing the idea. Most MEPs still want the Commission to do everything, even though the Commission itself argues that it will never have enough staff to ensure that LIFE gives value for money.

 

In committee this month we finally adopted the report by Mr Sacconi on the “REACH” proposal for the evaluation and authorisation of chemicals. A key emphasis of the report is on the compulsory substitution of alternative chemicals, where available, for substances of high concern. We now have the possibility either of getting agreement with the Council of Ministers via off-stage negotiations before our second reading in the November or December plenary session, or of ploughing ahead on a collision course with the Council that could lead us into what is known as “conciliation” with Ministers, involving long wrangles far into the night.

 

Mr Barroso, the President of the European Commission, made an interesting speech in London this month. Speaking on the theme of “Seeing through the hallucinations – Britain and Europe in the 21^st century” he pointed out that when the EU began the challenge was to secure a lasting peace. But the challenges for Europe today are climate change, growing competition from China and India, global pandemics, mass migration, international terrorism, demographic change and  energy security. This led him to conclude that “The nation state is and will, I think, remain the principal  source of political power, because it is to the nation state that most European feel greatest allegiance. But in an era when the challenges facing nation states are global, governments can best deliver for their citizens by leveraging our common strength as Europe.” Rumour has it that Mr Barroso repeated this constructive message to David Cameron. It is surely one that all Conservatives can approve of.