Public opinion has the right to be informed about the behaviour and work of Members of the European Parliament. What is not so obvious is what information people should be provided with to measure their politicians' performance. I believe that simply calculating the number of hours spent attending debates and MEP voting numbers is not a good way of measuring an MEP's effectiveness and sense of responsibility. Often the action vote in plenary is far less important and less useful than attending the EP committee meetings that fine-tune the EU laws that will impact on the life of millions of ordinary citizens for years to come, or meetings between the leaders of the political parties and rapporteurs in search of a compromise that will influence the talks and relationship between the EU and Russia or China. Debates in plenary are often rhetorical, slamming a distant country that may have abused human rights, or debates voice EP displeasure about the behaviour of a certain dictator who disregards freedom of the press. Noble intentions of course, but easy to get voted through and of little real effectiveness at a time when the EP has ever greater powers and true responsibility that most people are blithely unaware of - greater powers when it comes to guiding and influencing EU policy, for example. This does not mean that all MEPs are equally serious and productive in their work. Jas Gawronsky, who will be leaving the EP after nearly 30 years, explains that a third of MEPs are lazy slackers who do not follow debates, understand very little and sometimes damage the image of the European Parliament. But he doesn't say this on the basis of attendance in the voting chamber - he is talking about political authority, knowledge of issues, speaking various languages, etc. It is vital for people to be able to judge and measure the behaviour of their MEPs - but not by simply going to the European Parliament website and clicking on an MEP to find out how many times he or she has turned up for a vote. (F.R./transl.fl)