Violent video games (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on violent videogames.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am particularly grateful to the few, perhaps less than ten, Members present in this Chamber to debate a subject that affects many tens of millions of young and very young people - our children - in the European Union.
The protection of the law and of the fundamental rights of young people and children must remain a major priority for the EU. It is a priority for the European Commission, and I have to say quite frankly that the acts of violence and sadism that appear in some particularly bloody videogames are a cause of great concern to us.
New technologies that have enabled young and very young people to use the Internet and technological games have changed the relationship between adults and children. Young people, our children, are often much more familiar with these technologies than adults are. What is essential, therefore, is primarily greater responsibility and consciousness on the part of adults and parents, as well as focus and education to make parents, above all, fully aware of the risks and able to make informed decisions.
There is a classification system with labelling for the content of films, and also for games and videogames, that may be of use. This must, of course, be combined with a mechanism providing for more effective education. These components are necessary if we want a solution that works.
The European Union already has instruments for fighting these worrying problems within the policy areas of justice and security, and also the information society and internal market rules.
I must say quite sincerely, ladies and gentlemen, that I have also been highly impressed by certain child protection monitoring and enhancement initiatives that I was informed about by some Home Affairs Ministers before and after the Council of Ministers, and which have been taken up by some national political parties in certain Member States. I refer in particular to increased control over the sale of particularly violent games and videogames to minors.
In my view, it is equally important to hold videogame producers responsible. In 2003, a European self-regulation system, known as Pan-European Game Information, was adopted in order to help parents choose when buying videogames intended for minors. This self-regulation system is supported by a large majority of producers. It was developed after consultation with the industry, parents' associations and consumer associations. It covers 27 countries and includes an indication of the minimum age for access to a particular game and a mandatory description of the content of a game or videogame that is placed on the market. This system, ladies and gentlemen, helps parents to choose - assuming that it is the parents who decide what videogames their children buy - but it does not concern and it contains no reference to the content of the videogame. Such self-regulation was established on the one hand to protect minors, but also, on the other hand, to comply with another fundamental principle: freedom of expression.
I intend to meet very soon with producers and the associations representing them in order to evaluate to what extent the indicators used in the self-regulation scheme are relevant or, I would say, up to date. I think the time has come to assess whether those indicators have perhaps not been working as we would have liked them to.
With regard to the content of games or videogames that can be found on the Internet, in contrast, there are systems out there, but they are applied and implemented at the initiative of certain respected consortia. The first is one known as the Platform for Internet Content Selection, and the second is the Recreational Software Advisory Council, both based primarily in the United States. I must point out, however, that neither the United Nations study on violence against children nor the World Health Organization's world report on violence and health analyses this problem; it gets just a passing reference as if there were absolutely no need to examine it in greater depth.
In 2005, the Commission conducted an enquiry financed under the Daphne programme. This enquiry, based on a series of studies of the violent videogame sector, revealed the need for a multidisciplinary approach, which currently does not exist. One result of this study was that violent images have an undeniable influence on young people. This influence may, however, show itself in different ways, depending on various factors. These, for example, include affluence; the young people's situation; where they live; whether they have an active parental figure close to them, or whether they have no parents close to them; control over the youngsters' access to the media and the Internet, in other words whether or not their parents exercise any control over whether they can have absolutely free access to the Internet; the level of education given; and the family's socio-economic level. All these factors affect the way in which violence can influence the minds and mentalities of young and very young people.
There are other important elements to consider. Firstly, this is not just a technical issue but rather an issue of education, which involves control for preventive purposes. When I say control over the sale of violent videogames, I mean effective control, because today there are no mandatory instruments that make it possible to check whether or not a person under the age of 16 can buy videogames that incite or glorify acts of violence or even actual criminal acts.
I believe this House will at least want to consider this problem, in view of the fact, as well, that the schemes that Daphne has financed to combat violence against children are based precisely on this idea of how to protect young and very young people.
To conclude, following on from the child protection strategy that we launched in July, I intend to refer this problem to the European Forum for the Rights of the Child. As you know, this forum has been set up to commence work at the beginning of 2007. At its first working meeting I intend to start a public, transparent debate involving all stakeholders: non-governmental organisations, the Member States, parents' associations, young people, minors and also the national mediators responsible for children's rights.
The four keywords on this subject are: parents, communication and education professionals, producers - because we cannot tackle this problem at its roots if we cannot prevent the production of these violent games - and lastly politics. It is a case of examining how politics can draw up a strategy to actually protect children without resorting to censorship. These are the pillars on which we must address the problem that I have put to you this evening.
In the spring I will submit a communication on cybercrime to you. In my view, criminals, law-breakers and Internet offenders see the young and very young as particularly vulnerable victims. It is our political, institutional and moral duty to react firmly, with a European strategy against incitement to violence, against the exaltation of violence and against the glorification of violence.
Thank you, Mr Frattini. I agree with your tactful opening remark, which confirms the need to bring some reflection and a few changes to the organisation of our parliamentary work, especially with regard to our plenary debates.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Frattini for his very helpful and very commendable introduction to this important subject. We probably have not given enough consideration to this issue in this Parliament. I am glad that we are now having this debate because there is considerable evidence to show that violence in videos has an effect on minors who watch them - very detrimental effects, which we need to get to grips with.
I think it is becoming clear that the self-regulation that Mr Frattini talked about is probably no longer enough. We need to look at this further, to ensure that young people have controlled access and that the videos themselves are not gratuitously violent. We see this kind of violence around us on our television screens and we are becoming more and more accepting of levels of violence in a way that we should not be and in a way that is not acceptable. So, this is a good initiative and one which I hope that we will be able to take forward.
I am very pleased that the Commission undertook the survey and that it was done under the Daphne programme because not only do we see gratuitous violence on videos but also a representation of women that is unacceptable. So, not only do young people see violence as such, they also see violence towards women and a portrayal of women that is not what we would wish. There are two things that need to be dealt with: the protection of children and young people and making sure that women are not portrayed in unacceptable ways in these video productions.
We need to be clear about not being seen as a 'nanny state'. This has to be introduced in a reasonable way, in a way which is acceptable to everybody. We also need to give special attention to the Internet. The Commissioner mentioned this. It is difficult because regulation of the Internet is very much in its early days, but we must not shy away from it. We need to find ways in which we can sensibly regulate the Internet in everyone's interests.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank Mr Frattini very much for the highly practical proposals that he has put forward this evening.
There is no doubt that Europe is seeing a worrying and exponential growth in cases of violence, bullying and violence among children, and television and the Internet are undeniably affecting the way our children behave, as is the spread of violent videogames, which are becoming increasingly common and increasingly brutal. I shall just give you one example: there is a very recent videogame called Rule of Rose, which is a really serious problem in that the main characters in the game are children, and many of the images are on the borderline of sexual perversion and sadism.
We therefore warmly welcome the current debate, even though - as the President has mentioned - it has been tucked away in an evening slot and has very few participants. That is a real shame. Even so, we expect some sort of action to be taken in this matter, and certainly not through censorship, as Commissioner Reding has already said. We support your initiative, Mr Frattini, of sending a letter to the EU Home Affairs Ministers asking them to carry out a careful check on the controls that exist regarding videogame violence. After what Mrs Reding said, we hope that the PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) system will really become a body able to exercise more effective control.
To conclude, we strongly call for practical measures to be developed to control and prohibit the distribution of violent videogames and to set up a kind of European monitoring centre for childhood and young people, not least so as to carry out preventive monitoring of game and videogame content and, if possible, to draw up a single code for the marketing and distribution of videogames for children.
The debate is closed.


8. 2006 Annual report of the EIB (


Cooperation between the special intervention units of the Member States (debate)
The next item is the debate on the report by Mr França, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the initiative of the Republic of Austria with a view to adopting a Council decision on the improvement of cooperation between the special intervention units of the Member States of the European Union in crisis situations (15437/2006 - C6-0058/2007 -.
rapporteur. - (PT) The face of the old Europe has changed. Today the European Union, with 27 Member States and nearly 500 million inhabitants, is facing complex and stimulating challenges, requiring us to adopt an ever broader world view and a stance that is very attentive to issues such as peacekeeping, security, stability, freedom and the exercise of democracy. As immortalised by Victor Hugo's wisdom, it requires us to know how much of the future can be introduced into the present, as the secret of great government. It is therefore the scope and major challenge of this report - the challenge of the security of persons and property in the EU area - and is an issue in the everyday lives of Europeans. I am talking about security, specifically, today and tomorrow, every day, in the streets, at work, at leisure and at home, on land, at sea, in the air. It is the security of our common space that, without being imposed, guarantees and underpins freedom in a balanced society.
Freedom is a cornerstone, a fundamental value of the Union; security is a tool in the service of well-being, it offers stability and safeguards freedom. Freedom as a value and security as a tool are essential to the European project. Austria's initiative, taken up by the Portuguese Presidency and which gave rise to the Council Decision, provides for the improvement of cooperation between the special intervention units of the European Union in crisis situations. It is a good and necessary initiative. This initiative also complements Prüm, since that Treaty provides for cooperation only in the event of natural disasters or serious accidents. My report proposed 11 amendments to the proposal for a decision which also establishes a minimum general framework for possible cooperation in man-made crises, hijacking, terrorist attacks, etc.; i.e. man-made crisis situations presenting a serious direct physical threat to persons, property, infrastructure or institutions.
In the proposal, cooperation in terms of training, preparation and action by special intervention units is always a possibility and the Member State may or may not request cooperation, indicating what type of assistance it requires. The effectiveness and promptness of interventions will always depend on the degree of preparedness, coordination, linkage and the existence of uniform methods in the modus operandi of the intervention units, which is why I propose, firstly, the possibility of joint training and exercises, and secondly, that the training and exercises be funded from the budget of the European Union, pursuant to Articles 30, 32 and 34 of the Treaty on European Union. I would also point out that, in our understanding, the rules on civil and criminal liability applicable in the event of joint operations must be the same as in the Prüm Decision.
Mr President, fellow Members, this Council Decision is very important. It is a common solution to common issues and threats facing all Member States. It is a solution that values the essential cooperation in preparing for and reacting to man-made crises, which are always unforeseen but always possible. Finally, I would like to highlight and offer my thanks for the institutional and technical cooperation I have been given and draw attention to the amendments proposed by Mr Díaz de Mera, Mr Demetriou and Mrs Iotova which have improved and enriched my draft report.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I have supported this Austrian initiative, very well relaunched by the Portuguese Presidency, since the very beginning.
I firmly believe that practical and operational cooperation between special intervention units in the European Union is very important in order to deal with the threatening situation.
First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr França, for the excellent work he has done on this dossier, and also the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs as a whole for the very useful amendments which are contained in the report.
I welcome the amendments suggested by Parliament which are aimed at improving the initiative. I would just like to mention the amendments to make sure that there is no overlap with the Prüm Decision or questions relating to fine-tuning the liability provisions or to redefining and clarifying the term 'crisis situations' or an amendment referring to the possibility of obtaining funding for common projects.
It should be remembered that special intervention units currently operate under the ATLAS network. They carry out joint training and exercises and we fund such projects. We have funded such activities from our budget since 2006 and my proposal for 2008 is to increase that funding for ATLAS up to EUR 900 000.
In conclusion, I reiterate my support for this report and I strongly wish for rapid progress on this dossier and quick adoption also by the Council.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (SL) This decision regarding cooperation between the Member States' special units for intervention in crisis situations is one of many documents which should increase the readiness and capability of the Member States to respond adequately to crisis situations, such as acts of terrorism. Action in crisis situations and in the fight against terrorism is a complex task that demands good cooperation among all the Member States.
A lot has been done so far in terms of establishing political and legal foundations and taking practical preventive measures. However, we have not adequately tackled the causes and roots of terrorism. That is why I am repeating my suggestion that the Council and the Commission should pay more attention to the roots and causes of terrorism. The first steps made in the field of information exchange have also been good, but not sufficient. So far, the difficulty has been in the substantial formal obstacles which would arise if a Member State in a crisis situation, say under terrorist attack, asked another Member State for help.
To take more effective action in crisis situations, it is necessary for the authorities in the Member States to cooperate with each other. In particular, it is necessary for their special units to be familiar with and cooperate with one other. This decision opens up scope for cooperation in the event of the most serious acts of terrorism, i.e. in real crisis situations. It enables a State, when asked, to provide help through its special units. This will in no way threaten the sovereignty of the other State, it will simply be helping it. This is important not only because of circumstances in practice, but also because it enforces one of the fundamental values of the European Union - solidarity. My Group supports this decision and we hope that it will receive a huge vote in favour. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr França, for his fine work.
Mr President, in discussing the draft legislative resolution on the initiative of the Republic of Austria with a view to adopting a Council decision on the improvement of cooperation between the special intervention units of the Member States of the European Union in crisis situations, one must bear in mind that no single Member State has all the means, resources and expertise at its disposal to deal effectively with all possible kinds of large scale threats or crisis situations requiring special intervention. It is therefore of crucial importance that each Member State be able to request the assistance of another Member State. This is particularly important first and foremost in combating terrorism, organised crime and cross-border crime and in the event of disasters and serious accidents.
I also hope, and this must be borne in mind, that Parliament's amendment will introduce a material safeguard against the unauthorised expansion of these simplified rules for cooperation 'by analogy' to the interactions with the agencies of third countries, in order to prevent abuses in, for example, dubious interventions, and so that such interventions are not in breach of Member States' rights.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (EL) Mr President, the Austrian initiative and the Commission's report aim to further strengthen cooperation between special intervention units of the EU Member States and the organisation of joint operations in each Member State, allegedly to combat terrorist attacks. These operations are already included in the Prüm Convention, under which police forces will be completely free to intervene and carry out pursuit operations in the territory of each Member State, even with the use of arms.
For some years now the European Union has been a breeding ground of 'terror hysteria', insecurity and fear of an unseen enemy. Fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms are being drastically curtailed, allegedly in order to combat this enemy.
But who in fact is the enemy of the European Union? We have been hearing about terrorism for so many years; in reality, the European Union is trying to shield its policies and protect its economic and political system against opposition from the workers. Indeed, the report itself admits this. Whatever it says about terrorism and the like is theoretical: it legalises intervention and joint police operations even, so it claims, in cases where there is only a suspicion of criminal acts having been committed, or of a threat to property belonging to state infrastructures or organisations, or of unspecified offences. It is precisely this deliberately vague wording that can be used to justify intervention; it can even suppress traditional forms of popular mobilisation or protest, such as, for example, the symbolic take-over of roads and public buildings, large-scale strikes and the organisation of strike rallies.
Such, we believe, is the report's aim, and this is why we disagree. We oppose it. We are voting against the initiative and the report, and we call upon citizens to protect their individual and democratic rights.
- (DE) Mr President, specialists able to carry out tasks with an increased risk of danger doubtless make a valuable contribution to security - on that we are agreed! - just as planned and improved cooperation is an advantage in the event of a terrorist threat. Current developments are in some ways alarming, precisely because of the rising crime rate. Police stations are being closed and special units reduced while we are increasingly having to fight ever more unscrupulous criminal gangs rubbing their hands together with glee every time another border opens up. In this situation the EU still wants it to be as difficult as possible for responsible citizens to protect themselves with weapons and has contributed, with its mistaken multicultural visions, to a multi-crime society with no-go areas and the propensity to violence on the increase.
It is, of course, important that in preparing for a terrorist act the fight against criminal activity should not suffer. In my opinion we should put an end to the nonsense of siphoning off police officers for terrorist units and closing functioning special units only to create new special units - against gangs of youths, for instance.
- (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, unlike the previous speakers, I welcome this initiative and would preface it with the saying: 'good things take time!' This is because the Austrian initiative dates from an initiative by the Heads of State or Government in 2004 and addresses the issue of how each of the Member States can best be supported by special units in the event of a terrorist attack. It therefore has nothing to do with the matter raised by the previous speaker, nor do I understand the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, which simply dismisses this kind of initiative of mutual support through the use of special units.
We know that no Member State can in fact be permanently protected against all eventualities. Therefore, with this initiative Parliament has also been trying to find ways to provide the best possible, but above all the most rapid, cross-border assistance in a special case of this kind, and particularly in the event of terrorist attacks, hostage-taking and hijacking.
I particularly welcome Parliament's additional proposals because they make it easier to decide who, for example, should bear the costs at the end of the day, namely the Member State asking for help, or to decide which regulations should apply if officials are active in another Member State. This also includes regulations on liability. I welcome the fact that there are also joint training courses for combining these special units and then for improving their deployment, too, should they be needed. I congratulate the rapporteur. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats will be supporting this initiative.
I can only grant speaking time by 'catch the eye' to Members who have not previously spoken during the debate, and I do not see anyone who has not spoken asking me for speaking time.
In addition, Mr Frattini has told me that he does not intend to speak on behalf of the Commission. Let us therefore give the rapporteur, Mr França, two minutes' speaking time to close this debate.
rapporteur. - (PT) I would first like to express my thanks for the references to my work, to the report and to colleagues on the committee of which I am a member, to Mr Frattini and the other Members who expressed their support for the report and for Austria's initiative and the decision by the Council and the Portuguese Presidency to continue it.
I would like to stress one aspect that seems very important to me. In this area, security - I repeat - security is a tool, it is not a value; it is a tool in the service of freedom and in the service of the effective and positive exercise of the fundamental rights specifically of EU citizens. And another aspect that seems no less important to me is that this decision will not favour any intervention, as was said here; this decision will promote a fundamental aspect of EU integration, namely cooperation between the Member States, and will also promote cooperation on joint training and exercises, and hence on prevention. Only when Member States ask one another will there be a possibility of action in specific crisis situations that arise and this will of course have to be assessed by the Member States concerned.
I also proposed support from the EU budget mainly to stimulate and foster cooperation in this area, as well as to provide some financial support to Member States that need it.
Finally, I would like to say that it is important to implement, execute and expedite it because crisis situations that threaten our security and hence our freedom in an EU Member State, can arise at any time, any day and undermine the confidence of all the EU's 500 million citizens.
Mr França, congratulations on your excellent report.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at 11 a.m.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. -Together we have been working towards minimising the necessity of special intervention units. However good the units and their cooperation are, an ounce of prevention is still better than a pound of cure.
I believe that the certainty of coordinated and powerful response will go a long way towards making any hostage takers, terrorists or desperate criminals think twice.
This means that there should be no unnecessary obstacles, no incentives to compromise our security for the sake of procedural rules.
I think it is possible that the currently envisaged network of bilateral agreements will serve our needs adequately. Only close neighbours can guarantee rapid reaction, which mostly goes together with the need for special intervention.
On the other hand, in the case that several Member States are attacked simultaneously, as is the clear possibility with cyber-attacks, we do need transparency and a certain consistency of arrangements throughout the European Union.
This report is a part of complex equation, the result of which might change as new data comes in. We should not view the current arrangement as permanent one. We must be ready to develop this cooperation into a Community policy.
My congratulations to the rapporteur.
(The sitting was suspended at 10.50 a.m. and resumed at 11 a.m.)
Ladies and gentlemen, yesterday a comment was made by Martin Schulz to another Member here in the House - Hans-Peter Martin - the substance of which was very specific. The President cannot therefore accept the substance of this statement. I am disallowing the substance and am censuring the substance of this statement.


Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes


Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes
Mr President, as you have to read six pages of names, in order to save time and to save you from the embarrassment of having to pronounce very strange names, can we take those names as having been read, rather than you actually reading them?
It is very kind of you, Mr Matsakis, to wish to spare me this tedious work. Unfortunately, our Rules of Procedure are clear: I must read out the entire list of names.
- At the end of the notice on the membership of committees and delegations
Mr President, I would like to request a roll-call vote.
It is your absolute right, but a request should have been tabled within the prescribed time. I cannot, therefore, follow it up.


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 12.35 and resumed at 15.00)


Voting time
We shall now proceed to the vote.
(For the outcome of the vote and other details: see Minutes)


Composition of Parliament: see Minutes