Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, there can be no question that we are faced in Europe with a situation in which homosexuals sometimes suffer violence or contempt at the hands of the police services.

That much can be learned from reports on such matters. Nevertheless, I cannot help but think that this debate is largely a waste of time. My opinion stems from a belief that it would be a very good idea indeed to restore a sense of proportion to this heated debate, and to avoid succumbing to hysteria when describing the situation of homosexuals in Europe. ‘Hysteria’ is the only appropriate word for descriptions that paint a picture of resistance movements, arrests and war. Mrs Roure provided us with a good example of such descriptions in her speech.

I should like to draw the House’s attention to two facts. Firstly, violence against homosexuals represents only a fraction of the violence which is endemic in our societies, and which is a problem faced by every EU Member State. We have seen one example of it today, and we saw further examples a few months ago in France. This is only one aspect of a much larger problem.

Another facet to this question is that every EU Member State, whether old or new, has its own institutions. It has become apparent that these latter, by which I mean courts, ombudsmen, and even public opinion, are capable of providing effective protection for the rights of minorities.

If we were to approach this debate from a legal perspective, we would come up against a whole series of problems and obstacles in the shape of Treaty law. Fortunately, we will not be able to do anything to change this. There is no consensus in Europe that the Treaties should be amended in order to give the EU jurisdiction over such key matters as the recognition of homosexual unions and their implications outside the borders of the Member State that has authorised them.

It therefore follows that there is no reason why the EU should be called to act on such issues such as homophobia. There would be an inevitable consequence of doing so, however. The credibility of the integration process, which is already being used by some as an ideological weapon, would be undermined.

(Applause)