President. The next item is the report by Mr Liese (A5-0369/2003) on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on the proposal for a Council decision [COM (2003) 390 – C5-0349/2003 – 2003/0151(CNS)] amending decision 2002/834/EC on the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European research area’ (2002-2006).

  Busquin, Commission. – (FR) Mr President, honourable Members, I welcome this opportunity to address an issue in which Parliament has always shown a great interest.

I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur and all of the members of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy for the high standard of their work. My thanks also go to the rapporteur and members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market.

In the economy of the knowledge-based society that the Union has set itself the objective of developing in Europe, scientific research and technological development by definition play a key role. More than ever, both the competitiveness of companies and the quality of life enjoyed by European citizens depend on advances in scientific knowledge and their exploitation.

It has often been said, and with good reason, that this century will be the century of life science and technology. Research on embryonic stem cells would appear to be crucial to gain more knowledge about the very first stages of life. It also promises to have significant medical applications, such as in the treatment of diseases that have so far been incurable, particularly degenerative diseases – cancer or Alzheimer’s disease for example – which are placing an increasing burden on European society in terms of human suffering and in economic terms. In the shorter term, research on embryonic stem cells will allow scientists to gain a better understanding of the processes of cell differentiation and reproduction, the key processes in forming life and in the emergence of certain diseases, which will make advances in other research areas possible.

This research will gain from being carried out at European level, where the added value of cooperation is significant. Cooperation between teams from different Member States allows the resources required to be used more effectively and makes it possible to obtain the best results more quickly for the benefit of the scientific community and patients across Europe.

I will speak first of all about the institutional context to this cooperation. The proposal tabled by the Commission on 9 July was a follow-up to the Council of 30 September 2002, during which the specific programmes were adopted for the implementation of the sixth framework programme of research. On that occasion it was agreed that the Commission would table a legislative proposal amending the specific programme ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’ and setting out a framework for research using embryos and human embryonic stem cells.

The Commission is therefore proposing a set of principles, a framework which lays down very strict, clear and transparent conditions, both scientific and ethical, which are intended to govern the funding of research projects using human supernumerary embryos to develop new stem cell lines. The Commission believes that it has drafted a responsible proposal to the extent that it strikes a good balance between, on the one hand, meeting the needs of research and the expectations of patients and, on the other hand, providing an assurance that such research will respect the strictest ethical standards. Imposing even stricter conditions than those proposed by the Commission would in practice amount to banning this research, when in fact it is permitted in accordance with the decisions already made by Parliament and the Council regarding the framework programme and its specific programmes.

I should like to underline that it is not our business here to lay down ethical rules for stem cell research in Europe. The conditions proposed only apply to the sixth framework programme and do not affect national legislation. This research will never be funded in a country where it is forbidden.

In proposing these conditions, the Commission wanted to send out a clear message to those who might have reservations about the type of research concerned here. It proposes that only those supernumerary embryos that were created before 27 June 2002 may be used. The purpose of this time limit is to prevent Community financing providing any kind of an incentive to create additional supernumerary embryos for research purposes during in vitro fertilisation procedures.

I should also like to stress that funding for research using embryonic stem cells is in addition to funding for research on adult stem cells. Research on both types of cells is necessary, in particular because their properties are different, as moreover are the medical applications envisaged.

It is also important, however, to be able to have new embryonic stem cell lines at our disposal, because those that exist today are few in number, for the most part of poor quality and – I would stress – essentially non-European, patented and therefore only accessible at high prices, even for research work. Under these circumstances, it is in Europe’s interests to develop its own capacity.

In conclusion, I would remind you that the three institutions have undertaken to reach a decision on this dossier by the end of the year and I am obviously counting very much on Parliament’s support to achieve this.

(Applause)

  Liese (PPE-DE), rapporteur. (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the topic we are considering today is one that is of great concern to many people. Emotions have run high in recent weeks. Many members of the European public have fundamental ethical convictions that lead them to reject research using the stem cells of human embryos. Others advocate such research, and do so with great vehemence.

Commissioner Busquin was right to say that we are not here to decide on how reliable this sort of research is, or, therefore, to affect national laws, something that is also made clear in the Committee’s Amendment 1. The only issue we are deciding is what, in this field, we in the European Union will fund. So I ask all Members of the House to be careful about the language they use. This is not about banning anything, but about whether or not the European budget should fund it.

According to the Council decision on 30 September 2002, the end of this year marks the deadline for a decision to be taken on the use of human embryos and embryonic stem cells under the Sixth Research Programme. This is where I have my first point of criticism to make, one also made in the amendments adopted by the committee, for the Commission proposal deals only with the procurement of human embryonic stem cells from human embryos. It contains no comprehensive rules on research using embryos and embryonic stem cells. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has adopted a whole series of amendments that very definitely do take up a position on research using embryos and embryonic stem cells. I strongly appeal to the Council, to consider both in the next stage of proceedings; this will certainly make it easier to arrive at a compromise.

One very important amendment by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is Amendment 6, which the committee adopted by a large majority, and which states that: ‘according to an overwhelming majority of scientists, a transplantation of human embryonic stem cells to patients during the time frame of the Sixth Research Framework Programme (until the end of 2006) is not possible for purely scientific reasons, because this approach is mainly in the stage of basic research and a transplantation at the current moment would lead to non-calculable risks for the recipients.’ As this amendment makes clear, we cannot make exaggerated claims to the effect that we can cure everything. Research into embryonic stem cells is at a very early stage, and the risk of cancer associated with transplantation into patients obliges us to be very, very cautious in our approach.

If transplantation into patients is not possible, then why does the committee nonetheless believe that this research merits our support? Amendments 7, 17 and 18 clarify this. In these, we make it clear that the real object of our efforts is the use of adult stem cells in research and in the treatment of patients, but, from a purely scientific point of view it appears that we need embryo stem cell research simply to further develop research with adult stem cells. Nevertheless, of course, we must not lose sight of the real objective, and that is why we demand in our amendments that research with adult stem cells should take priority.

This has already yielded real successes with real patients – real successes that have already been achieved, at least on an experimental basis, when treating patients with bone and cartilage damage, leukaemia, heart attacks, incontinence and even Parkinson’s disease. This, therefore, is the area that we have to prioritise.

So far in this debate, as you will be aware, I have always been among those who have expressed fundamental misgivings about research with human embryonic stem cells generally. I nevertheless believe that, on most points, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has achieved a good compromise, and so I will defend to this House the committee’s position on most points. I cannot, however, say that of Amendment 10, on which the committee outvoted me and adopted a form of words that supports the production of new embryonic stem cell lines and research on embryos themselves.

My personal view is that this amendment is not well-advised, and that it would be better to support Mr Nisticò’s amendments, 25 and 24, according to which we should indeed support research on embryonic stem cells, but not the procurement of new stem cell lines. I believe that to be a good compromise, and one that could be adopted by the Council, which would clarify matters once and for all.

It also has to be made clear that if you support Mr Nisticò’s amendments, you are also supporting rules for publicly-funded research that go further and are more liberal than those applying to publicly-funded researchers in the USA. I do not therefore believe that it can be said that this approach is restrictive or inimical to research, and so I ask you to support Mr Nisticò’s amendments, 24 and 25.

(Applause)

  Gargani (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – (IT) Mr President, I would like to make two points, one of a moral nature and one of a legal nature, in this debate on a very sensitive issue, and link the two questions together.

Embryos are human beings in their own right: this is now a certainty, and it is a certainty that we want to stress with all our might. The Nice Charter of Fundamental Rights recognises the dignity of these rights – physical and psychological integrity – and there is therefore a moral obligation to protect embryos as human beings, irrespective of how they have been created. It therefore follows that experimentation is only justified when carried out in the interests of the individual or embryos in question, and there are no justifications or extenuating circumstances, which could serve to balance out the interests of the individual, the fundamental rights of the individual, and the interests of society. The issue goes beyond this kind of balancing out process because the protection of inalienable and fundamental rights certainly takes precedence.

Thus, destructive experimentation is out of the question and, consequently, public funding is out of the question for experimentation which only endorses the line that embryos are a set of cells with no intrinsic value, with no bioethical value as human life. Stem cells, on the other hand, can be removed, as we have heard, from the umbilical chord or from spontaneously aborted foetuses of adult cells for use in the treatment of serious illnesses. Thus, moral responsibility dictates that we opt for this kind of investigation, these types of treatment.

There are, however, more than just moral arguments; these moral arguments give rise to legal arguments, which the committee of which I have the honour of being chairman has pointed out and brought to Parliament’s attention. The Union respects national identity, and so I am pleased to hear the rapporteur say that we are not going to diminish Member States’ legislation or cultural diversity. Community law takes precedence over internal law and, therefore, over the basic law of the Member States. Community law, despite the fact that it takes precedence in other sectors, cannot exist in all areas of general law because there is a limit, as the Constitutional Courts – of Italy, Germany and many other countries – have said repeatedly, for fundamental rights must be respected and take precedence. Therefore, there is clearly no question of blanket Community funding – and we focused on this point in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I am speaking in this Chamber today in support of this line.

  Nisticò (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, I welcome the remarkable work and flexible, astute approach of our rapporteur, Mr Liese, who, from a somewhat rigid starting position, from strong ethical principles, has endeavoured to achieve, with the support not only of myself but of the entire PPE-DE Group, as balanced a compromise as possible on a very sensitive subject, the use of human embryos and human embryonic stem cells in research projects under the Sixth Framework Programme. As a research scientist, of course, I can only support the progress of science, in the primary interest of patients who have, for years, been placing their hope in new technologies, as has been said, which may provide a cure for or control debilitating, sometimes irreversible diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, spinal lesions which can cause paraplegia, tetraplegia, Alzheimer’s’ disease and so on.

That is why I want to thank Commissioner Busquin for his prolific efforts to achieve what is, without a doubt, a difficult compromise. I have to say that, recently, at the specific request of the Italian Minister for Scientific Research, the Italian bioethics committee, chaired by Professor Francesco D’Agostino concluded that it was ethically legitimate to remove stem cells for therapeutic purposes from embryos which can no longer be implanted.

The decision that we will be called upon to take in this Chamber only concerns the funding of the Sixth Framework Programme and, therefore, relates to a fairly short period of time. However, I have good reasons for thinking that the amendment adopted by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, which provides for the funding of research using supernumerary cells, will not be unanimously endorsed by the Council, with the risk of a minority block and the extension of the current moratorium. This would be even more damaging to public research in Europe, which would remain in its current state of uncertainty and lack of regulation.

This is why I drew up a new compromise proposal, in order to find some common ground between scientific demands and ethical principles: indeed, my proposal – put forward by the PPE-DE Group, moreover – on the one hand, bans the funding of research projects which provide for the use of human supernumerary embryos, and, on the other, allows research scientists to use in experiments stem cells and stem cell lines from human embryos which are already available in laboratories and which were taken from supernumerary embryos before 27 June 2002.

I feel that, only in this way, can we make it possible for research scientists to proceed with preliminary comparative investigations, which are essential for the purposes of the future use – or non-use – of embryonic stem cells. I therefore hope that reason will prevail over emotion and prejudice in tomorrow’s vote in this Chamber, in the higher interest of patients’ health.

  Bowe (PSE). – Mr President, I agree with a lot of what has been said so far. This has been a difficult report which arouses strong emotions and we do not have a European consensus on the issue.

The use of human embryos to create embryonic stem cell lines and embryonic stem cell research are contentious, but we have discussed the issues and have reached a useful consensus in the report by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I had to modify my views on the subject – which are quite liberal – in order for a consensus to be reached, and I know Mr Liese has modified his views too.

However, I am now concerned that many amendments that were comprehensively defeated in the Industry Committee are being retabled. I appeal to colleagues to think again. We have quite a good compromise, which we should support. The vote in the Industry Committee was a reasonable and proper one.

One or two amendments need to be addressed. A number of colleagues have sought to reintroduce a very restrictive deadline on the use of supernumerary embryos, which is a very serious problem. It means that, to create any new stem cell lines, you must use ageing supernumerary embryos which are not in the best condition. If you accept this restrictive deadline, more embryos are inevitably destroyed to create useful and viable stem cell lines. It means that if you restrict yourself to using just existing stem cell lines created before the date stated by Mr Nisticò and others, you will be confined to using ageing stem cell lines from the USA that have been made by using mouse-derived proteins and that are not suitable for treatments for human patients. This is the trap that the USA has fallen into and we should learn from that. We should also take note that research scientists are already leaving the USA for the UK and Asia to avoid the problems created by the introduction of a deadline.

Personally, I would prefer that there should be no deadline, but I think that what the Commission proposes is the maximum practicable limit. The rapporteur says there is no immediate prospect of therapies being available to patients; if he gets this restrictive deadline reinstated, he may be right.

I appeal to this Parliament to support the compromise proposed by the Industry Committee and not to support restrictive deadlines. Stem cell research will then bring relief to millions of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes sufferers, some of them known to us personally and some in fact colleagues in this House.

Please vote for common sense tomorrow and on Wednesday.

IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVAN
Vice-President

  Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this debate is not about whether the European Union should permit research using stem cells and embryos. The position varies from one Member State to another and is a matter of subsidiarity, and we in this Parliament have no say whatever in the matter. We should concentrate on the question of whether the stem cell research that is carried out in EU Member States can be financed with funds from the sixth framework programme.

In September 2002, this question was also the topic of negotiation between the Commission, Council and Parliament during the debates about the sixth framework programme. At that time, a compromise was reached, and Parliament voted in favour of it. Our position is therefore unambiguous. Thanks to the compromise, it is possible to finance stem cell research with Community funds in those Member States where such research is permitted. A moratorium has subsequently been imposed at the request of a few Member States; with effect from September 2003, European funding of stem cell research is frozen until the Commission tables a new proposal.

This Commission proposal is now before us and I urge my fellow MEPs to give it their backing. After all, it is in line with our position of September 2002 and therefore provides consistency. Mr Liese, the rapporteur, has attempted to undermine Parliament's position in a scandalous manner by, during the discussion in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, tabling extremely restrictive amendments, which make embryonic research in the European Union virtually impossible. Indeed, not only has he introduced an end date, after which stem cell lines created before that date cannot be used, he has also limited the proposal's scope by permitting research only on existing stem cell lines. He has ruled out the development of new stem cell lines from supernumerary embryos, while it is in this very field that the EU should gain research experience. Fortunately, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has opted for consistency and has taken a stand against most of Mr Liese's amendments.

  Caudron (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if there is something particularly remarkable about our rapporteur Mr Liese, apart from his intelligence and the amount of work he does, it is surely his pugnacity. When we debated the sixth framework programme, he fought against all research on embryonic stem cells. He lost. When, a few weeks after Parliament’s vote, the Council of Ministers wrongfully froze the research funds set aside for this purpose, he inherited a report on the same subject and, while pretending to seek compromises, set about tabling amendments to prevent practically all research in this area. Roundly beaten in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, he left his name on a report that he wished to see rejected and that had been adopted against his advice. Mr Liese is, therefore, returning to plenary this evening with the same intentions. Faced with his efforts, there is only one reasonable and balanced way forward and that is to support the Commission’s compromise text, a text that is fairly close to the compromise that was agreed by our Parliament when it adopted the sixth framework programme. To do so, we need to vote against all those amendments that distort it by changing the scope of application.

My position, summed up in three points, is as follows: firstly, to respect those who do not want this kind of research to be undertaken in their country; secondly, to refuse a European right to veto those who wish to, and indeed do, undertake this kind of research; thirdly, to restate our firm objective of funding research that seeks to save those suffering from incurable diseases and bring relief to those enduring intolerable pain. That then is the position that I am adopting this evening on behalf of my group, the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, and the approach that we would like to see being taken.

  Breyer (Verts/ALE). (DE) Mr President, I would like to start by taking a critical view of the bitter attack made upon Mr Liese, the rapporteur. If, Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel, it is so scandalous that someone should try to get this House to accept a different position, then you evidently have no idea what Parliament is meant to do. Our function must surely be to take up an independent position rather than being a mere extension of the Commission, and so I would like to take this opportunity of expressing warm thanks to Mr Liese.

Today’s vote blazes a trail. Mr Liese was right to say that what we are not doing today is deciding whether or not we welcome research on stem cells or embryos. In my own group, too, there are different opinions on that, but we can quite clearly agree on one thing, namely that it is not acceptable that research involving the destruction of human embryos, which is illegal and punishable in many Member States, should be funded out of the EU’s tax revenue. For money to be invested in research projects that are illegal in the Member States in which they are carried out would be without parallel in the European Union. Being, like Mr Liese, from Germany, I can say that this, for Germany, is yet another quite remarkable situation. It is utterly unacceptable, Commissioner, and something that the German public cannot be expect to tolerate – particularly since we are net contributors – that German taxpayers should be coerced into co-financing one out of every five projects in the field of research using supernumerary human embryos, that is, research in the course of which embryos are destroyed, even though this is a criminal offence under German law. I think this is a problem for other countries in a similar way.

Let me repeat, Commissioner, that you are sending out completely the wrong message! You are rewarding the production of supernumerary embryos, which one might term a stock incentive. Your proposal reduces human embryos to the level of a biological raw material. There is something on which I ask you to elaborate, Commissioner, something that I find utterly inexplicable, and that is that I have heard that what we are talking about here is nine research projects out of 15 000. Just nine projects, and I ask myself why you are so vehement in their defence. I get the impression, Commissioner, that this is about something quite different, that what matters to you is ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Hyland (UEN). – Mr President, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate and to put on record – not for the first time – my concern regarding the ethical guidelines for research funding. It is my hope that we can avoid acrimonious debate and respect the right of Members to express freely their views on a subject that is complex, sensitive and, for many, a matter of conscience.

Those of us who are not scientists must rely on the judgment and evaluation of professionally qualified people. The fact that there are so many diverse views and divisions amongst scientists must surely bring home to us legislators that this is not a clear-cut issue. Whether we like it or not, the Commission proposal, if carried, will allow experimentation with the very origin of human life and the destruction of human embryos. We have also seen in other areas what can happen through the abuse and misuse of science.

To the extent that we are the custodians of the public interest in such a crucial area, we must act with extreme care and reflect and respect the views of our citizens. I do not want to see European Union funds being spent on a practice that is illegal in some countries, including my own country, Ireland, and also in Germany, Austria, Italy and Portugal. Such an act would be a clear infringement of subsidiarity.

It is unfair, disingenuous and indeed misleading to say that those who oppose funding for stem cell research are preventing the discovery of cures for serious illnesses. Professionals more qualified than I have proven that this is not so. In a previous debate in this House I said that those who marvel at the wonderment of our creation must act now in the interests of mankind. That time is now.

  Blokland (EDD). – (NL) Mr President, is the European Union going to finance research involving human embryos, yes or no? That is the crucial question.

The essence of this topic is not so much monetary, as it is ethical – a discussion about good and bad. It is not so much about whether funding is good or bad, but about whether this research is good or bad per se. That is what this is really about.

When we debate the funding of stem cell research, why can we not simply state the fact that in many Member States, this research is not permitted, and that, consequently, we should not use Community funding in those countries? What is wrong with this logic? If it is not done in some Member States, fine, but it is a punishable offence in a number of others. How can we ask Member States to contribute to research to which they have fundamental objections? Surely that is a slap in the face for those EU partners?

I am in favour of stem cell research. I consider it our duty to look for therapies for diseases that are still considered incurable. I am also in favour of the EU setting aside funds for this. However, and this is where, in my view, the issue of ethics comes in, this research should not be at the expense of other human life. Human life, at whatever stage of development, should never be used in a merely instrumental manner.

The Commission proposal should therefore be rejected, not only because of the considerations of criminal law within the EU and of the destruction of human life, but also because it is not consistent with what has previously been agreed. The Council Minutes specify that the Commission will table a proposal in which further 'guidelines' are given for the decision-making principles concerning Community funding of research projects that involve human embryos and human embryonic stem cells. The proposal should therefore be about 'guidelines for principles for funding'. However, the Commission proposal is about 'conditions for funding'. That is quite different from 'guidelines for principles of funding'!

A principle could, for example, be: no European funds for research that leads to the destruction of human life. Another example of a principle is: in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, no funds for research that is prohibited in certain Member States. Another example from my Amendment 55: no funds for ethically objectionable research if less objectionable alternatives are available.

Although the Commission claims otherwise, there are most definitely alternatives in the issue of stem cell research, namely research involving human somatic stem cells (so-called adult stem cells). A research report was recently published on this topic by the Dutch Lindeboom Institute, in cooperation with the Israeli Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem. According to this report, which makes reference to dozens of scientific publications, the most recent scientific developments involving adult stem cells offer a wide range of possibilities for therapies of degenerative diseases that do not rely on research that involves the destruction of human embryos. These developments, I quote, ‘seem to indicate that embryonic stem cells are not essential for medical progress’. There are therefore alternatives to destroying human embryos.

Finally, if this Parliament refuses to concentrate on the funding of only adult stem cell research, the Liese report’s approach still deserves a great deal of support. I would quote Amendment 61 to illustrate my point.

  Cappato (NI). – (IT) Mr President, it is rather strange that Members of this House – such as Mr Hyland – should have accused those in favour of releasing funding for scientific research on embryonic stem cells and attempting to impose a scientific model on Europe, on the European Union and on Parliament. What is happening in Europe, with the national laws of some Member States, is exactly the opposite, namely that ethical prejudices are blocking research for all citizens, not just for those who wish to stand aloof from such research and its results on ethical grounds.

The European Commission has produced a compromise, which is already at the very limit of acceptability for scientific reasons: the European Commission excludes funds for what is known as therapeutic cloning from Union funding. Why, however, if this funding can, as it genuinely can, provide the hope of treatment and of survival – I say the hope, not the certainty, for we in this House, unlike members of other parliaments, do not have scientific certainty – for millions of people in Europe? The European Commission has already been forced to make compromises of an ethical and moral nature, as you call them, and to renounce this kind of funding. Fine, or rather it is not good at all, but now enough is enough: there need be no more constraints; there are no scientific grounds for imposing more limits.

Then, as regards the issue of the date, the draft amendments state that stem cells – I am referring to Mr Nisticò’s proposal – must have been derived before 27 June 2002. Why, however? What are the ethical grounds for using older embryos which are out of date from a scientific point of view? Indeed, you do not give the scientific grounds. The reason which you give, namely that new embryos must not be produced, is, quite simply, ridiculous, for any research scientist will tell you that this problem does not exist. If scientific research were to be allowed, there would be no difficulty in obtaining embryos, nor would there be any need to produce them specifically for the purpose. There are tens of thousands of embryos in Italy and, I imagine, hundreds of thousands in Europe, which have been frozen and for which there is only one alternative to scientific research: the dustbin. The Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, Mr Gargani, believes that an embryo is a human being, then? Does that mean we should consign that embryo-human being to the dustbin rather than using it for scientific research? Let Mr Gargani and all the others try and save those hundreds of thousands of lives frozen in laboratory freezers! This has nothing to do with science. An attempt is being made to impose an ethical and a moral principle, and this is being done – I am referring to those who are trying to table amendments which are even more limiting than the Commission’s proposal – by means of a device which we will not allow: setting up research on adult cells as an alternative to research on stem cells. Unlike you, we scientific research antiprohibitionists, do not know whether research on adult cells or research on embryonic cells will produce results first. We do not know and we do not claim to know, nor do we presume to tell Parliament that one kind of research is better than another: they are both valuable. We must proceed with both kinds of research, and the first to succeed in saving the lives of the citizens of Europe and the world will be the better. We do not claim to have this scientific knowledge, and it would be better if you did not either.

We hope that the Italian Presidency of the European Union, which has been so respectful of the Union’s positions in failing to muster the courage to propose a moratorium on executions, will, at this juncture, seeing as this is the approach it has chosen to adopt, do the same where scientific research is concerned and not boycott the Busquin proposal. Let us open the door to funding for therapeutic cloning!

(Applause)

  Purvis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, research using supernumerary embryonic stem cells is necessary to bring closer the day when adult stem cells can be used therapeutically to cure 'dread diseases'. I am sure that goal is desired by everyone.

Parliament's previous compromise was accepted by an absolute majority of this House. This restricts funding of research by the European Union only to embryos which are surplus to IVF requirements and are destined for destruction only at the undifferentiated stage of development up to 14 days and only in those jurisdictions where there is effective and strict regulation and it is permitted by law. This has yet again been adopted by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I regret that our rapporteur has represented his own position, rather than that of the committee.

The suggestion that the European Union cannot fund ventures that are not permitted in any one Member State opens an absurd and dangerous precedent. What about nuclear research and the growing of the tobacco? I should like to tell Mrs Breyer that Germany permits research on imported embryos, even if German embryos are exempt.

What is the purpose of a cut-off date? If it is valid to use embryos produced before a date, can it be invalid to use embryos produced after that date? An amendment by Mr Nisticò is flawed by the fact that it restricts itself to stem cell lines and not to embryos.

Do we have so little trust in European IVF practitioners that they might be tempted to overproduce embryos for ulterior purposes? That is surely an unjustified calumny on an honourable profession.

Is it more Christian to walk by on the other side and leave our fellow human beings lying in the ditch on the road to Jericho, smitten by Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease or spinal injury? God gave us humans inquiring minds, the ability to tame nature, the brains and skills to improve our lot on earth. Yes, we must respect human dignity and I completely respect my colleagues' strongly held views as to what human dignity is. However, I ask is it an early-stage embryo destined in any case for destruction, or is it your parents struck with Parkinson's Disease, or your teenage son paralysed with a broken neck? The Research Committee's considered position – Amendment 10 – is a position we must support. We must persuade the Council of Ministers to do likewise.

(Applause)

  McNally (PSE). – Mr President, this Parliament gave its views clearly during the reading on the Sixth Framework Programmes. Those views were reinforced by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy last week: we are in favour of the development of therapies for dreadful diseases by the use of embryonic stem cells under very strict conditions, with no creation of embryos for research, with the use of supernumerary embryos, with the consent of parents and without payment. I regret the intolerant anti-European rejection of subsidiarity by some colleagues this afternoon. We believe that the exploration of other forms of stem cell, and indeed comparisons, are essential.

Now to the matter of dates. I regret that the Commission chose to introduce a date, because it has encouraged some Members of this Parliament to put forward even more absurd dates. This has been done in a rather sly, hypocritical and misleading way in that not simply different dates, but also different procedures – with stem cell lines and not with embryos – have been proposed. The hypocrisy of those amendments should be exposed so that Members are absolutely clear on what they are voting.

I have a direct question for the Commissioner. Is it true that the dates suggested by Mr Nisticò and others would drastically reduce the availability of stem cell lines to make the European Union totally dependent on the United States, Israel and other countries for lines under patent? Would this damage European Union science and, most importantly of all, would it damage the prospects of helping people who are suffering from terrible diseases?

(Applause)

  Thors (ELDR). (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, I wrote the draft opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Because the majority of the committee differs from the majority in Parliament and because the right is considerably over-represented, the opinion took, however, a form I was unable to accept. I did not, therefore, want my name to appear on it.

My legal analysis differs totally from that presented by the committee chairman, Mr Gargani. Firstly, there are no obstacles to this research under the Oviedo Convention. Secondly, I have to say that Mr Gargani’s analysis of what the research programmes mean in legal terms was also completely irrelevant. It was a very long way from the truth.

I also observe in my proposal that the European Group for Ethics, of which the Commission and ourselves can make use, has not excluded embryonic stem cell research. What is the point of an advisory group if we do not listen to it? For me, as for many others, the most important ethical issue is about reducing human suffering. That is something we can do if, in regulated and open ways, we try to cooperate and to do what many speakers have said we must in order to reduce suffering through diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. We must have public funding, and the funding must be European if the results are to be made available to all Europeans.

I should, however, have liked to have seen the time limit removed from the Commission’s proposal. It is not justified on ethical grounds. I view with great satisfaction the committee’s Amendment 11 about removing the demand that all alternative methods must have been examined. It leaves room for a very great deal of arbitrariness, and I support what has been said by Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel, Mr Bowe and others.

  Fraisse (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, yes! Yes to research. I remember the temporary committee on human genetics; yes to research and yes to the compromises reached in the sixth framework programme. And then we perhaps need to talk about something that no one has yet mentioned, even though I have been listening to the debate from the outset. There are those who are here to criticise this research and reject it because of something that has remained unsaid and that I am going to say out loud now. It is almost a vulgarity; it is the word ‘abortion’. There are some here who are refusing to support this research in a bid to fight against abortion.

It is all very well to talk about suffering, Parkinson’s disease and so on, but I would also like to talk about this issue, because it concerns women’s rights. There are two aspects to this. Firstly, research on stem cells is not an ethical battle over whether or not there is a right to abortion in European countries.

Secondly, however, men and women are not on an equal footing where embryonic stem cells are concerned. I would be glad if someone other than myself were to say this in this House. There are a whole series of amendments, Commissioner, that seek to ensure that this is not a source of financial gain, and that you reject it on the basis of Article 152 on the grounds that this is not within the competence of the European Union and our institutions. In fact, I might remind you that Article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that the human body cannot be a source of financial gain, and I would also remind you that this charter will – as, I hope, all of us here wish – be incorporated in the constitution very soon. Moreover, I would draw your attention to the fact that, even though embryonic stem cells do after all affect first and foremost women, and what women carry within them, there is no question of their becoming research instruments, economically speaking. This is not to be a source of financial gain. Even though we might think that it is not up to us to say it, I nevertheless believe that we should confront this fundamental and historically significant issue.

  Breyer (Verts/ALE). (DE) Mr President, I am just taking over the minute allotted to my colleague Mrs Ahern, who has unfortunately been unable to get here on time. I have to ask you again, Commissioner, whether it is true, as we have been informed, that this has to do with only nine of the 15 000 projects forming part of the Biomed programme?

If this is just about these few projects that we are discussing with such passion, then I cannot repress the suspicion that this is an un-called for attempt at making embryo research respectable in the EU. All the Member States that want to engage in this sort of research, and which has passed legislation permitting it, can do so, but without funding from the European Union. I get the impression that your concern is with something else, that this is about preparing to breach an ethical dam and open the door to research on embryos.

If this is just about these few projects, then I ask myself why you are doing this and thereby needlessly bringing discredit on the Research Programme as a whole? I can tell you right now that, although I hope it will not happen, if a majority in this House supports research involving the destruction of human embryos, then that will have to be tested against European and constitutional law. In Member States such as Austria and Ireland, it is a criminal offence, and it is not acceptable for something punishable within the European Union to receive funding from it. This amounts to a major problem for European and constitutional law.

A few final words on stem cell research. Why the dates? What matters to us – if this fallback position …

(The President cut off the speaker)

(Applause)

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this debate can clearly not avoid the basic issue and fail to deal with the fundamental ethical problems, even though they are not what we are here to discuss and decide on now. If they were the issue, I would happily say to Mr Cappato – who criticised national legislation banning this type of research for being prejudiced – that there is no prejudice here; this word is always used as a smokescreen when there is disagreement. This is a principle, not a prejudice – the principle that an embryo has human life. More than this, it is a known fact and recognition of this fact.

This is not, however, what we are here to discuss. As various speakers have stated, we are only looking at the issue of European funding for this type of research. On this point I fully agree with Mr Bowe, who holds a completely different view of the basic issue. He said – and I agree with him – that there is no European consensus on this issue and because there is no European consensus there can be no European funding in this area. That and that alone is the issue at stake. Otherwise, we will be breaching the principle of subsidiarity, which we believe must be scrupulously observed. If there are Member States that wish to undertake this type of research, then let them. If it is legal in their countries, let them, but let them do so with their own financial resources. Using Community funds, particularly funds contributed by citizens in countries where such procedures are illegal and are even prohibited by law, would constitute a breach of the principle of subsidiarity. This would constitute a financial breach of the substance of the principle of subsidiarity.

This is basically what we are fighting for in this debate, although we are happy to engage in ethical debate if necessary. We must emphasise, however, that this is not the real issue. Furthermore, I wish to add my voice to those of my fellow Members who are calling for greater priority and greater investment to be given to research into adult stem cells. I urge the House to support the amendments tabled by Mr Gargani, which express the opinion adopted by a majority in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market.

  Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, the debate on the use of stem cells in research has to be based on fact and steered away from emotional argument. Talk of life and death distort reality. Stem cell research is only a question of life, as research can help save countless lives each year. For this reason EU funding must in future be targeted at stem cell research.

As the Commission proposal also states, stem cell research is expected to play an essential role in promoting the development of forms of treatment in many areas of medicine. This applies in particular to the treatment of various degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease but also to more common diseases such as diabetes, the number of cases of which has rocketed.

For Europe to be able to exploit stem cells successfully in the future the most important thing now is to set aside adequate resources for basic research into stem cells and furthermore permit the funding of embryonic stem cell research under the Sixth Framework Programme. This will ensure that research in the field can make progress within a regulated framework and that European researchers and ultimately patient groups can benefit immediately from new knowledge and skills in the field. If the use of stem cells is not permitted under the constitutions of some EU Member States, that must not be a barrier to research, and the benefits obtained from it as a result, in other EU countries.

I am against artificial deadlines. It is wrong to set dates before and after which stem cells can be used. Of course ethical principles and technical safety measures have to be complied with, but now, ladies and gentlemen, it is a question of cells that will be destroyed in any case. In any case, we have to use our common sense in this matter.

  Lage (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the revolutionary technique of therapeutic cloning echoes to a large extent man’s ancient dreams and myths. Therapeutic cloning opens up a whole new area for human knowledge and medicine. Dogmatic attitudes in this field, particularly those based on the Bible, are therefore pernicious. They demonstrate little concern for the reality of people’s lives. Loyalty to beliefs and to their origins is their raison d’être. We all agree with the universal ban on reproductive cloning but this does not mean that it is a taboo subject and that it should be likened to devil-worship, which is what we are seeing at the moment. Only recently, an extremely eminent French philosopher, Marcel Conche, in a book entitled ‘Confession of a philosopher’, which is a dialogue with André Compte-Sponville, claimed provocatively that the right to be cloned, provided, of course, that it is subject to strict rules is – would you believe – a fundamental right. I do not share this view, but it is a fine exercise in intellectual freedom. Those who would like to ban cloning outright but are unable to achieve this are putting so many obstacles and barriers in its way that research will be completely stifled. We cannot accept such a blatant strategy.

Unlike Mr Lisi, I see no good reason for completely excluding Community funding from the Sixth Framework Programme for Research ‘Research using embryonic stem cells’. It should be emphasised that, even today, it is impossible to tell which stem cells, those derived from embryos, from foetuses or adults, best meet the needs of fundamental research and clinical applications. The answers clearly lie in undertaking scientific research and in the freedom given to scientists and researchers.

  Laguiller (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, given the way that society is currently organised, where economic decisions are determined by profit, I do not trust the way in which industrial groups use scientific discoveries. But it is not the freedom to research that poses a problem, because research is what leads to human progress. We do not accept that the most reactionary pressure groups should be able to censure research on the grounds of religious interdicts or for whatever obscurantist reason it might be. We will therefore be voting against any amendment that seeks, on pseudo-ethical grounds, to ban research on stem cells from supernumerary embryos. Citing respect for life as a reason to oppose research on a mass of embryonic cells is all the more unacceptable because it prohibits therapeutic advances – and these have been made – that make it possible simply to save lives. In addition, these objections sometimes come from political movements that are apologists for the most odious wars, when it is not stem cells that are destroyed but actual human beings.

I will finish by saying that in France, scientists have just demonstrated in protest at cuts in research funding. I support their protests. If there is not enough money for research, we should take some from the defence budget, which, conversely, is steadily rising.

  Berenguer Fuster (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, as has already been said here, a couple of years ago, when we held the debate on the Sixth Framework Programme, a compromise solution was reached on the conditions under which research on stem cells could be funded. Let there be no doubt that this was a compromise solution between those people, such as myself, who preferred a more open and liberal position and others who advocated more restrictive solutions. Consequently, now that we are debating the issue once again, it does not appear logical that that compromise solution should be considered an extremist position and that other parties, opposed to research on stem cells, should tell us: let us now seek a compromise between that solution and our position, which, at the end of the day, means rejecting any possibility of funding research with stem cells.

No, Mr President, this is not a good system. It is a form of subterfuge aimed at hindering the European funding of research with stem cells, when there are many countries which allow it, because there are significant sectors of the scientific community and of the social community in general which believe that researching with stem cells can lead to great progress in the fight against the extremely serious diseases which devastate us today. I believe that this way of working is not worthy of the European Parliament.

It could have been said – and this would seem logical – that, since it is exclusively a question of funding, the funding would be allowed. Mr Ribeiro mentioned the principle of subsidiarity, well, let us accept it. We could say: European funding is allowed in all countries which allow research with stem cells. Under what conditions? Under those allowed in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity in those countries.

Nevertheless, rather than maintaining this position, we have upheld the agreement which was reached on the Sixth Framework Programme. Let us not now aim, as a result of intolerance, not just to destroy the European Area of Research, but also to prevent and hinder successful research in this area in the countries where it is allowed.

  Helmer (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I had the privilege of serving on the human genetics temporary committee in 2001. I recall that the House was completely polarised on that issue. The rapporteur produced a compromise that neither side, in the end, was prepared to vote for. Therefore we must recognise that there are widely different opinions honestly held in this House. Mr Blokland tells us that the issue is simply one of right or wrong. However, with respect Mr Blokland, it is a question of your opinion of right and wrong. Other colleagues in this House take a different view of what is right and wrong. I know that there are Members who hold strong religious views. For example, our rapporteur, Mr Liese, has strong religious views. However, I would say to Mr Liese and those who think like him that they have no right to impose their particular views on the whole of European society through the means of legislation.

There are third countries where religious fundamentalists seek to impose religious laws on the whole of society. Most of us in this House would condemn that practice and yet some of us are seeking to do it here.

Many colleagues propose alternative research methods – for example, that we should use adult stem cells. Most of us are not scientific experts. This is not an issue which we are able to judge. It is an issue which we should allow scientists to judge in order to make the best decisions in the interests of research. If we are serious about promoting research in the European Union, if we are serious about promoting the economy of European Union Member States, then we should not support these backward-looking amendments that seek to restrict research in this way.

  Flemming (PPE-DE). (DE) Mr President, I have a question for the Commissioner. Commissioner, I really do not want to provoke you, but your answer does give me real cause for concern. Amendment 18 states that, ‘In addition, research on embryo or foetal stem cells deriving from spontaneous or therapeutic abortion may be funded.’ Rumours have it that the Commission is already doing something of the kind. You see, abortion is legal – up to the third month in Austria. By then, the child’s heart is already beating. If the child is handicapped, whether mentally or physically, it can be aborted up to the ninth month. Will there be some point at which we say that we want to save life, even if the child had to die anyway? Will we also do that with a three-month old child whose heart is beating, or with a nine-month-old child whose death is inevitable?

Abortion is carried out quite legally. You know, the reason why I find these arguments so horrifying is that I heard them a number of years ago when a former Nazi doctor was on trial in Vienna. During the Nazi era, he carried out experiments on children with serious mental handicaps. The argument by which he justified his actions was that these children would have to die anyway, and that he wanted to help other people.

Let me say something to Mr Cappato. My dear Mr Cappato, you are such a charming chap! Even at the moment that your mother’s ovum came together with your father’s sperm, even when you were a tiny embryo, you were just as charming, just as handsome as you are now, your voice was as easy on the ear as it is today. You were already unique. Never before had you had the chance to come into the world, and never again will there be another Marco Cappato. Even as an embryo, you were already a personality. And Mrs Matikainen-Kallström, you have a little baby! This baby was an embryo, and it was your baby. Your child’s laughter, the colour of its skin and eyes, all were already present in the embryo. I do not believe that anyone would say they were prepared to sacrifice their own child, even only as an embryo, for the sake of saving someone else.

  Ferrer (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I was against the compromise reached by Parliament on this issue at the time, and I am against the Commission's proposal today as well and, consequently, the Liese report. And there are procedural reasons for this, because I believe, in agreement with the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, that within the framework of the internal market and since there is freedom of establishment, Community funds cannot be used to finance research which is not permitted in some Member States.

Above all, however, I am against this for reasons of principle, because I am against any research which involves destroying a life, however incipient it may be and however noble the intended aims of this research are. All lives, regardless of their stage of development, have the same value and we cannot save some lives at the expense of others because, although the life being destroyed is embryonic, it is a life just the same.

I agree that research has to be promoted, in particular if the aim is the well-being of patients suffering from serious diseases, and I am in favour of freedom of research but we must always fully respect human life and the dignity it deserves.

The possibilities opened up by research with adult stem cells are very hopeful and much closer. Very positive results have already been achieved. Let us therefore focus the programmes’ funds on this type of research, which, furthermore, does not pose any ethical problem. Because, however many time limits we set, however many ethical principles we establish to justify this research, the destruction of an embryonic life represents a clear violation of the most fundamental of these principles, these principles which we say we defend and which we do defend: respect for human life and the dignity it deserves.

  Scallon (PPE-DE). – Mr President, as parliamentarians we have a duty to uphold the democratic will of the citizens we represent in keeping with the laws and the constitutions of our sovereign Member States. We must also ensure that in the European Union human dignity is protected and the weakest and most vulnerable are defended. It is unacceptable for human life, whatever its age, to be treated as a commercial product, without regard to that life or the price paid by women in supplying the embryos.

It is deeply disturbing that the European Commission, supported by Members of this Parliament and certain Member State governments, is seeking to impose public funding of controversial and unethical research without proper public debate and without the opportunity for national parliaments to respond. There has certainly been no debate in Dáil Éireann. This proposal is against not only laws and constitutions, but also the conscience of millions of citizens. It also pressures applicant and Third World countries to become part of an EU market-place for human embryo research.

This controversial research has no scientifically positive results and, as our rapporteur has pointed out, is high-risk. Let us not play on the hopes and fears of sufferers. Let us use public funding for adult stem cell research, which has positive scientific results and may be as effective as research using embryonic stem cells. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market rejected the Commission's proposal and I urge support for the amendments tabled by its chairman, Mr Gargani, which I have co-signed with other Members.

Last week a key committee in the Irish Parliament also voted to reject this unethical research. There is a public outcry in Ireland. Tánaiste Mary Harney and the Irish Government have no mandate to agree this funding on behalf of Irish citizens. Just as there was no public mandate for an EU Constitution, there was clearly no mandate for this unconstitutional and unethical use of taxpayers' money.

  Fiori (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, there is one fundamental reason why this debate becomes heated at times. It would be very easy to draw on legal arguments. Many Members have already raised the basic question: can the European Union, with great difficulty, adopt an initiative, which does not have backing in all the Member States of the Union? That would be one of the many possible – if you will forgive the expression – hypocritical approaches to the issue. On this matter, there is a basic problem, which politics cannot resolve: politics is the art of the possible and, without a doubt, the art of compromise, but compromise on fundamental values is impossible. Therefore, on this matter, with due regard for the positions of all the Members and with due regard for the positions expressed by the Commission, all the attempts that have been made thus far seek to open the door to a new process, and that process involves tampering with the principle of life. For some, this path is completely acceptable, and for others it is a path which is not acceptable because it runs counter to certain fundamental values. That is why, as I see it, none of the attempts at compromise that have been made – although I commend the wisdom, ability and capacity of the Members – has achieved the ultimate goal.

As regards the process in question, I would draw your attention not so much to the initial phase, the phase we are experiencing now, which is extremely important because the treatment of a number of degenerative diseases is at stake, but to what will happen when we have decided to meddle with life: not in the short term, that is, but in the medium and long terms, and these are all questions of eugenics. We are going the same way as we did with the atom: in exploring the possibilities of the atom we made the atom bomb, and now we need rules to take us back a step. At this juncture, therefore, on a matter such as this, which is much more complex and much more sensitive, there may well be a need for further reflection.

  Liese (PPE-DE), rapporteur. (DE) Mr President, my group has given me another two minutes, and so I can deal with a number of the questions put by some of my fellow-Members.

For a start, it is unfortunate that not only the Commissioner, but also a number of Members of this House have asserted that the adoption of Mr Nisticò’s proposal would make research impossible or – to put the charge in a diluted form – that we would then be entirely dependent on the United States. Can you confirm, Commissioner, that Sweden is situated in Europe rather than in the USA?

Most of the stem cell lines listed in the NIH register come from Sweden. I once took the trouble to consult the people who manufactured them. Let me quote from Professor Lars Hamberger, whose unequivocal response, in an e-mail, to the question as to whether these stem cell lines were available to European researchers was as follows: ‘At present, we have 24 stem cell lines, out of which 20 are relatively well characterised. In the case that European researchers want to get access to these cell lines they can apply to us, and if the respective country laws and regulations permit export we can arrange, and we have already distributed a few cell lines to Europe.’

So these cells are available; I have had similar answers from the other institutes. Mr Nisticò has again drawn my attention to the fact that his proposal actually goes further than the Americans’. This is not just about cells, but about cell lines and a later date, so I ask you to desist from asserting that all research would be made impossible.

Let me conclude with a thought that I ask Members of this House to take on board. Many of us have mutually contradictory interpretations of what subsidiarity means. I ask you, though, to imagine for one brief moment that we are dealing with a different type of research, for example, research involving cruelty to animals, specifically primates or anthropoid apes. In that event, I think the arguments would be reversed. What is absolutely vital here is that, day after day, the Commission says ‘no’ to research projects.

I agree with Mr Linkohr that we must make more funding available for research, but, for as long as we are unable to fund uncontroversial projects, we have to think even more carefully than the Commission suggests about why we want to support controversial ones. For that reason, I believe that Mr Nisticò’s proposal really is a good compromise.

(Applause)

  De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, on a point of order, I want to correct a misconception about the Irish Constitution which, it has been alleged, bans embryo research in Ireland. The Irish Constitution is in fact silent on the matter, as indeed is Irish law. The Irish Constitution does indeed ban abortion, but it provides for exceptions. The issue is not as black and white as it is being presented.

  President. That was a point of clarification rather than a point of order.

  McNally (PSE). – Mr President, regarding the order in which amendments would be voted, I would suggest that when we look at those amendments referring to the date we take first those furthest away from the Commission's proposal, which includes a date. Those would be Amendment 68 from Mr Bowe and others, followed by Amendments 10, 64, 25 and 24. That would be a more logical order, given that they are furthest away from the Commission's suggestion. I hope the voting lists can be changed along those lines.

  President. I will make sure that the services concerned are aware of your suggestion.

  Thors (ELDR). (SV) Mr President, there is talk here and there about information from Stockholm and Sweden concerning how many stem cell lines there are. I wonder about the date to which the answer obtained by Mr Liese is relevant. A lot has happened since 2002. I have received an answer from the Carolingian Institute to the effect that they only have three well-characterised stem cell lines now available to them. That is significantly fewer. I hope that the Commission discriminates according to date in this area.

  Busquin, Commission. – (FR) Mr President, the Commission does of course attach great importance to your work and has taken a keen interest in it; it has also examined your amendments closely.

It was pleased to see that, at the vote in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, a clear majority emerged in favour of providing Community funding for research projects involving the procurement of human embryonic stem cells from supernumerary embryos and therefore the creation of new lines. This is an important point in support of research which will in all likelihood have beneficial effects on the treatment of major health problems.

The Commission does, however, have some difficulties with those amendments that seek to remove the 27 June 2002 cut-off date for the creation of supernumerary embryos, as proposed by the Commission on 9 July. I acknowledge the fact that this date has no scientific basis: it is simply linked to when the framework programme was adopted. In effect, the Commission, like Parliament for that matter, had gone along with the majority at the vote on the framework programme and that is why this date has been taken as a reference date. Furthermore, this proposal should be seen, as Mr Bowe said, as a compromise gesture, a signal to those who want – and I understand this, as it is quite legitimate to hold a different opinion on the subject – to prevent in vitro fertilisation being diverted from its objectives and being used to create embryos for research. We have always said very clearly that we do not want embryos to be produced specifically for research purposes.

The aim of including this date is then to show that we are not encouraging the creation of embryos for research purposes, but that existing supernumerary embryos may clearly be used for research because, as several Members have said, they are no longer part of a parental project.

On this basis, the Commission is able to accept a majority of the amendments, which are I might add excellent, thanks to the work done by the rapporteur and the whole of the committee. The amendments concerned are Amendments 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18, either in full or in part, subject in some cases to their being redrafted. These amendments clarify the content of the proposal and thus correspond, as Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel stressed, to the position agreed by Parliament when the framework programme was adopted. I would remind you that Parliament’s proposal was also based on the opinion of the European Group of Ethics, which had set out what could be done.

In response to Mrs Breyer, I would add, along the lines of what I have just said, that the fact that there have not been many expressions of interest – nine so far – was to be expected, because generally speaking there are few really competent research teams working in new research areas. Moreover, it is better that this be the case, because in an area like this it is genuinely competent teams that we need, which can provide a maximum guarantee that the dossiers will be dealt with ethically.

The Commission cannot however accept Amendments 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 16 and 19, in particular because they seek to remove the date fixed for the reasons that I have just explained. We wanted to produce a compromise and we wish to keep this date. This applies, amongst others, to Amendments 5 and 10, which delete the reference to this date.

Amendment 11 removes a condition from the Commission proposal. I will take this opportunity to stress the conditions, because much has been said about different methods, in particular those that use adult cells or cells from the umbilical cord. In this regard, we state very clearly, in the point deleted by Amendment 11, that we need to ensure that all other alternative methods have been examined and demonstrated not to be sufficient for the purposes of the research in question. This is also a signal to those who are not in favour of these research developments. This type of research will only be developed if it really is a solution that is scientifically proven to be necessary. In other words, many scientists, including those who are not, from an ethical point of view, in favour of research on supernumerary embryonic stem cells – like some of the professors who took part in our meetings – have to recognise that this method is worth exploring, that it complements research on adult stem cells and that it should not be ruled out.

I would like to finish with the amendments that Mr Nisticò has tabled here in plenary. I recognise that Mr Nisticò always goes to great lengths to reach a compromise. I might add that he made a similar effort at the parliamentary vote in June 2002, because it was his amendment around which the consensus was built that formed the basis for the Commission proposal.

Mr Nisticò, the amendments that you have tabled here are not entirely neutral, however, and this also answers Mrs McNally’s question. When you link cells and supernumerary embryos with cells and lines already in existence before 27 June 2002, you put a total restriction on research. Nevertheless, I would like to make it clear – for the sake of Mr Liese, who is obviously very familiar with the dossier, but sometimes confuses the different concepts, lines and dates – that, on 27 June 2002, there were no stem cell lines in existence in Europe, at least formally speaking. The existing European stem cell lines appeared later in Sweden. In response to Mrs Thors, I would say that you can ask the researchers in Karolinska; three lines turned up there sometime after September 2003.

If you incorporate this amendment, you will therefore create the following problem: the only stem cell lines that were in existence before 27 June 2002 are in American, Israeli and Asian hands. This means that you are linking them to trade mechanisms, because the American lines are available but under commercial contract. You would not give Europe the slightest possibility of developing this type of research, which is worthwhile; you would not allow Europe to move from embryo lines to existing stem cell lines. Today there are more of them in existence. There are two in the United Kingdom and seven in Sweden (three in Karolinska and four in Gothenburg), but they appeared after 27 June 2002. You are therefore putting Europe at a disadvantage in two respects: in terms of scientific value and also because of the fact that the lines from before 27 June 2002 are sold on the open market. This is therefore completely contrary to the spirit of what many people have in mind, which is for that matter what the Commission also has in mind: under no circumstances can supernumerary embryos be a source of profit. I cannot be clearer than that. We do not want stem cell lines to become marketable commodities; they should simply be made available to the European scientific community.

At present, they are not available to the European scientific community, except in exchange for payment. They are also being imported into Germany. Research is being carried out on imported stem cells that have been traded. I have every respect for differences in ethical views, but your line of argument does not hang together. Your reasoning is internally consistent when you say that you do not want research on supernumerary embryos. That is consistent. But you cannot link this to a date; the date is a symbolic gesture, a compromise, so as not to encourage the creation of supernumerary embryos and stem cell lines. That is totally contradictory and runs completely counter to high-quality research at European level, quite apart from the fact that it does not resolve the ethical problem either. We could not accept this amendment if it were to be adopted in plenary. I am quite happy for you to try to find solutions, but this one does not make any sense.

I would like to thank Parliament for its work on this difficult and sensitive dossier, which affects each one of us and indeed life itself. I understand that there are differences of opinion. That is a sign of Europe’s greatness. But there is also a value: research. The purpose of the Commission’s proposal was to try to respond, as has been said, to a concern expressed both by Parliament and the Council of Ministers at its meeting of 20 September 2002. The Commission has worked to provide a framework for this research with strong, consistent ethical rules, in such a way that fundamental principles can also be defended in this area.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at 11.30 a.m.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS (RULE 120)

  Montfort (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) No scientific evaluation justifies research on embryonic stem cells and researchers have said that using these cells for therapeutic purposes has proved unsuccessful. Nevertheless, alternative methods, such as adult stem cells, offer very promising results. Two comments must be made on the argument, which enables this fundamental research on embryonic cells to include adult stem cells. First and foremost, existing cell lines are sufficient and this is the proposal by Mr Liese. Then, it ignores the fact that the purpose of adult stem cells is to repair tissue on the patients themselves, whilst the purpose of embryonic stem cells is to follow the development of the human being from conception onwards.

The Commission proposal is ambiguous and inappropriate since scientists do not promise any results for 10 to 15 years and this research does not match the urgency of the needs of patients who are suffering while they wait for a treatment to be found. We need to prioritise funding for research into adult stem cells, the only alternative method which does not raise ethical issues and which is a technique that has been approved by all Members. I will not support the Commission proposal amended by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and I will vote in favour of the Gargani amendment, to which I also added my name.