Mr President, this is a very sensitive issue and Mr Liese and I have crossed swords on it, which is sad because we belong to the same Group. Nevertheless, we are both sincere in our views, opposing though they may be. As Mr Bowe said, this is a very good and much-needed proposal and I welcome it. I also welcome the way in which Mr Liese has been flexible - finally - about the amendments and we now have a chance of getting this legislation on to the statute book as soon as possible. However, this issue of tissues and cells and how we deal with it has raised an interesting question about subsidiarity. One of the reasons why I have been so stirred up about all this is that I have been on the receiving end of a large number of letters from people in my own country who suffer from Parkinson's Disease, chronic heart disease or diabetes, or from their carers in the case of Alzheimer's Disease. People who suffer from these diseases have a life sentence: they do not die, they stay alive and their condition degenerates. They know it is degenerating and they know that research that might help them is being carried on, often involving stem cells. It is their only ray of hope. Let me quote from a letter I received from a constituent in Cornwall. Mr Alan Cole from Liskeard suffers from Parkinson's Disease. He states: 'Rightly or wrongly, each day I listen to the TV or radio hoping to hear that a cure for Parkinson's Disease is on the way. I then become aware of stem cell research and how this might lead to a breakthrough for sufferers like me. A ray of hope - albeit a long way off - could be my miracle. I then discover that people are opposed to this type of research. Who are these people? They cannot possibly suffer with Parkinson's Disease or any other disability.' Who are these people? Well, they are us here, sitting in the rather remote European Parliament. The decision of whether or not stem cell research should go forward and the kind of research which Mr Liese was dealing with in his report would be much better dealt with in the national context than in some rather remote European one. I would also point out that one of the ironies of the situation is that those who suffer from Parkinson's Disease in countries which do not allow this research to be done with stem cells may well benefit from research being done in countries where it is allowed and may, in the end, be very grateful for it. The other issue that came up between us was the question of the payment of donors. There is a particular situation in the United Kingdom regarding the payment of donors. We need to have subsidiarity here so that some countries may go ahead and continue to pay them. We now have a compromise. Mr Blokland has rightly observed that it is a bit of a fudge. However, the text as agreed in Amendment No 69 is an acceptable compromise. That is the way forward. I regret that we have given the impression in this Parliament that we are against stem cell research. In fact we voted for stem cell research to be financed from the EU budget at the last part-session. That has now being reversed by the Council of Ministers. Let us show that in this debate we are very much in favour of a sensible proposal from the Commission on the safety of tissues and cells and we can all agree, including Mr Liese and myself, in wishing this proposal well.

Political group: PPE-DE