Mr President, after more than a year of discussion regarding this directive, the position of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is clear and has remained almost unchanged. It has been said that it is a public health directive, as Commissioner Byrne mentioned just now. Furthermore, if it is true – and I am answering Mrs Korhola – that ethical principles are at the heart, and form the basis, of the majority of our decisions, then it is not for Europe to regulate and, even less so, to harmonise in this area. We must, therefore, concentrate on the amendments that, in practice, meet the needs of potential recipients. The report has made much progress along these lines, even in this House, thanks to the tireless work of Mr Liese whom I thank. Let us take note that the progress includes effective traceability at all times; the possibility of authorising, in exceptional circumstances, the lifting of anonymity for gamete donations – this was crucial for thousands of infertile couples waiting for the gift of life; and adding to the text an amendment, which I tabled, on information campaigns designed to raise living citizens’ awareness concerning the donation of tissue and cells. To move on now to the controversial issue of voluntary and unpaid donation, the liberal group is satisfied with the compromise that was reached, a better compromise than the one reached for directive 100. The text specifies that the donation must be made of the donor’s free will without payment, with the exception of possible compensation, for which detailed rules are to be laid down by Member States on the basis of subsidiarity. All the same, I am sorry to see that amendments that explicitly encouraged the donation of umbilical cord blood and the registration of potential bone marrow donors were refused. As regards organs, the Commission has been promising us a legislative initiative since this was first an issue, because this is a considerable problem taking various forms: organised trafficking, shortage etc. It does not, however – and this is understandable – want to act with great haste and it puts forward the statement discussed in detail by the Commissioner. So be it! Having said that, and on this issue of the difficulty of finding compatible organs, we could perhaps suggest the inclusion of a proposal, within the framework of this declaration, to encourage European cooperation through the Retransplant consortium. Currently, only six countries are involved in it and that is not enough. To conclude, Mr President, I welcome the fact that, as regards this issue, which, as we can see, is complex and sensitive, the European law that we are in the process of drawing up in this House establishes first and foremost general principles and rules, which must be flexible and progressive in the interests of putting patients first. It was both important and vital not to close the door on genetic research, in particular for stem cells. We achieved this and, therefore, I recommend, on behalf of the liberal group, that we adopt, without modification, the overall compromise reached between Mr Liese, the shadow rapporteurs and the Italian Presidency. The objective sought with this text, and I would remind you of this, is to resolutely combat shortage and trafficking, and to promote solidarity and quality. This is the only message that Europe should send out to the hundreds of thousands of patients waiting for heart valve transplants, corneas, bone cells, donated sperm and oocyte, or simply for reparatory transplants for severe burns. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: ELDR