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)

Political group: PPE-DE