Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what is at issue here is the transplantation of cells and tissues, a fast-growing branch of medicine. Although it will not cure all the things that people are currently promising it will, the transplantation of cells and tissues will, in future, be able to help many people who suffer from hitherto incurable illnesses. Even today, people can survive them by means of the transplantation of bone marrow, heart valves and skin, and the new biotechnological discipline of tissue engineering will certainly lead to new triumphs in the future. It does have its risks, though, such as, for example, the transmission of pathogens or the uncontrolled growth of cells, which can result in cancer, and the ethical problems associated with it must always, of course, be considered. We must make use of the opportunities presented by this technology, while limiting its risks. I believe that Parliament’s amendments to the Common Position, which are before you, make an important contribution in this regard. In the course of the past week, we have succeeded in coming to an agreement with the Italian Presidency of the Council on a whole range of amendments, which means that, what you will be voting on tomorrow at midday is a package of compromises to which the Council has already agreed with the permanent representatives, and if this House adopts it, we can avoid a conciliation procedure. I am grateful to all those who have helped to bring this agreement about, especially to the Italian Council Presidency, and most particularly to the Minister of Health, Professor Sirchia, who has personally committed himself to it. My thanks go also to the Commission’s staff and, of course, to my fellow-Members as well. Above all else, Parliament aimed to prevent the donation of cells and tissues being commercialised, and, to a large extent, we have succeeded in achieving this important objective. In contrast to the vague wording proposed by the Council and the Commission, the agreement we now have makes provision for unambiguous rules. We draw a distinction between payment for the donation of cells and tissues, which is to be prohibited, and compensation for costs incurred by a donor, which is perfectly permissible. We want the compensation to be clearly defined and the Member States to shoulder their responsibility in this regard. It was at this point that great controversy erupted, with the Council and the Commission initially contending that Parliament’s demands lacked any basis in law. We were, however, able to persuade them both that a non-commercial approach was called for not only in terms of considerations of ethics, but also of health protection. It is quite simply unthinkable, for example, that one should offer a great deal of money for the donation of cells and tissues and only then ask the donor whether he is at any sort of medical risk. The possibility of medical risks being concealed is always a factor when large amounts of money are involved, and this presents dangers not only for the donor but also for the recipient. We have also made it clear that there is to be no trading in cells and tissues as such, but that there is no objection to trading in medicines manufactured from them. As is made clear in one of the recitals, industry has an important part to play in this. This House takes the view that a ban on commercialisation is an absolute necessity, being something that is not merely included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but also a requirement on which Parliament has insisted on repeated occasions, both within Europe and outside it. Let me take this opportunity to mention a visit to this House on Wednesday by a Ukrainian woman who campaigns for human rights, who will, on that occasion, be describing instances in which new-born children are taken away from their parents, the suspected purpose of this being the transplantation of their organs or tissues. Even outside Europe, I believe, we have to keep a watchful eye on this. At first reading, this House also called for a comprehensive ban on the cloning of human beings, which we have not been able to persuade the Council to accept. The Council of Ministers firmly refused to accept this amendment, and, in the negotiations, I no longer insisted on it in order to avoid the need for a conciliation procedure. This does not, however, mean that Parliament has changed its opinion about this. I believe this to be another area in which safety considerations demand that we be very careful, and we will continue to keep a watchful eye on this in future. In addition to this, we have also managed to bring about a whole range of further improvements, with better-framed provisions on anonymity, reinforcement of Parliament’s rights in the event of the directive being amended, and a series of clarifications on, among other things, the import of cells and tissues. The cumulative effect of these small improvements in these areas is to clarify the Common Position and to make it more precise, and the non-commercialisation aspect has been greatly improved. I can therefore recommend that the Members of this House, tomorrow morning, vote to adopt the compromise amendments, which have been submitted by several groups and negotiated with the Council, and to do so in the interests of unambiguous regulation and an improved Common Position.

Political group: PPE-DE