Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank the Commission for now having led the way by implementing the new provisions in the Treaty of Amsterdam establishing quality and safety standards for, among other things, human blood and blood components. I should also, however, like to thank Mr Nisticò for the work he has put into the report. I think it is a fine piece of work, and I am very pleased that, through the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, we are able to help improve the directive. With the improvements proposed by the Committee, we can make for greater safety and ensure blood of a higher quality, from collection right up to distribution. I also think that we shall have some crucial issues settled: firstly, that blood is not a commodity subject to the usual rules governing free trade. I think that, with regard to self-sufficiency too, it is important for it to be said that, by means of these rules in the individual countries and in the EU as a whole, we can prioritise the issue of self-sufficiency. Blood donated from a country’s own population is clearly the best solution, and I would therefore urge all countries to establish large pools of donors who see it as their task, both personally and as members of society, to give blood and plasma to help other people in their own societies. Many countries have already established pools of donors. It can be done in actual fact, and there is therefore no excuse for those countries which have still not established such pools. It is just a question of getting them going. If such a large corps of donors is obtained, so too is a larger quantity of blood and, thus, the opportunity of genuinely becoming self-sufficient in blood of the highest quality. That also leads me to say a few words about the extent to which blood donation should be non-remunerated, which is of course the major issue here. I believe that blood donation should be non-remunerated, as also recommended by the Council of Europe in its guidelines and by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I think there are two reasons for specifying this. The first reason is ethical. In my view, a person’s blood, tissue and organs ought not to be commodities. That is one reason. The other reason is that non-remunerated donation provides blood which is safest and of the highest quality. Countless investigations show that blood donated for no remuneration is of a higher quality than blood otherwise obtained, and I think we have to tell it like it is: a pool of donors based upon voluntary and non-remunerated blood donation is different from a pool based upon remunerated donation. In that connection, I am delighted with the broad support given by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy to the Council of Europe’s definition of voluntary, non-remunerated blood donation. There are sectors of industry which have lobbied powerfully against non-remunerated blood donation and, as usual, patients have been elbowed out of the way in the process. I find that unsavoury, and I think that, in reality, industry is quite cynically helping to prevent the ideal situation for patients who have to be given blood, namely that blood and plasma are donated without remuneration and thus from an established and stable body of donors. I think it provides food for thought that those countries in which there is non-remunerated donation by a large and stable body of donors are also, in actual fact, self-sufficient in blood and plasma. However, I should like to add to what Mr Nisticò has said by pointing out that I am pleased with the oral amendment to Mr Nisticò’s Amendment No 75 and that, in my view, there is no one at all in this House who could dream of putting a patient in a situation in which he was unable to obtain blood or plasma. Naturally, all patients must be able to obtain these, but I believe that we serve patients best by having non-remunerated blood donation and thus securing blood of the highest quality.

Political group: PSE