Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-383"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.7.3-383"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I spoke at the start in my capacity as rapporteur, and now I have a further three minutes of speaking time on behalf of my group, which gives me the opportunity to address some of the points raised by my fellow Members.
Let me come first to Mrs Ries. Unfortunately, she was unable to stay for the rest of the debate, but as I have already told her in person, it would be a great shame if, due to the 10% on which we disagree, the Liberal Group were to vote against the entire report. I think that many of Mrs Ries's amendments which have been included in the report are worth adopting by this House in the end. I therefore appeal to the Liberal Group to reconsider whether they really are prepared, ultimately, to vote against the entire report.
On Mr Bowe's points regarding a case from his own constituency, where stem cells offer hope for a boy suffering from a serious disease: after he spoke, I went to him and tried to clarify this issue, as it is very important, in my view, to make it clear that these are not embryonic stem cells but adult stem cells from bone marrow. The experiment nonetheless raises a number of serious ethical questions. However, it does not involve embryonic stem cells. This point is very important, to my mind, because at the hearing too, it was made clear that embryonic stem cells have not been transplanted into any patients anywhere in the world. Apart from the ethical issues, the associated medical risks are simply too great.
In response to Mr Caudron, I would like to say that I am aware of this and I also appreciate the fact that he is so consistent in defending his position that research on human embryos and embryonic stem cells should not be ruled out. In fact, the committee's report does not do so anyway. Amendment No 30 is the compromise which Mr Caudron negotiated with the Commission and the Council on the Sixth Research Framework Programme, and Amendments No 86 and No 92 go beyond that.
In my heart, I am with Mrs Flemming, and I endorse her arguments. However, my head tells me that the compromise identified by the committee is possibly better and forms a better basis for the European Union and the European Parliament. We should therefore certainly support Amendment No 30, and on Amendment No 86, I recommend as rapporteur that we respect freedom of conscience so that everyone can vote as his or her conscience dictates.
Finally, let me make one comment about the legal basis. I have difficulties explaining to the citizens of Europe that the Commission considers it feasible for us to ban tobacco advertising in regional newspapers but does not ban the trade in cells and tissue running into thousands of euros. That is not a very coherent position. Commissioner, I gave you my full support on the ban on tobacco advertising, although on one or two points, I felt that it went too far. Nonetheless, I was in favour in principle and therefore supported you against a great deal of opposition in Germany. I therefore ask you to reconsider this issue. Perhaps you are not yet able to make concessions to us today, but you may be able to do so in the coming weeks and months. I would like to be able to defend the Commission in Germany and the other Member States, and I do not want to have this lack of coherence which I can no longer defend."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples