Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-384"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.7.3-384"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, this interesting debate has highlighted the importance and the sensitivity of this proposal. I note that many of you, including Mr Liese, are disappointed that the Commission has not offered to go further on the ethical issues. This is not because we do not consider ethical standards to be important – quite the contrary. It is precisely because ethical standards are so important to our citizens that we must not overstep the mark.
On donor consent, I pointed out that the proposal states that the use of human tissues and cells should take place under conditions protecting the rights and health of all parties, and that the consent of donors and recipients should be given, following the International Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.
With these basic principles in our proposal, we adhere to international standards. It is then for the Member States to introduce detailed rules. I do not recommend going any further than that.
Provisions on consent vary across the Member States. For example, if the donor is deceased, some presume consent whereas others do not. On the other hand, consent issues are well regulated in all Member States and applicant countries, so the added value of binding provisions at EU-level is, in my view, very doubtful.
In conclusion, I am very pleased to be able to accept, at least in principle, the majority of the technical amendments on the table today. A full listing of the Commission's position on each of the amendments is being made available to Parliament. I trust that this will be included in the minutes of this session.
This dossier is one of the Greek Presidency's priorities as regards the health sector, which we hope can achieve a common position in the Council, following Parliament's opinion. Through this proposal the Community can establish significant new standards for the health of our citizens. I thank you all, once again, for your efforts on this dossier. I trust that you all share my desire to see this through to a satisfactory conclusion. Protecting and improving public health is, after all, at the very centre of our citizens' concerns and expectations.
The Commission is the guardian of the Treaties. We have to respect the advice of our legal service – advice also echoed by the legal service of the Council.
As I said in my opening address on this point, the Commission's proposal aims to take to the very limit what is legally acceptable, given the constraints of the Treaty. We simply cannot push this any further. That said, I would ask you to consider that if we discount those amendments that go beyond the scope of Article 152, we can accept, fully or partially, a majority of them. I am pleased to note that most of those amendments substantially improve the directive. Article 152 still allows us to take all necessary precautions to enforce the central requirement of the European Group on Ethics, namely in the protection of the health of the recipient.
I now turn to the detail of the amendments before us today. On the scope of the proposal I can accept some clarifications, but the wording has to ensure legal clarity. A series of amendments aimed to limit the use of certain types of cells, such as cells derived from cloning or abortion. I share many of your concerns with regard to these issues. However, with this proposal we seek neither to mandate nor to prohibit the use of specific types of cells because the EU does not have the competence to do so. It is neither legally possible, nor appropriate, for the Community to act in an area where it is best left to the Member States. I wish to emphasise that decisions on the use of any specific type of cells and tissues – whatever the type – are a matter for our Member States. If, however, any particular use of such cells is authorised in a Member State, then the directive kicks in, to require the application of all provisions necessary to protect public health.
As regards the exclusion of organs from the proposal, I reiterate that the Commission does not intend to drop the subject of organs from the agenda. I attach the utmost importance to taking forward a legislative proposal based on sound science, and will follow it closely. We are presently engaged in the acquisition of the information and the scientific advice to enable us to bring forward legislation along these lines. This will take some time. I appeal to Members of the House, particularly to such distinguished Members as Mr Blokland and Mr Ó Neachtain, to think twice before holding this piece of legislation to ransom and perhaps even taking the step of voting against this report and legislation because the Commission cannot move at a speed that people believe is more appropriate. As representatives of our various institutions, we both respect the other's institution. No-one respects the rights of this institution more than I do myself. But I seek the same respect for my institution, which includes the right of initiative. It is one of the fundamental requirements of the Community method that we all enjoy and support.
One of the justifications for the retention of this right of initiative is that the Commission brings forward a proposal when and if it is ready – but in this instance, when it is ready. I have said I will, but I cannot do it now. I cannot give a promise that I will have a legislative proposal before this House before this summer. If, with that information, you feel it necessary to vote against this legislation, so be it. But I would ask you not to do so.
Incidentally, the issue of organ trafficking is being addressed by a new initiative of the Greek Presidency under Title 4 of the EU Treaty. This initiative, which I support wholeheartedly, aims to make organ trafficking a criminal offence in all Member States. In addition, we hope that a conference on organ transplantation, organised by the Italian Presidency in Venice this September, will help us to determine the way forward in this area. In the meantime, the Commission is compiling information on the current situation with regard to organ transplantation in the Member States and applicant countries.
Once again, I appeal to Members to look to their own responsibility and not to hold this particular piece of legislation to ransom because of the views they have about the speed of bringing forward this piece of legislation.
Returning to ethical issues, I have made clear that because of the legal position that has been underlined repeatedly by the legal services of the Council and the Commission, I cannot agree with a large number of the amendments on the table today. These amendments concern, in particular, voluntary unpaid donation, the principle of not-for-profit procurement and the requirements for donor consent. The question of voluntary unpaid donation was discussed at length during the codecision procedure on the blood directive. In the light of this experience, and also in view of the results of the debate in the Council health group so far, I believe that it would save a lot of crucial time if the Council and Parliament did not seek to re-open this debate, but instead stayed with the blood solution, as a number of speakers have already said."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples