Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-15-Speech-1-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031215.6.1-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in April 2003, when there was the debate at first reading of the Liese report, I spoke then on behalf of my group on this important issue. On that occasion I mentioned three principles, which led me to reject many amendments. The first principle was that the draft directive had a scope that should not, above all, be extended, in particular so as not to reopen the debate on embryonic stem cell research, or even on voluntary abortion. The second principle: although, of course, there have to be strict ethical rules, there should not be any religious or sectarian bans of whatever origin. The third principle: the human body is not for sale, not to be bought and not to be stolen.
At the time, the European Parliament broadly followed these principles when voting, thus leaving authors of amendments that could be described as reactionary in the objective sense of the word in the minority.
During the preparation for the second reading, the rapporteur, Mr Liese, true to his ideas and as pugnacious as ever, once again tried to extend the scope of the draft directive to reopen other debates and perhaps, one day, win the battle that he has regularly lost since the adoption of the sixth Framework Programme on Research and Development. I was therefore getting ready, this evening, for a new attack on behalf of a large majority of our fellow citizens, on behalf of many researchers, on behalf of public health and, above all, on behalf of the patients who are waiting for treatments and for transplants. Some amendments, which were, moreover, adopted in the committee, seemed to me in fact to be inappropriate, even dangerous.
I am glad to see that this evening – and perhaps this is a Christmas present – the rapporteur is tabling 21 more or less satisfactory compromise amendments. Fortunately they clarify some provisions of the text. They clearly set down principles to which we attach importance: that donations are made voluntarily and without payment, although compensation is possible; Member States guarantee these donations; respect for anonymity is confirmed, with the exception of what is stated in Articles 8 and 16 which leave the matter to Member States’ legislation on the basis of subsidiarity; traceability was officially sanctioned and validated.
I particularly welcome the removal of two amendments: 35, which related to abortion, and 38, which did not distinguish between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning.
As a result, on behalf of my group, I can support the 21 compromise amendments with the Council, accompanied moreover, by some assessments of their legality, which I heard from Commissioner Byrne, and I am glad that common sense largely prevailed. I too would, therefore, like to thank the rapporteur Mr Liese, since once is not the norm here, who undoubtedly played a very positive role in drafting these compromise amendments."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples