September 24, 2002

I much regret that the Industry, Trade and Research Committee did not deliver an opinion on this subject. Apparently our coordinators were led to believe that there was insufficient time to prepare an opinion before the Environment Committee planned to finalise its report. In fact it took quite a bit longer than originally planned and there would have been quite enough time for the Industry Committee to give an opinion. And an opinion from the Industry Commitee would have been essential. It is arguable that it should have been the Main Committee for this report.

This proposal will have a substantial impact on the European Union's biotechnology industry, on the EU's research programme and in particular on the priorities of the 6th Framework Research Programme and it also impacts our trade in GMOs and in genetically modified research material with developed and less developed countries.

If the Commission proposal adds undesirable restrictive requirements beyond the internationally agreed Biosafety Protocol, the Environment Committee's suggested amendments go drastically further.

It is essential that in our vote today we radically change the direction of this report. I'm only sorry that, coming late to this matter, there was insufficient time to introduce all the changes and separate votes I would have liked.

Why is it such a problem? These additional restrictions and bureaucratic requirements will only discourage investment in life science research in Europe and further encourage this investment in research to transfer to other more welcoming jurisdictions outside Europe. With the research investment will go our scientists.

I ask the Commission - and the rapporteur - do you have any concept of the damage this is likely to do? Did you give any consideration to the Lisbon ambition to be the most dynamic and competitive knowledge based economy in the world?

This proposal does not restrict imports to the EU of GMOs for contained research but exports of public and private GM research material to third countries will be subject to substantial and disproportionate regulations.

This proposal runs diametrically contrary to the EU's Life Sciences and Biotechnology Action Plan. Was there any consultation with the Research Committee and the Research Council?

It is quite appropriate that the Commission should propose, and that the Parliament and Council approve, the requirements of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, but no more. If we go any further we hazard our life science base for the future; we hazard our scientific community; we hazard the whole Lisbon strategy; we hazard Europe's future as a dynamic knowledge-based economic power in the world.

I call on the Parliament to vote overwhelmingly against Mr. Sjöstedt's report in all its critical aspects and in particular to support amendments 50 and 51, which will at least mitigate the extent of the damage this proposal and report are likely to cause.