Documents considered by the Committee on 2 July 2014 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


9 European Citizens' Initiative: 'One of Us'

Committee's assessment Politically important
Committee's decision Cleared from scrutiny
Document details Commission Communication on the European Citizens' Initiative 'One of Us'
Legal base
Department Business, Innovation and Skills

Summary and Committee's conclusions

9.1 The European Citizens' Initiative was introduced by the Lisbon Treaty to encourage greater democratic involvement of EU citizens in the legislative activities of the EU. It allows one million EU citizens from at least one quarter of all Member States to call on the Commission to propose legislation on any matter for which it has the power to act.[44]

9.2 'One of Us' is the second citizens' initiative to meet the requirements for registration and formal consideration by the Commission. It attracted the support of more than 1.7 million EU citizens and exceeded the minimum threshold for the number of signatories required in 18 Member States (but not in the UK).[45] The 'One of Us' initiative asks the Commission to "establish a ban and end the financing of activities which presuppose the destruction of human embryos, particularly in the areas of research, development aid and public health" and proposes amendments to three EU Regulations to achieve this objective.[46]

9.3 The Commission met the organisers of the citizens' initiative in April 2014 and took part in a public hearing at the European Parliament. The Communication sets out the Commission's legal and political conclusions on the citizens' initiative and its reasons for deciding to take no further action. The Government endorses the Commission's response.

9.4 Formal consideration by the Commission of a citizens' initiative is a significant step — so far, only two initiatives have reached this stage. We are pleased to note that the Commission has provided a detailed and thorough assessment of EU legislation affected by the 'One of Us' initiative before concluding that no changes are warranted in this case, a conclusion the Government shares.

9.5 We are content to clear the Communication from scrutiny but note, in doing so, that the Commission places particular weight on the legitimacy given to the current EU regulatory framework for research and for development assistance by its passage, with clear majorities, through the European Parliament and Council. Given that co-decision is now the legislative norm within the EU, we expect future citizens' initiatives to expose similar tensions in balancing the legitimacy of the EU's own decision-making processes against the demands resulting from the EU's first steps towards a limited form of direct democracy.

Full details of the documents: Commission Communication on the European Citizens' Initiative 'One of Us': (36104), 10523/14 + ADD 1, COM(14) 355.

Background

9.6 The 'One of Us' initiative invites the Commission to amend three EU Regulations:

·  the EU Financial Regulation establishing the rules for implementing the EU budget, so that it precludes any budget allocation for the funding of activities that destroy human embryos or presume their destruction;

·  the Horizon 2020 Regulation, to preclude funding for research activities that destroy human embryos, including those aimed at obtaining stem cells, and for research involving the use of human embryonic stem cells in subsequent steps to obtain them; and

·  the Development Cooperation Instrument Regulation, to preclude the use of EU funds, directly or indirectly, to support abortion.

The Commission Communication

9.7 The Commission notes that all EU legislation and expenditure must comply with the EU Treaties and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which enshrine respect for human rights, including human dignity, the right to life, and the right to the integrity of the person. It highlights the importance of human embryonic stem cell research in developing treatments for a wide variety of diseases, as well as the diversity of the regulatory framework governing human embryonic stem cell research in Europe — permitted, subject to controls and conditions in 18 Member States, prohibited in three, and subject to no specific legislation in the remaining Member States.

9.8 Funding for human embryonic stem cell research is permitted under the EU's Horizon 2020 programme, but is subject to a strict ethical framework and "triple lock" system:

·  all EU-funded projects must comply with the laws of the country in which the research is carried out;

·  all projects must be scientifically validated by peer review and undergo rigorous ethical review; and

·  EU funds may not be used to derive new stem cell lines or for research that destroys embryos, including for the procurement of stem cells.

9.9 The Commission adds that it does not solicit project proposals for human embryonic stem cell research but seeks, instead, to fund research that offers the most promising means of treating some of the most prevalent diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease. It suggests that human embryonic stem cell research has potential to achieve significant health benefits and that EU-funded collaborative projects can increase coordination, reduce duplication, and prevent the unnecessary production and use of stem cell lines. In the period 2007-13, the EU funded 27 such projects involving the use of human embryonic stem cells, with an EU budget contribution of €156.7 million out of a total of €6 billion available for health research.[47]

9.10 Turning to development cooperation, the Commission says that its policies on EU assistance for maternal and child health are guided by the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Programme of Action. EU funding in the area of health seeks to support the efforts of partner countries in developing universal and equitable access to national healthcare systems, principally through direct budget support, but funding is also channelled through UN agencies or Global Health Initiatives to tackle AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, as well as civil society organisations. EU assistance will "contribute directly or indirectly to the entire spectrum of health services offered by partner countries, which may or may not include abortion-related services to save the mother's life", but the Commission adds:

    "This comprehensive EU support contributes substantively to a reduction in the number of abortions because it increases access to safe and quality services, including good quality family planning, a broad range of contraceptive methods, emergency contraception and comprehensive sexual education."[48]

9.11 Whilst there have been "impressive gains" in contraceptive use, the Commission says that a substantial number of women die every year as a result of abortions performed in unsafe or unsanitary conditions and cites WHO data which indicate that maternal deaths and illness can be dramatically reduced by improving the safety of abortion-related services.

9.12 During the period 2008-12, the Commission notes that the EU spent ?3.2 billion of development funding on the health sector, of which ?1.5 billion was dedicated to maternal, new-born and child health, with ?87 million spent on reproductive health care, ?17 million on family planning, and ?95 million on controlling sexually transmitted diseases.

9.13 The Commission concludes that no changes are required to existing EU legislation governing the expenditure of the EU budget and EU funding for research and for development assistance. It says that the EU Financial Regulation already requires all EU expenditure to comply with the EU Treaties and the EU Charter, including respect for human dignity, the right to life, and the right to the integrity of the person. It notes that the Horizon 2020 and Development Cooperation Instrument Regulations were based on extensive consultation and democratic approval by the European Parliament and the Council and incorporate stringent safeguards and conditionalities.

The Minister's Explanatory Memorandum of 25 June 2014

9.14 The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts) expresses the Government's support for the stance taken by the Commission. He sets out the Government's position in the following terms:

    "Stem cell research offers enormous potential to deliver new treatments for diseases as diverse as Parkinson's, diabetes and heart disease. It is far too early to know where useful results will come from; a position supported by published scientific findings.

    "We anticipate significant progress over the next few years using a range of cell types including human embryonic stem cells, induced Pluripotent Stem cells (iPS cells), direct reprogramming of different cells, adult stem cell trials as well as in gene therapies. Research is also being carried out on stem cell transplantation to combat retinitis pigmentosa and age-related macular degeneration, which are the leading causes of blindness.

    "Embryonic stem cells are still needed for research even though there are other sources of cells because it is not yet clear that adult stem cells will be the best approach in all cases. Enabling scientists to work on all forms of stem cells can help accelerate the process in finding alternatives to embryonic stem cells where appropriate.

    "In the UK, research involving the use of live human embryos cannot take place without a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended (1990 Act), under which licences are granted, sets strict controls on the use of human embryos in research. Before granting the research project a licence, the HFEA must be satisfied that any proposed use of embryos (or human admixed embryos) is necessary for the purposes of the research and that the research is necessary or desirable for any of the principle purposes set out in the Act.

    "Licensed research can only take place on embryos created in vitro (IVF embryos), for up to 14 days after creation or the appearance of the primitive streak, whichever is the earlier. If a patient no longer wants to use their embryos for treatment they can be donated for the treatment of others or for research but only with the patients' (or the gamete providers if different) clearly expressed, written consent.

    "Horizon 2020, the EU's new funding programme for research and innovation continues a compromise approach agreed by Member States in previous programmes which permits EU funding for research involving stem cells in those Member States where this is allowed by national law, subject to clear ethical review provisions.

    "The proposition that 'the assistance of the Union, on the basis of this Regulation, shall not be used to fund abortion, directly or indirectly, through the funding of organizations that encourage or promote abortion' risks hampering international efforts to save lives in developing countries.

    "This proposition not only restricts safe abortion funding - it restricts all funding to organisations that fund abortion. So organisations that provide a broad range of health services to the world's poor would not be eligible for EU funding if they also offer safe abortion services. 47,000 women a year die through unsafe abortions and over 8 million suffer illness and injury requiring hospital care.

    "Women and adolescent girls must have the right to make their own decisions about their sexual and reproductive health and well-being, and be able to choose whether, when and how many children to have.

    "We do not promote abortion as a method of family planning - indeed we are working to increase access to modern methods of family planning (which would ultimately reduce demand for abortion).

    "Safe abortion reduces recourse to unsafe abortion thus saving maternal lives and preventing serious injuries to women and girls.

    "We do not enter the ring on the rights and wrongs of abortion, but where abortion is permitted, we can support programmes that make safe abortion more accessible.

    "Where access to safe abortion is highly restricted and maternal mortality and morbidity are high, we can help make the consequences of unsafe abortion more widely understood, and can consider supporting processes of legal and policy reform."[49]

9.15 The Minister agrees with the Commission's assessment of the ruling of the Court of Justice in the Brüstle case which was cited by the organisers of the 'One of Us' initiative to support their proposition that the EU should not provide support for the use of human embryos in scientific research.[50] He adds:

    "The Brüstle judgement is explicit that the purpose of the EU legislation considered by the Court (Directive 98/44/EC) is not to regulate the use of human embryos in the context of scientific research. This Directive is limited to the patenting of biotechnological inventions. It is not directed to questions of whether research can be carried out and whether it can be funded.

    "The Brüstle judgement is clear that its legal interpretation is based on the context and aims of the Directive itself. Consequently, it is inappropriate to extrapolate the Brüstle ruling to other EU legislation that goes beyond patent law to areas that concern research, development and public health."[51]

9.16 The Minister does not expect there to be any Council discussion of the Commission Communication.

Previous Committee Reports

None.


44   See Article 11(4) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 24 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Regulation 211/2011 on the citizens' initiative, OJ No. L 65, 11.03.11, pp.1-22. The Regulation stipulates a minimum number of signatories per Member State to ensure that the citizens' initiative is genuinely representative. Back

45   The minimum threshold in the UK is 54,750 signatories - more than double the actual number (26,298) achieved in the UK. See ADD 1 for the figures for other Member States. Back

46   See p.2 of the Communication. Back

47   See http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-608_en.htm Back

48   See p.16 of the Communication. Back

49   See para 12 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back

50   Case C-34/10, Brüstle v Greenpeace. Para 40 of the judgment states that "the purpose of the Directive is not to regulate the use of human embryos in the context of scientific research. It is limited to the patentability of biotechnological inventions". Back

51   See para 13 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2014
Prepared 9 July 2014