Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.4.2-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I hope we will manage today to conclude a legislative process that was first discussed in Parliament a number of years ago. This legislation is, of course, concerned with the protection of health, and we all naturally want cosmetic products – soaps, shampoos, perfumes – to be healthy, which means not presenting any hazard to the people who use them.
All the bodies which have played their part so far – Parliament, industry, consumers' organisations, and also the organisations representing people with allergies – are convinced that Parliament, today at noon, will have a unique chance to at last enact a law that will, in a couple of years, activate legislation that people want and need. I hope that, at noon today, we will be courageous enough to show this to the Council and the Commission by an overwhelming majority. My dear colleagues in other groups, you will have my support in doing so. I hope that I will also have yours. We will confirm this today and, if necessary, in a conciliation procedure.
All Members of this House have a natural interest in making the European cosmetics industry competitive and keeping it that way. We have, of course, always borne in mind that jobs are tied in with the manufacture of cosmetics and that these jobs deserve to be safeguarded.
Presenting as rapporteur the committee's second reading to Parliament today, I can tell you that the committee adopted it by 44 votes in favour, with two abstentions, that is to say, with a very, very large majority right across all the political groups. That is the way we want it.
What do we want to achieve here today? We want this second reading to alter the Council's Common Position, which is poor, feeble, and far from forward-looking. The Ministers of the Member States, assembled in Council, have missed their chance to set a course and also to hear what their peoples want.
What, then, do the people of Europe want? If you were to conduct a survey, it is likely that you would, in many countries, hear very diverse opinions. Most, though, would agree that there is a sufficient choice of soaps, deodorants, perfumes, and lipsticks. We do not need hundreds and thousands of them if animals have to undergo lengthy torture to produce them. So let there be a stop to animal experiments in the field of cosmetics. You would certainly find an overwhelming majority of the public in favour of that, and in Parliament as well.
Right, we said in the committee second reading, let there be no more animal experiments in the field of cosmetics. We also go even further and say that, from a certain point, sales of cosmetics tested on animals must cease. We are convinced that this is the only way that we will step up pressure in favour of alternative methods of testing and on the search for tests in which animals are not tortured, in which animals do not have to suffer.
What do we want in addition to that? We want perfumed ingredients that bring out allergic reactions in people and are recognised by experts as allergenic, to be indicated on labels. Not in the least do we want to ban them. We want them to be labelled so that people with allergies can make their choice. We also want consumers to be better able to ascertain how long cosmetics will last, so that they know, when they open a cosmetic or a sun cream, whether they will be able to use the product next year or whether it will have become harmful to health or have lost its effectiveness. All groups in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy were very much of one mind on these various proposals.
I hope that, when we vote at noon today, we too will be united in an overwhelming majority that will show the Council how very poor we consider its Common Position to be. I would have liked the Commission and Commissioner Liikanen to have been a bit more courageous and not waited for an absolute majority at second reading in Parliament to force them to change their mind. I would have liked the Commission to have demonstrated a bit more flexibility and courage on some points, as, in my experience, Mr Liikanen otherwise usually does. I hope that we here are at least in agreement that this partnership works.
I would now also like to say something about this partnership. There is indeed a great deal of disagreement in this House, and some of us still maintain that disagreements are a good thing, in that they make clear to the public the differences between us and the reasons why they should vote for one party or for another. I must admit that I am, at the moment, more concerned about the matter in hand. I am very grateful to members of the other groups for their cooperation, which has been extremely fair and thoroughly accommodating. Looking up at the representatives of the cosmetics industry, who are sitting up in the gallery and waiting with understandable interest to see what is to be decided today, I can only say that I value the largely fair cooperation afforded by the cosmetics industry, who have an important stake in these matters, and I know that constructive cooperation also builds trust."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples