Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-15-Speech-3-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030115.4.3-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, you are right to say that today sees the third reading of the report on cosmetics, a topic to which – as will be known to most of us – Parliament has now been repeatedly returning over the space of ten years. By far and away most of the proposals, both in this parliamentary session and in the last one, concern themselves with a ban on experiments on animals and on the sale of products tested on animals.
These areas have been the subject of the most controversy, and, indeed, still are. Both within the European Union and outside it, the most controversial issue was about whether experiments on animals would continue to be permitted in the future in connection with toothpaste and shampoos. Controversy continued to rage around the issue of whether a product that had been tested on animals could still be sold. It was said over and over again in this House that the only way to prevent tests being exported was to couple a ban on testing with a ban on the marketing – and hence the sale – of the products.
Both in the first and second readings of this seventh amendment to the cosmetics directive, that was the crucial issue, but, both in the competent committee and here in this House, we made the point that cosmetics and cosmetic products are of immediate relevance to the protection of consumers. We pointed out that, for example, the information on a product's useful life was of importance to consumers, who were to be told for how long they could use a cosmetic product once it had been opened. That was one of the points on which this House made proposals at first and second reading. This House's final demand – one that I was happy to endorse as rapporteur – was that hazardous products, those known to be carcinogenic, to affect the reproductive system or to be mutagenic, should not be permitted to be used in cosmetics.
These proposals were what, in essence, our second reading was about. All of them gave rise to controversy. Although they passed through second reading by a very large majority, the Commission did not exactly welcome us with open arms. Today, though, at third reading, we can permit ourselves some self-congratulation, because the conciliation procedure was, I have to say, difficult. Over the years, I have had direct or indirect experience of many conciliation procedures. In this one, I started out uncertain as to whether we would achieve a compromise. We did. The outcome is that a ban on testing cosmetics on animals will be in place – six years after the legislation is adopted. There will be a sales ban on most of the products still containing ingredients tested on animals – six years after the legislation is adopted. We have also said that there will be a derogation for three tests, the development of alternatives to which is not yet in sight.
The cosmetics industry is not entirely blameless in this. That so little has been done to develop these tests is partly due to the cosmetics industry having been, in the past, what we might call dozy. But we are now giving them an incentive, and a certain amount of time, to come up with alternatives.
Let me make it clear that what we have achieved is a compromise, a compromise which, like all others, is not ideal. I am aware that the cosmetics industry finds it less than ideal, and also that the animal welfare organisations are convinced that more could have been achieved. I have had to keep on telling our friends in the animal welfare organisations that if they can find someone who can achieve more, they should get them down here and let them get on with it.
My fellow-Members and I have tried to get a workable solution accepted, and so let me conclude by saying that I am grateful to the outgoing Danish Presidency, whose cooperation with us has been excellent, and also to the Commission, which had become cooperative by the end. Mr Liikanen, I wish it had done so a bit sooner, but at least it was never too late. I will also express my thanks to our colleagues in the Conciliation Committee, and to all those with whom we dealt during the conciliation procedure.
This all adds up to one of the reasons why I love this Parliament so much, and why I would not wish to be a member of any other. The cooperation between Members of every nation and political group was open, decorous, frank and supportive to such an extent that I am convinced that you will not find the like of it in any legislature in the world. It was a joy to work through the night with you until twenty past four in the morning. It was a joy to achieve this outcome and to have been allowed to be your rapporteur. So I again want to thank most especially the colleagues who have always, and repeatedly, assured me of their support, even when conditions were rather less favourable on every side."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples