Mr President, I would firstly like to inform you that the correct version of Amendment No 33, signed by myself and Mrs Müller, is the English version. It appears that there has been an error in the translations. I am not going to get involved in the arguments for and against animal experimentation, which at this stage we all know and which, undoubtedly, together with the ban on sales and marketing, are the focus of this seventh amendment of the directive. I will say that, as shadow rapporteur, I have been able to note a clear majority opinion, in all the groups of this Parliament, in favour of banning both sales and marketing and experimentation. However, I feel I should mention the concern of some Members of this Parliament, most of whom are reputed scientists, who view with alarm the total ban on experimentation within the terms and time periods put forward in Mrs Roth-Behrendt’s amendments, since, according to her criteria, compliance with them could compromise the security of the product or impede progress in the field of scientific research into cosmetics. I believe that this is an opinion which should at least be taken into account and which we should try to incorporate into the text, since we must not forget that the aim of the legislator must be to establish a balance between two values: the safety of consumers and the protection of animals. In the quest for this balance we will have to take into account not only economic, socio-cultural and animal protection factors, but also scientific and legal factors. I completely agree with the rapporteur on the need to put an end to experiments on animals. However, as I have said, the scientific community does not currently seem to totally agree with the idea that a more or less immediate ban would aid consumer safety. Nevertheless, I believe that it is extremely important to find legal incentives, and above all practical ones, which will speed up research procedures, so that, in the very near future, we can say that animal experimentation is confined to history. I therefore fully support the idea of banning experimentation on animals and I agree with the rapporteur that a date should be set in order to speed up this process. However, I believe that the time limits indicated by the rapporteur should be more flexible, bearing in mind that in the last debate in Parliament, if I am not mistaken, the Commission said that the necessary alternative methods could be developed in approximately ten years time. In any event, it must be said that, in the view of my group, the amendment proposed by the Commission does not solve the problems already raised in the sixth amendment, mainly those relating to the World Trade Organisation. It merely eliminates the provision on the ban on sales and marketing and extends the time limit for banning experiments. We in the Group of the European People’s Party view the Commission’s proposal with concern, since it appears to be inconsistent with its own previous position, it does not resolve the problems of the World Trade Organisation, which have been going on for years, and it restricts itself to extending time limits for banning experimentation. Our group therefore wishes to support Amendment No 21 which proposes that Parliament reject the Commission’s proposal in its entirety. The Commission should probably redo its homework and then present a more coherent text that, above all, offers solutions to the problems at hand. Another issue which I want to deal with is the list of substances which may produce allergies: Mrs Roth-Behrendt includes a long list, and our group limits them to thirteen, which are already described as dangerous, because we do not believe it is a good idea to produce a very long list of substances, most of which are of minimal danger, which would result in confusion amongst consumers, and which would not distinguish between what is dangerous to them and what is not.

Political group: PPE-DE