Mr President, Mr Martin has just told me that I have the luxury of being able to be somewhat flexible, rather than, as is otherwise the case, having only one and a half, two, or three minutes at my disposal. I promise my colleagues, though, especially Mr Casaca, who is to explain the next report, that I will not exploit that advantage. Mr President, I am glad that it is you who are currently in the chair, as you are also chairing the conciliation procedure on cosmetics and are as helpful a guide as one could wish to have in the conciliation procedure. I therefore take great pleasure in seeing you here today. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for this debate. Our discussion today has not only been a very lively one, as our discussions frequently are, but has also been able to evoke some enthusiasm from the visitors in the gallery, as shown by their applause, which is admittedly unusual, but also gratifying. I just want to return to one point and not so much correct Mrs Flemming as just add to what she said, so that our male visitors can be aware that it is of relevance to them, too: the Cosmetics Directive that we are discussing today is not just about anti-wrinkle creams – which I, at the age of 49 and working in Parliament, urgently need – but it is also particularly relevant to deodorants, shampoos, aftershave, toothpaste, soap – which all of us here today use on a daily basis. The subject we are dealing with today, namely the issue of whether animals should be made to suffer for the sake of these products, is of concern to all of us irrespective of gender. It is obvious that lipsticks and anti-wrinkle creams are always particularly useful for making points and adding emphasis. I thank you for your support. The past years have seen us working very closely together, which has involved the blurring of group boundaries. We had elections in my country on Sunday, and election campaigns tend to polarise in order to emphasise differences. Perhaps I should do that better in this House, but I am unable to. I can only thank my fellow Members from other groups for their help and support, notably Mrs García-Orcoyen, who, along with Mrs Flemming, is doing most of the PPE group's work on this issue; I could not, in fact, ask for greater support from an opposing group. In this area, we are guided by the facts. But what I must also say, addressing the other Members here, is that we have always reached compromises. We have sought compromise among ourselves, a point I make for the benefit of, among others, Mr Bernié, who is perhaps not yet fully convinced, but has not yet been in Parliament that long, and is not so long-acquainted with the subject. Of course we are considering the industry's interests. Of course we said, as long ago as 1993, that the industry still had almost ten years. Even now, with the seventh amendment, a legal amendment, under discussion in the conciliation procedure at this moment, we are reiterating that the industry, once this legislation is adopted, will have five years to go before there is an absolute ban on animal experiments and a ban on the marketing of cosmetics tested on animals – and then another five years for certain special tests, the development of alternatives to which we can assume will take even longer. How more accommodating can one be? Of course, there have to be incentives for the industry and a certain amount of pressure still has to be exerted to get money invested in finding alternatives, as otherwise the money will be paid out only to the directors when we believe it could also be invested in science. I will now again address the Commission, Mrs Wallström and the ladies and gentlemen from the Industry Directorate-General, who are at the moment engaged in conversation but doubtless have an idea of what I want to say to them. Mrs Wallström said earlier, in a response that certainly cannot have been easy for her, that the Commission is trying to get the best result. If you are really trying to get the best result, then there are two things you have to do. For a start, you should tell Mr Liikanen that he should get round to at last coming up with a proposal that might help bring about a compromise in the conciliation procedure, and that he should not block Parliament's decisions. You will be aware that, a few months ago, Parliament, by a massive majority of nearly 500 votes, decided in favour of these marketing bans, or to put it another way, sales prohibitions for cosmetics. To date, the Commission and Mr Liikanen's Directorate-General have been blocking them, and so I ask you, Mrs Wallström, to inform Mr Liikanen, and also the new Director-General, Mr Mingasson, that France is not the only country to have a cosmetics industry, but that there are other interests to consider and that Europe has a Parliament, and he would be well-advised to accede to that Parliament's wishes. That is what I would like, but I have not seen it happen yet. If the Commission wants to take seriously its role as mediator in the conciliation procedure, then let it make a proposal that meets Parliament halfway. I furthermore call on you to inform the Member States – I'm sorry, but can I point out to the gentleman from Directorate-General III that it really would be helpful if you were to let Mrs Wallström listen for a bit? Yes, I am happy to wait a moment. I am capable of quite a few things, but not even I can listen to two people at once! So I call on you to inform the Member States that the marketing ban – and please note that it is an absolute one – has been in force since 30 June 2002, and that the Member States would be well advised to be rather more amenable, rather more flexible and a bit less obstinate in the conciliation procedure. If the Commission wants to be helpful, Mrs Wallström, then you can tell the Member States that they have two options: one is to be helpful to the conciliation procedure, and then your cosmetics industry will get another five years added on to the five it has already got. Alternatively, you can be unhelpful and keep on blocking as you are doing at the moment, and then you will have a marketing ban dating back to 30 June. The Commission's task is to convey that information to you. My request to you is really very firm, and is meant in earnest, although without it being intended to have any threatening undertone, but it would poison cooperation with Parliament and do it serious damage, if you were to have recourse to this comitological measure. It is unnecessary, and we would interpret it as an affront and as a breach of the law. Three months after it took effect, you would again resort to a comitological measure for another two months; any person with a normal mind would find that ridiculous. Even the Commission knows that it is ridiculous, and is trying to dupe Parliament, to create a precedent, and that is how we too see things. That is what you have heard today. I would be obliged to you if, having heard all the Members of this House, you would tell that to Mr Liikanen as well. We consider it an affront to Parliament, and a breach of the law which we would punish by taking it to the Court of Justice, and I ask you to help the conciliation procedure, support Parliament, and help me and the Members of this House, whom I again thank for their support, in the conciliation procedure rather than using comitological measures to make our cooperation more difficult. Thank you.

Political group: PSE