Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her work and the work of the Committee. It is a major improvement on what the Commission has actually proposed. The proposal from the Commission is not only fundamentally flawed but it is also extremely disappointing. The fact that they are abandoning the sales ban is an absolute disgrace, apart from the fact that it was supposed to come into effect in 1998. The Commission did not actually deliver on what was promised in relation to the testing ban, as has already been pointed out by Mr Davies. It is a complete cop-out because the testing ban is just going to ensure that EU multinationals will carry out animal testing outside the EU but the products will still be for sale here. What we need is both a marketing sales ban and a testing ban and we must do that now. The argument about fear of a World Trade Organisation challenge is completely unfounded. There is no reason why animal protection cannot be a legitimate reason for adopting trade restrictive measures. Even the WTO itself recently confirmed to us that the US clearly agree because this is the basis which they use to ban the import and sale of dog and cat fur. The WTO argument is just an excuse not to deliver on what was originally promised. In the report there are a number of very important improvements in relation to consumers and consumer information. Ingredients in cosmetic products are now to be listed in full, including the ingredients of perfumes information which so far has not been available. It is great that the public will actually have access to this information because lame excuses were used in the past for refusing it. Cosmetics containing any of 26 fragrances above a certain threshold are to be labelled with a warning which says ‘could cause an allergic reaction’. We would have liked to see a complete ban on these fragrances, but unfortunately we did not get support within the Committee for that. That should have been the line to take: if they are dangerous then they should be banned, rather than saying ‘they may cause problems’. As regards the use of fragrances in baby products or products for intimate hygiene, we would have liked to have seen a complete outlawing of fragrances in baby products. This is completely unnecessary, it is also exposing babies and children who are extremely vulnerable to unnecessary risks. Hazardous substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic should not be used in cosmetics at all under the current proposal unless they are evaluated by a scientific committee and found acceptable. This will actually encourage more animal testing. Normally I do not take much notice of the lobbying information I get in this Parliament, in particular from industry, but I was amazed at ‘Cosmetics – your choice, our responsibility’ from the European Cosmetics, Toiletry and Perfume Association. As Mr Davies just pointed out, it is trying to flatter our vanity suggesting we really need to continue testing on animals so that we remain clean, so that we can actually correct body odours; in other words, that we can improve on nature and change our appearance. This is all ludicrous and it is completely unacceptable that animals are tortured for this sort of excuse. If you look through the information from the industry there is not one photograph of what animal testing really involves and the consumers should know about that as well.

Political group: Verts-ALE