Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-24-Speech-2-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020924.3.2-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are discussing today is actually a technical measure. The resolution before you, on which we are to vote, refers to what we term comitology, something which the spectators in the galleries will be surprised to learn, many Members of this House have difficulty understanding, and indeed, they certainly do not have to. It is comitology that entitles the Commission to use the specialist committees to approximate legislation within the scope of the power that the legislation itself confers.
The resolution passed unanimously by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy charges the Commission with now desiring to avail itself of a right which it does not possess. What we are talking about is the Commission's intention of deferring the entry into force of the sixth amendment to the Cosmetics Directive, which was actually meant to have happened some time ago. In the sixth amendment to the Cosmetics Directive, Parliament decided on a ban on the marketing of cosmetics that had been tested on animals, sharing as it did the conviction of most of the public that we have enough cosmetics and do not need more – toothpaste, shower gel, and so on – for which animals have had to suffer and die.
This ban had a definite deadline – 1998. In 1997, the Commission gave itself the power to delay its entry into force. Whilst, admittedly, stating that the entry into force was to be in 2000, it added, at the same time, the option of an extension of two years. I do not want right now to state whether that was lawful. As things stood, the marketing ban was meant to enter into force on 30 June 2002, and it did so.
The Commission is now planning to use a comitological measure to again, very soon – in a week or a few days, quite possibly on 24 September – put back the date of entry into force, by six months. This it justifies by the assertion that we are in the midst of the conciliation procedure on the seventh amendment to the Cosmetics Directive, and that the measure could therefore not enter into force in June. Mrs Wallström, I am sorry that you are the member of the Commission to whom I must say these things. We charge you with acting illegally, with breaking the law. You are in breach of the Treaty and of existing legislation!
I would much rather say that to Mr Liikanen, but he is, unfortunately, not here today. I am aware that the Commission acts as a collegiate body; I am equally aware that there are individuals sitting on the Commission who have very different views. That, Mrs Wallström, is why I regret that it is you whom I have to address today. I would very much prefer to have been very hard on Mr Liikanen. I admit that, with you sitting there, I find it more difficult. Nonetheless, what you are doing is illegal! It is against the law, and we will therefore be taking you to the Court of Justice if necessary. I am sure that the majority in this House will support that.
What you are now proposing to do is not merely contrary to the law, but is positively absurd. I could use old-fashioned language and call it daft! You want to pass a measure with retroactive effect. You want to pass something that enters into force retroactively, namely from 30 June. Why, actually, do you want to do this? We are already at the end of September. The conciliation procedure will be completed in two months at the latest – it has to be. Even now, you have not implemented the marketing ban. In theory, you are already acting illegally, but we are saying: OK, that's something of a legal vacuum, we'll put up with it. The Member States are not proceeding with transposition, and we know that they are doing the right thing by waiting for the seventh amendment.
What the Commission now has in mind is the creation of a precedent, and we are not going to let them get one past us. They want, again, to give themselves the right to defer the sixth amendment, and if we now lie down quietly like little lambs, then they will believe that they have the right to carry on doing the same thing. We will not let you have your precedent! We are not good little lambs! I'm not one, and nor are my fellow MEPs! That is why we are telling you now that your actions are illegal. This resolution makes that very clear. We call upon you not to implement this measure. The four articles are very clear in calling on you to desist. We are telling you to keep your hands off this measure. We are telling the Member States not to touch it, not to pass it into law. And we are telling you that if you do it anyway, we will drag you off to the Court of Justice!
Mrs Wallström, I really do beg you to take this message back to the Commission. I can see the gentleman from the Industry Directorate-General sitting beside you. Tell them that we are serious about this. We believe that you are in breach of the law! As the Commission, you may not break the law. You know that it did not do past Commissions any good, and you too should act as properly and honestly as possible. You are not doing that if you want to pass another Implementing Measure. So, as rapporteur for the Cosmetics Directive, I can only tell you, as firmly as I can: hands off!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples