Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-04-Speech-4-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020704.4.4-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
This topic mainly appears to be a technical matter which does not involve any major political choices. This is not entirely true, because it can have major implications on both consumer protection and on the well-being and health of employees. The European Machinery Directive has two quite divergent objectives. In accordance with Article 95 of the Treaty on European Union concerning the internal market, the Machinery Directive must serve to promote the free movement of goods. Fortunately, paragraph 3 of this Article also refers to a high level of protection in the area of public health, safety and consumer protection, and the question is whether this is actually being achieved. Although insufficient research has been done in this area, the existing directive seems not to have led to a visible decrease in the number of industrial accidents. Neither am I expecting great things from the review of the directive, certainly as long as there continues to be confusion about its scope. The first defect is that self-certification is considered to be the greatest good. This is also referred to as ‘Conformité Européenne’, which operates in conjunction with the CE marking. The latter offers fewer guarantees than do the old, national inspectorates, such as the KEMA in the Netherlands for electrical appliances. The second reason is that items such as vehicles, switches, generators, moving staircases and small lifts are excluded from the directive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples