Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-25-Speech-2-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070925.5.2-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Toys are not like any other product. They are designed for the most vulnerable consumer group of all and it is therefore perfectly clear that we must have the highest standards for toys where children’s safety is concerned. A whole range of very grave issues have rightly been raised here in connection with the latest recall campaigns of an American manufacturer, which has recalled faulty products from the market at its own initiative.
In a whole range of cases, the manufacturer is not allowed to use the CE symbol on the basis of a self-declaration and his own proof, but must be certified by a third body, namely whenever there may be a risk to users due to the product not working properly. Certification by a third body is now mandatory in all such cases. The way these bodies, which we call Conformity Assessment Bodies, operate can be significantly improved. We have put forward the appropriate proposals and they are available to you as the European legislator.
In relation to toys, a decision now has to be made about a very difficult issue for the Commission and for you as legislator: do we want to move to having each individual toy coming onto the market certified by a third body or do we want to leave it that the manufacturers provide the guarantee by using the CE marking and therefore also assume liability – to which I must also add that the manufacturers have to be able to prove at any time and with full documentation, according to the rules in force today, that they have been using the CE marking lawfully? Or do we perhaps want to take a third way by defining certain types of toy in the new Toy Safety Directive, where we stipulate certification by a third body?
I do not want to hide the fact that I have great sympathy for this latter solution. I would like to give you an example: what do we do with all the toys containing chips? When children put them in their mouths, chips are a dangerous item. There must therefore be a guarantee that these toy parts can under no circumstances pose a threat to children. If we do not want to take Game Boys away from children – I do not believe that anyone intends to do this – the only possibility would then be to make certification by a third body mandatory at this point. The Commission’s ideas are along these lines and I also expect to get some impression from this debate of Parliament’s thinking on this issue.
The final point I would like to mention is a request to manufacturers and consumer organisations. Manufacturers need to be aware of the fact that the pressure of costs, as great as it still is, does not absolve them of the responsibility for a full inspection of every individual part of their production process and their supply chain. The more international production and supply chains become, the greater the responsibility of companies active on the market.
Furthermore, consumer organisations would accomplish a great feat if they were to create an awareness that cheap is not always the same as good. This is not just a question of safety, but also one of quality, because how often have you seen – even with toys the child opens under the Christmas tree – how a child plays with it just once before it is broken. It might have been cheap, but it was not good! Cheap does not always mean good, nor does cheap always mean safe. This means the consumer needs to be aware that the price of a product has a direct bearing on the quality and safety of a product. In relation to the low-price ideology, which is spreading in at least some Member States, this is a subject that gives me increasing cause for concern.
I can say in conclusion that European law today is in any case better than what we see in other parts of the world, that it can be improved and is being improved and that wherever toys are involved, the strictest standards of all are being applied and must be applied.
First of all I would like to say that both cases concerned here involve products not licensed under European law for the European market. Toys with lead paint have, of course, been banned in Europe for a long time, unlike in the United States of America. Toys with magnetic parts or other dangerous parts which could become loose have also been banned, of course, for a long time in Europe. What we have here, therefore, is not a problem of applicable law (although I will be coming to applicable law, an area in which something has to be changed, later), but it is a problem of the implementation and observance of the applicable law.
Products we deal with every day cannot be one hundred per cent safe. The best legislator in the world cannot guarantee that no defects will occur in production. The best legislator in the world cannot guarantee that supply chains now organised on a global basis will not encounter a problem at any point. Nor can the best legislator in the world prevent trade with criminal or fraudulent intent.
I would remind you of the case in which three people died in Greece after using a faulty steam iron. This iron not only had the European CE marking, but also a specific German safety symbol. Nevertheless the appliance was not safe, probably because it was counterfeit. No legislator in the world can do anything to stop this. That is the responsibility of the manufacturer and it is the responsibility of those who have to ensure that manufacturers comply with the existing rules. These are the market surveillance authorities of the Member States. There is no European market surveillance system. This comes under the sole responsibility of the Member States.
I would like to point out to you that we are in fact having to deal with a problem here that is very closely connected with economic globalisation. Today this means we have to deal with worldwide supply chains. We have to deal with companies operating under pressure of costs, meaning that they are constantly putting their suppliers under pressure of costs, thereby contributing to prices constantly being reduced. There is a very great risk that this will come at the expense of safety at some point.
This is the reason why we are constantly saying that the more international and more extensive the supply chain becomes, the greater the responsibility of companies to ensure that the existing regulations are observed at each individual stage of the supply chain. This was not the case, for example, in the case of lead paint on toys produced by the American manufacturer. A Chinese supplier supplied a paint here which it should not have supplied. These is the truth of the case.
Corporate responsibility is foremost. Companies are responsible for their product complying with the current European rules. Then comes the responsibility of the Member States. They have to ensure that market surveillance works. And then it is up to us as European legislators. We have to ensure that our legislation is kept up-to-date and possible risks are identified in good time and incorporated into the legislation.
This is why the Commission began a thorough review of the existing Toy Safety Directive more than two years ago. The Toy Safety Directive is one of the oldest directives resulting from the ‘new approach’. It is clear that the toy market has changed dramatically in the last 20 years and this new directive will therefore pick up on a whole range of recently recognised risks and hazards and will ensure, with very strict rules – on the use of chemical substances in toys, for instance – that dangers are avoided. The directive will be brought before the legislator by the end of this year.
At the beginning of this year, we had already put before you an entire package of measures for strengthening market surveillance for improving protection of the CE marking. Let me say something about the CE marking at this point. The CE marking means that the manufacturer (whether a European manufacturer or a manufacturer outside Europe wanting to sell in Europe) provides an absolute guarantee that its product is fully compliant with the rules in force in Europe. The manufacturer guarantees this with the CE marking. That is what the CE marking means."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples