Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-10-Speech-1-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071210.19.1-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me start by responding to Ms Thyssen on what we are doing to enhance our positive influence on the Chinese market. If we are to achieve success, Europe should develop its role as a standard-bearer, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. RAPEX-China gives the Chinese authorities access to details of risks found in Chinese products sold in Europe, and this is a very valuable source of information for them.
With reference to Ms Iotova, I would like to answer in Bulgarian because it was in that language that she put her question.
My answer was very specific according to the standards of the Commission. What we have done over the last year is intended to improve legislation. Yes, part of this legislation relates to industrial goods and it is within the portfolio of another Commissioner but we work together on a number of issues. Some of the questions asked relate also to the REACH Directive that is not in my portfolio either but, again, we are doing what is necessary to ensure the safety on the basis of the existing legislation.
Many meetings have been held with all stakeholders in the process – manufacturers, competent national authorities, retailers, and numerous non-governmental organisations.
Besides, I would like to tell you that we make no judgments and do not divide countries into old and new Member States. The safety of goods is equally important for new and old members alike. I would like to reassure you that there are some old Member States, prior to the accession of the twelve new countries, which have their serious problems and I have no intention to abandon them. Of course, the responsibility of the Commission with regard to the implementation of the legislation, especially in the new Member States, is something which, undoubtedly, stands very close to my heart. Therefore what I am doing in the new Member States is talk more to the authorities, insist more on a national budget for the development of market surveillance authorities.
I can tell you, Mme Iotova, that the Bulgarian market has 180 inspectors. Yeasterday, actually it was earlier this morning, I had further talks with all participants in the safety chain and we concluded “the Christmas Pact”, involving manufacturers at the European level, as well as traders and government authorities in Bulgaria. After the insistent talks I had with the Ministry of the Economy in Bulgaria, inspections increased four times. Therefore I shall continue to work along these lines and, as I had the pleasure of doing it last time, I would like to renew my invitation from this plenary hall to do it together. I am confident that we shall be more successful in this way.
I would like to end where I started, which is to say that all our actions should be proportional and based on solidarity and subsidiarity, which will give us additional strength to tackle this very important problem.
I have listened carefully to all of you, to your kind words and to your calls to step up our work. If at any point there are specific cases which you would like to discuss with me, I would be more than happy to continue doing this.
China is currently setting up its own national rapid-warning system, copying the European one. This really represents a great success for product safety at world level. It ensures that information is spread swiftly to local offices for action, and this should start by the end of the year. If this continues to develop as envisaged, Europe will be able to congratulate itself, by the end of the year, on a major success, as it has established the pattern for the Chinese authorities.
I would like also to highlight that next year will be a very intensive one for me in respect of elaborating a new memorandum of understanding with China, owing to the fact that the current memorandum, which has been in effect since 2006, will expire at the beginning of 2009. This will be a matter for very concrete work by the Commission.
Many of you have referred to the Toys Directive. I cannot comment on something which comes under the responsibility of Vice-President Verheugen, as the Toys Directive is part of his portfolio, although we enjoy excellent cooperation. However, you should be aware that a revision of the Toys Directive is in the pipeline and will be presented very soon. Before my meeting with you, I checked with the services of Commissioner Verheugen, and with him in person, and know that this directive will soon be discussed by the Commission. I am sure that his services are working flat out.
There is no mixing of our two approaches – the industry approach, which includes the Toys Directive and the approach on which I base my activities, which includes a general product safety directive. I can assure you that the distinction within the Commission is really very clear.
That is exactly what we are trying to do through the new approach – to keep these two sets of checks parallel to each other. One set concerns requirements on toys as industrial goods, and the other one, over and above those efforts, concerns checks at any given point on how safe the toys are for our children. One good example is the magnets used in toys. These now come under the General Product Safety Directive, and we are able to carry out checks, ban dangerous products and ask for a new standard, with the toys in the mean time being covered by a warning, and then we will come up with a proposal. There will most probably be standardisation, and a ban on certain uses for magnets. This approach is based precisely on filling the gap on safety, through a true General Product Safety Directive. This is an excellent example of why we need to keep the two approaches together.
I started to respond to Ms Rühle concerning magnets. The College will consider my proposal to adopt a targeted measure to require specific warnings on magnetic toys, and this would fill the gap until the relevant standards properly address this risk. As you know, this process is a little long, but that is not up to the Commission. This is legislation which we are simply executing concerning the way we implement on our standards.
I would like to dwell for a second on the opinion expressed by Mr Matsakis. My line is quite simple, because I believe that Mr Harbour answered in a very consistent manner. I do not think that dangerous toys have a passport, and we should address the danger from wherever the danger comes. Let me just remind you that although 50% of the dangerous toys in Europe come from China, I am surprised that we have not discussed at all where the other 50% comes from. I have to tell you that 30% of dangerous toys come precisely from Europe. That is why I really insist on safety, regardless of passports. We must consider again how important confidence is to our markets. I am not going to outsource that responsibility.
Article 1 of the General Product Safety Directive states that all producers should only produce safe goods, and that whoever places a good on the market for the first time – be it the importer, the retailer or the producer – should check the safety of toys, for which he is liable."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples