Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-01-15-Speech-2-273"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080115.26.2-273"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"If you do not mind, I will start with the second question, because I have a more certain legislative base on which to answer you. The Commission has already included, in the internal market for goods package, legislation containing a provision requiring economic operators to have available the identity of their supplier. This will help to enhance the identification of the good and to have a clear label as to who the producer is, for one thing, and also who the supplier is. The global chain is becoming longer and longer, and there is no longer any item which we can be absolutely certain has been produced only in one country.
I understand your question, but think that we also need to raise awareness and make parents more vigilant, because rogue traders will always exist. We need to raise awareness as regards checking the retailer and only buying from a responsible retailer, and also as regards checking the labels on the product. While nobody can remove that responsibility from our shoulders as consumers, I believe that your point is absolutely valid, and I agree that, not only the manufacturer’s name, but also specific information should be shown on the label, especially in the case of toys.
This question is perhaps linked with the first one on what we can do about falsification – if I have understood your question correctly. If the good is a fake good, that is one thing. We need to tackle fake goods through intellectual property rights, and also through our custom activities. I have to tell you that our customs authorities have raised the frequency of their checks three times higher than the world norm. The advice from the World Custom Unions is to check 3% of goods at borders and ports, and in Europe we check 10%. I also think it would be a good idea to enhance our research and development to make surveillance and checks at the borders even tighter, with better technical devices to conduct screenings and other important innovations that can be introduced at the borders for goods coming onto our markets.
I would like also to point out that even if the good is not counterfeit, and clearly shows the ‘CE’ mark, this will not mean that the good necessarily conforms to all the requirements within the framework of this directive. We also need to keep, additionally, to these New Approach Directives, which set out requirements on how a good is produced, and to ensure constant market surveillance from the point of view of safety, because sometimes safety is even more important, or at least equally important, and does not always coincide with the manner in which the good is produced.
It might be, for example, as in the case of the problem with magnets in toys, to which we are responding, that when we see that the situation has changed we need to respond and take measures on the basis of safety, and not just on the basis of the requirements we have asked the producer to fulfil. If we combine the two sets of requirements – on the producer and on the good once the market – then we will have better-protected consumers."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples