Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-12-14-Speech-1-205"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091214.19.1-205"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, honourable Members, we always discuss toys just before Christmas, and quite rightly so, as this is the time when people are most interested in toys. I am grateful that we are doing so once again this year, as the safety of toys is a matter that is of interest to Parliament, the Council and the Commission and for which we all set the highest requirements.
There have been indications twice this year that new findings may be available. The first was via a letter sent to me by Germany’s Federal Minister for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection in the spring of this year. The letter concerned cadmium. I immediately arranged for this issue to be submitted to the scientific committee, not only with regard to cadmium, but with regard to other heavy metals, too. We are expecting the results of their examination during the first half of 2010 – by the end of June at the latest. If their examination does indeed reveal new findings, we will immediately bring forward a proposal to tighten up the directive, which has not yet entered into force, so that it enters into force in 2011 with the more stringent limit values in place.
The second case is rather complicated and difficult to explain. It relates to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, known as PAHs, which surround us all in our daily lives – we are not even aware of what we are coming into contact with. In this case, too, we received information that the limit values for these polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons may possibly be set too high. The scientific committee is looking into this. The results will also arrive in good time to allow us to make corrections.
At this point, let me point out that we are dealing with a problem here that, as politicians, we are not really able to solve. These are technical issues that are extremely complex. I will quite openly admit to you that I do not always understand the extremely complicated scientific analyses that are presented to me. I do not imagine that there are many Members of this Parliament, even if everyone were here this evening, who could claim to understand them. We cannot understand them because we have not received the relevant education. To a certain degree, therefore, we have to trust our experts. This is where the problem lies.
We all know, of course, that the history of science is full of examples of cases where the generally accepted teaching has turned out to be wrong. It is also full of examples of so-called minority opinions ultimately proving to be correct. As politicians, how can we decide when scientists disagree with each other? We cannot, and this is a risk that comes with our jobs as politicians and it is one that we cannot avoid.
The rule that we have in this regard in the European institutions is that we follow the recommendations of the competent scientific committees, and that is what we have done in this case, too. However, I would like to say quite openly that I take this issue so seriously that any indication, however small, that there may be new findings available – and even if we only find out about them in a newspaper report – is taken so seriously by the Commission that the issue is put to the scientists.
The last point is quite an annoying one. In this regard, I have to say that I really would have expected an institute belonging to the government of a Member State to observe the minimum requirements of good scientific conduct. The claim by the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, which has been widely taken up by the German media, that, when it comes to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, we have a limit value for tyres that is a hundred times more stringent than the limit value for children’s toys is simply scandal mongering. It is pure scandal mongering and the scientists there know that.
The truth is that the rules applying to the manufacture of tyres, in particular, to the oils used in this process, originate from the time before REACH and before the Directive on the safety of toys and that, in this case, one of these substances is taken as a reference value. However, this substance represents a group of around a hundred others. Thus, you need to multiply the reference value by one hundred. You then come to exactly the threshold value that also applies to other products within the European Union.
In other words, since the threshold value applying to the use of certain oils in the manufacture of tyres is based on the smallest content of these substances that is still measurable in the product, it is exactly the same for toys, too. The content is defined in terms of the smallest measurable content. I can only urge the Federal Institute to withdraw this misleading and indefensible claim. It really is intolerable that we have to deal with such things.
In summary, as regards the Toys Directive, we have produced a document which, to the best of our knowledge and belief, corresponds to what was possible at the time it was adopted. We have also framed it in such a way that new findings can be incorporated at any time so that our safety requirements for toys will always reflect the state of the art in science and research.
The debate this evening has been triggered by media reports in one particular Member State – Germany. They originate from the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and from the Technical Supervisory Association (
). Neither institution has approached the Commission directly. The German Government has not, as yet, come to the Commission with regard to this matter either. Thus, we do not know any more than what was stated by these two institutions in their press releases and what could be read in the German media. Nevertheless, it is a subject that needs to be taken so seriously that, even if all we have to go on is reports in the press, we still need to address the matter.
The analysis in the reports we have before us indicates that we need to deal with four different issues. The first is a question that is very easy to answer. According to the statement by the German Technical Supervisory Association, a considerable proportion of the toys on the German market that were tested did not comply with the European Union’s current legal provisions. In this case, ladies and gentlemen, the rules are perfectly clear. If a Member State makes such a discovery, it is obliged to inform all the other Member States and the European Commission of this immediately and put the necessary measures in place. They can go as far as taking these products off the market immediately, and indeed this means throughout Europe, and also imposing an import ban if these products are manufactured outside the European Union. I hope that the German authorities will very quickly notify the other Member States and the Commission accordingly via RAPEX. Should import bans be necessary, then I assure you here and now that the Commission will approve such bans directly and without delay. However, as I said, as yet, no such information has been submitted to us by the German authorities.
Market surveillance – and I have to say this very clearly at this point – is the sole responsibility of the Member States. Neither the European Commission, Parliament nor the Council have any market surveillance instruments at their disposal. These are the sole preserve of the Member States. However, they are obliged under law, including under the current Toys Directive, to carry out this market surveillance. When I read news from Germany that it is doubtful that the country’s market surveillance is in a position to meet the requirements of the new Toys Directive, then there is only one thing I can say, and that is that the German Government is under obligation to ensure that the German market surveillance authorities can meet these requirements. Thus, I think the answer to this question is fairly clear.
The second question is simple, too. It is an old topic on which Parliament has had intensive debates in connection with the adoption of the Toys Directive and where the crucial vote in this Parliament resulted in a clear and unambiguous majority decision in a roll-call vote. It related to the question of mandatory certification of toys by a third body. This proposal was put forward by Germany. The German Technical Supervisory Association was behind the proposal, which was quite rightly rejected because certification by a third body would not provide any additional safety at all in the case of toys, which are normally not technically complicated, as it would be the prototype that would be certified in this case.
When it comes to toys, however, the problem is not the prototype, but, as we know from experience, the problem is whether the high requirements that we set are actually complied with during the entire manufacturing process by all suppliers and all of those involved in the supply chain. As in all other areas, when it comes to toys, we abide by the principle that the manufacturer must take full responsibility for a product being in compliance with the law in force. Regardless of where in the world they are, we must not release manufacturers from this responsibility.
If there is a problem with reliability in a particular country, we need to talk to this country about improving its production conditions, and that is exactly what the European Commission is doing. I am talking about China. We are in close and intensive contact with China with regard to the question of how we can actually ensure that the production conditions in this country, which is by far the largest toy manufacturer in the world, meet our requirements. Progress has indeed been made here, but there is certainly still more that needs to be done.
The third complex of issues relates to chemical substances and heavy metals in toys. This is an extremely difficult and thorny issue. The political guideline that I gave to my colleagues when work was being carried out on the Toys Directive was to lay down the most stringent rules possible – the most stringent possible! This view was also shared by the Council and by Parliament. As a result, the limit values that we included in the new Toys Directive, which will be introduced in stages from 2011 onwards, represented the state of the art in terms of scientific knowledge at the time the directive was adopted.
However, we were aware that this is an evolving process – science is, of course, always progressing and there are always new research results and new findings – and, together, we deliberately framed the directive in such a way that new scientific findings that there are risks that we had not previously observed and that limit values have been set too high can very quickly be incorporated into the directive in a comitology procedure involving Parliament. According to the current legal situation, adopted by the European Parliament, the involvement of the competent scientific committee is needed for the assessment of the risks posed by products."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Technischer Überwachungsverein"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples