Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-15-Speech-1-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081215.16.1-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to go over some of the problems that have been relevant in this debate.
On the subject of fragrances, here too I do not entirely follow the logic of the argument. I really do wonder what the point would be of banning the use in toys of fragrances that are permitted to be used in cosmetics aimed at children that are applied directly to children’s skin. Allowing the fragrances in those products and banning them in toys, just so that they do not smell so terrible, simply makes no sense. Nevertheless, this directive actually goes further than the Cosmetics Directive, in that it bans fragrances that are simply subject to a labelling requirement in the Cosmetics Directive. Here too, therefore, I do not see what else we could do.
Let me conclude by saying this: amendments have been proposed here, and the European Parliament is of course at liberty to adopt them, but I must point out to you that this document represents an overall compromise with the Council, Parliament and the Commission and that, for example, the amendment proposed by Mrs Gebhardt on third-party certification will prevent that compromise. In other words, if the European Parliament adopts this amendment, the directive will fail, and we will not have it.
You cannot always get everything you want. It is – I will say it again – an overall compromise. It is a balanced compromise, and it creates a level of toy safety that is achievable and necessary. I would urgently call on you to agree to this overall compromise.
Following the entry into force of the revised Toys Safety Directive, the Commission will monitor closely all developments relating to its implementation in order to assess whether its provides for an adequate level of toy safety, notably as concerns the application of the conformity assessment procedures as laid down in Chapter IV.
The revised Toys Safety Directive provides for a reporting obligation of Member States on the situation concerning the safety of toys, the effectiveness of the Directive and market surveillance performed by Member States.
The evaluation by the Commission will
be based on the Member States’ reports to be submitted three years following the date of application of the Directive with a particular focus on market surveillance in the European Union and its external borders.
The Commission will report back to the European Parliament at the latest one year after submission of Member States’ reports.
Firstly, on the subject of chemicals, the rules laid down here cannot be made any stricter than they currently are. It is not possible to ban chemicals completely, because they exist in trace amounts in nature. Mrs Breyer, I cannot prevent you from ignoring the rules of nature, but what you have done is irresponsible scare-mongering: I must make that quite clear. You are giving the impression that European legislators are giving children poisonous toys, when the very opposite is the case. I strongly repudiate the insinuation behind your contribution.
Based on the new essential safety requirement for toys which are designed to emit a sound under the Toys Safety Directive, the Commission will mandate CEN to establish a revised standard which limits the peak values for both impulse noise and prolonged noise emitted by toys in order to adequately protect children from the risk of impairment of hearing.
Taking into account the difficulties related to the relevant tests required in the harmonised toy standards EN 71:1 for books made of cardboard and paper, the Commission will mandate CEN to establish a revised standard which covers adequate testing for children’s books.
What we have done here has never been done before. Normally, the rule, in this Parliament as well as elsewhere, is that a substance is banned if it has been demonstrated to be harmful. In this case, it is the other way round: substances are banned, and are then only authorised if they can be definitively demonstrated to be safe. I would like to know what more we could be expected to do. We cannot do any more than is being done here, and anybody who gives the impression that what we have done here does not provide adequate protection for children is – I am sorry to say – deliberately misleading the European public. I cannot imagine why you would do that.
Your comments concerning noise – that toys must, of course, not cause damage to hearing – are quite correct: that is why the directive contains rules concerning that. The limits, in other words the decibel levels, are laid down as is normal in European legislation: the Toys Directive is nothing special in that regard. Technical regulations are laid down as part of the standardisation process, and the same is true here. The decibel levels will therefore be laid down during the standardisation process, and the directive provides the legal basis for this to happen.
On the subject of books, I was very surprised when this came up as an issue in recent days. The word ‘books’ does not appear a single time in the text before us. Nothing is changing with respect to the current position. It seems that one of the German manufacturers has launched a press campaign on this subject, and has been lobbying hard in the European Parliament. Not a single word of it is true: nothing at all is changing with respect to the current position. The Commission is, however, quite willing to ensure – because it is the right thing to do, as Parliament wishes – that the applicable standards are improved and modernised. The Commission is going to issue instructions in this connection.
Regarding third-party certification – and I am saying this to the TÜV Group in this House – the belief that a toy, or any product, in Europe will be made safer because it has been certified by a third-party body is, unfortunately, a baseless one. The Commission really has now had the results for many years with respect to product safety. There is nothing – absolutely nothing – to suggest that third-party certification makes any products safer. We require such third-party certification in cases where – and this is a principle of European legislation that this House has observed for very many years – the product concerned is an extremely complex one.
My dear Mrs Gebhardt, I will say this again: there is a certain difference in complexity between a high-tech product such as a modern car and a teddy bear. I do think it is a bit far-fetched to try to compare such things.
This directive also, as usual, requires third-party certification in cases where there are no standards. I would strongly urge you not to believe that all you need to do in order to have a safe toy is to entrust the certification to a third-party body. The dangers that arise in practice cannot be combated at all through certification. Just look at the cases that were mentioned here: the problems were not with the prototype product submitted to the third-party body, but in the supply chain – the manufacturers were unreliable. Only the manufacturer of the product is in a position to guarantee the complete reliability and safety of its supply chain. I would strongly urge you to move away from this principle and to give manufacturers full responsibility for the safety of their products. It is not true that manufacturers simply have to say ‘my product is safe’ or ‘my toy is safe’; they must be able, at the request of the market surveillance authorities, to document that fact at any time, in full and with no gaps. It is, and must be, checked, and the same goes for importers.
These are rules that, in my opinion, cannot be made any stricter, because they already guarantee the greatest possible level of effectiveness. I do, however, agree with all those who said that it depends very much on the Member States taking these checks really seriously and extending the opportunities for market surveillance."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Declaration of the European Commission on monitoring of safety aspects (Article 47)"1
"Declaration of the European Commission on the classification of books (Annex I. 17)"1
"Declaration of the European Commission on the requirements concerning toys which are designed to emit a sound (Annex II. I. 10)"1
"Declarations of the European Commission for the adoption of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys (Thyssen report)"1
"Declarations of the European Commission for the adoption of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys (Thyssen report) Declarations of the European Commission for the adoption of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys (Thyssen report)"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples