Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-16-Speech-3-162"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020116.11.3-162"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my heartfelt thanks and respect are owed to the rapporteur, who has drafted this material with much energy, discipline and intelligence. I admire him most of all for not losing his Roman cheerfulness despite what was at times a very difficult process. Many thanks also to my colleagues in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, where we had what I think was one of our most interesting debates to date.
The discussions in this House have also shown that views on threshold values and social standards cut across Group lines, and we can look forward to tomorrow's vote with great excitement.
I see a requirement for the new Directives to be progressive, fair and functional. We support the modernisation proposed by the Commission, for example with regard to the introduction of electronic auctions and the electronic submission of tenders. What greatly worries me, though, is that on one point the Directive is not being made fairer. I am referring here to the issue of social and environmental standards.
It is for the benefit of the other members of my group that I would like to expressly reiterate that the issue is not, for us, that social and environmental criteria have no part to play in the procedure whereby contracts are awarded. No! Mr Hager has shown that very clearly. These standards must be laid down in the description of the product. We want to avoid the situation where, when the contract is awarded at the end of the process and the tenders have been compared and it is clear that tender no. 1 is the best in economic terms, no. 2 is worse, no. 3 is even worse than that and no. 4 is the worst of all, there is then another assessment which establishes that one firm is more socially responsible because it employs more disabled people and another more ecological because it has a waste management system, whereupon it is decided, despite the fact that there was another tender which was better in economic terms, to award the contract to the more expensive firm after all. That is the situation we want to avoid, for it would run counter to the internal market. That is why this is such an important point for us, and a Directive with standards of that sort would basically be no use to us anymore."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples