Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-17-Speech-4-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020117.5.4-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The major political obstacle standing in the way of the adoption of this report is the application threshold values of European standards, which are of absolutely crucial economic importance for public works companies, the environment, public finances and infrastructure quality.
The crux of the matter, politically speaking, is simple: above what amount, in millions of euro, must a public contract be subjected to Community procedures?
There are two conflicting theories, therefore:
Those in support of increased threshold values have pointed out that this would avoid administrative costs and cumbersome bureaucratic processes for contracts which will not, in any case, attract international competition. They would therefore not enable more cross-border procurement to be carried out in the area of public contracts. At the same time, however, the local authorities must bear the extremely high costs of the tendering process.
On the other hand, I am in support of maintaining the threshold values at their current level, as proposed by the Commission. The aim is to create a genuine single European market in this sector. Furthermore, the increases requested would strip the directive of its impact to the point where it no longer has a raison d’être.
I believe that this increase would risk a radical reduction in the number of contracts which would essentially be open to Community competition. The majority of contracts would be granted in accordance with national or regional procedures.
This is why I abstained from the vote in plenary."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples