Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-21-Speech-4-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070621.4.4-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, on behalf of my group I would like to start by making two important comments. Firstly I am very pleased that Mr Fruteau's excellent work has borne fruit. We should be very grateful that we have him.
Secondly, I would like to express my sadness that Mr Fruteau's election to the French Parliament means that we will be losing a valuable fellow Member. Mr Fruteau, I am sorry that you will soon be leaving our ranks. It is always sad when we lose talented MEPs.
Perhaps I should begin by responding to Mr Mayer's comments on the hotly-debated standstill period. The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and Mr Fruteau have both sought to establish simple rules. There was just one small difference: you wanted 14 days, and Mr Fruteau favoured 12. But those two days were not the real problem. The problem was that the Council really did not want a simple solution, so we were banging our heads against a brick wall. We in the Committee on Internal Market would also have liked a simpler solution than that which is being put forward.
When the directive is transposed, I do not want to hear ministers from any Member State saying that it is too bureaucratic and blaming Brussels. It is the ministers themselves who are responsible: Brussels and Strasbourg wanted something very different. The ministers should take responsibility for their decision.
My second point relates to the very heated discussion between Parliament and the Council of Ministers on the scope of exemptions, and how far we could extend the potential for exemptions in the name of public interest. We in Parliament have a more rigorous view on this than the Council, because this directive is clearly intended to improve the effectiveness of the public procurement review procedure, notably in those cases which already run counter to existing laws. So it is not a case of changing the Member States' directives on public procurement, but rather a question of deciding what sanctions could be applied in this area. We should not confuse the two. Today's plenary discussion has not made that mistake, but it does occasionally creep into the public debate. We should re-emphasise the fact that we are trying to define sanctions for when contracts are awarded illegally. Reality justifies this strict approach."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples