Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-17-Speech-4-089"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020117.5.4-089"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Public procurement has for a long time been considered a universal remedy. On the one hand, it constitutes an alternative to nepotism, the giving away of contracts by authorities to entrepreneurs who are on friendly terms with politicians or high officials. On the other hand, it is intended to bring an end to the manufacture and provision of services by companies that are owned by the authorities themselves, and to grant private companies access to new markets. I can accept the first intention, but not the second. The latter would make authorities dependent on companies. In the Netherlands, it has recently transpired that building firms make agreements with each other about the price which an authority has to pay when building contracts are awarded. In that way, companies determine between themselves who is next in line for the subsequent contract. This creates a monopoly, in fact. Even if this is punishable, it appears in practice extremely difficult to prevent such a course of events. What I welcome in the rapporteur’s proposals is the fact that in the case of relatively small contracts, authorities are relieved of the European procurement obligations that are expensive and opaque to them, that employment for disadvantaged groups can be safeguarded, that environmental criteria will play a greater role and that people convicted of financial malpractice will be excluded from procurement. I endorse these improvements, but not procurement in general."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples