Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-10-Speech-4-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021010.4.4-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The Commission has presented another communication on the combating of fraud. It will make it possible to exclude firms that have engaged in fraud from contracts with the Commission. The fact is, however, that that possibility exists already. It is unnecessary to prepare more communications. The Commission has only to use the 1992 directive relating to the award of public contracts, which makes it abundantly clear that it can exclude firms that have submitted false information or evaded tax from participating in the award of public contracts.
Why not use this directive? Why not use the existing legislation?
I have voted in favour of the Bösch Report because it draws attention to a good example of this obvious scandal. For years, Eurostat has entered into contracts with a firm that has supplied false information. This is shown by a cursory comparison of the figures.
The Commission says that it handed the matter over to OLAF as early as 1999. Why, therefore, has nothing happened? The firm, which submits incorrect figures year after year, is now on the Commission’s top-ten list of most frequently used contractors. How can that be the case?
The Commission owes us a very good explanation. A patently fraudulent firm earns tremendous amounts of money out of contracts with the Commission. The firm sits over there in Luxembourg and laughs at us, while the Commission issues another fatuous communication. What signal does this send to the people of Europe?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples