Mr President, it is good that we are holding this debate at a busy time in the House and that we are not just engaging in legal hair-splitting, for the directives on the coordination of procedures for the award of public contracts are among the most important methods we have for preventing administrative corruption in the most effective way. We are talking about the most hated and most loved directives which have consequences quite far afield in the national administrations in various parts of the EU. During the hearing in the committee, I and many others besides me became concerned that so few cross-border offers are made. I think that the most important thing today, following this debate and reading, is that we obtain directives that operate as well as possible, together with an important follow-up mechanism. There is a lot left to be desired. A lot has already been said about environmental issues, but I think it is important for us to note that, on environmental issues, we must give public authorities the same opportunity we require the most progressive companies to exercise. Why should it not be possible to compete in this area within the public sector, just as it is within the private sector? The Commission says that as much value for money as possible must be obtained. I want to say, however, that, in this context, it is quite often a question of self-governing local authorities which operate in such a way that, if a mistake is made and people are not satisfied, the latter can replace the decision makers. The decision-makers want to see good environmental decisions made by their local authorities. I also think there is something extremely seductive about the argument that, since we have adopted directives on how, for example, we are to promote the use of renewable energy, we should also have procurement directives that encourage such use. It is a familiar argument, but one worth mentioning. I share the assessment which says that the Commission’s approach in the proposal is rigid in relation to prevailing legal practice. There is, however, a difference between the environmental and the ‘social’ issues. The basic conditions we have when it comes to environmental issues are relatively uniform, but we have extremely different directives where social issues are concerned. It is interesting to note that so many of those who have talked about social issues come from Germany. I come from a small EU country where my experience has shown that, precisely with reference to ‘collective agreements’, it has been extremely difficult for Finnish companies to enter the German, and also the Swedish, construction markets. That is why it is important for us not to adopt provisions that are ambiguous. The basic conditions are not uniform when it comes to social issues. We do not know which regulations are to be complied with in this area. I still hope, however, to be able to send an important signal on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal and Democratic Reform Party, to the effect that if the proposals for increased threshold values are adopted, we shall not be able to support the proposals because, in our view, they limit this area of application still more. We have said in many contexts that we cannot support these proposals because the whole purpose and whole issue then become meaningless. That is why I want to appeal to my fellow MEPs concerning this issue. Finally, I wish to point out that the one compromise amendment that has been tabled is not, in the light of many countries’ practice, in actual fact a genuine compromise amendment.

Political group: ELDR