Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-16-Speech-3-165"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020116.11.3-165"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Zappalà, for the considerable amount of work he had done on this most complicated and important issue, as many Members have said this afternoon.
Various amendments concerning the competitive dialogue, in particular as regards payment of participants, can be taken into account, more specifically Amendments Nos 9, 56, 57 in part, 58 in part, 137 in part, and 138.
Various amendments which I would describe as explanatory and which deal with a range of subjects are also acceptable, namely Amendments Nos 7, 125 in part, 18, 142, 26, 30, 35, 46 in part, 70, 113, 114, 121, 132, 153, 169, 170 and 171. Subject to drafting changes, the substance of Amendment No 147 concerning the applicability of the Treaty below the thresholds is also acceptable, if placed in a recital.
On the other hand, the Commission has no alternative but to reject amendments which call into question the Community
detract from modernisation of the directives or make the regime more complex. Accordingly, the Commission cannot accept the following amendments:
Amendments to raise the directives' thresholds – as I said earlier – by 50%, the effect of which would be to remove from the scope of the directives a large number of contracts currently covered, namely Amendments Nos 32, 33, 67, 130, 101, 105 and 106. The unfortunate consequences of these amendments are not alleviated by Amendment No 147, however good its intentions. In fact, the raison d'être of the directives is not in itself sufficient without the detailed procedural rules of the directives to guarantee uniform and legally certain application and to safeguard the rights of economic operators through efficient remedies.
Amendments introducing new exceptions to the scope of the directives without appropriate justification, the effect of which would be to remove a number of public contracts from Community competition, namely Amendments Nos 37, 38 in part, 122, 136, 150 and 157.
Amendments which undermine the very objective of public procurement rules, which is to ensure that public purchasers do not allow their decision to be influenced by non-economic considerations, namely Amendments Nos 12, 14, 98, 134, 140 and 166 concerning award criteria which allow for the possibility of using non-economic – and in particular social and environmental – criteria.
Amendments which weaken attempts to modernise the directives by reducing the scope for using electronic procurement, namely Amendments Nos 70 in part, 73, 75, 102, 103, 115, 117 and 131.
Amendments imposing disproportionate requirements on SMEs through the regulation of subcontracting and other requirements, namely Amendments 42, 48 in part, 49, 76, 100 in part, 116, 133, 152 and 159.
Amendments which reduce transparency in calls for competition, in particular Amendments Nos 62, 68 and 78, and which extend the scope to negotiate, namely Amendments Nos 57, part of 61, 66 and 151.
Amendments which restrict the use of framework agreements with no apparent justification, namely Amendments Nos 25, 27, 135, 139, 63, 64 and 158.
In May 2000, the Commission adopted two proposed directives designed to simplify and modernise Community public procurement rules. Those proposals contain significant new developments to adapt the directives to modern procurement requirements. In the interest of simplification, the Commission has proposed a recasting of four existing directives merged into two new ones.
Amendments introducing environmental considerations into award procedures in a manner incompatible with the directives, namely the part of Amendment No 45 concerning eco-labels, No 92 concerning the selection stage and No 109 regarding the definition of technical specifications and their compatibility with the environment.
Amendments which are not compatible with the flexible nature of the competitive dialogue, in particular Amendments Nos 55, 58 in part, 59, 60 and 160.
Amendments containing additional cases where persons convicted of certain offences would face mandatory exclusion; in the proposed mechanism, only those cases subject to criminal sanctions in all Member States should be included. It is not, therefore, possible to take account of some of these cases, namely Amendments Nos 81, 82 and 83. On the other hand, some of these cases are already covered by the optional exclusions contained in Article 46(2). Amendments Nos 84 and 90 should also be rejected, since they could lead to a situation where it is not possible to contract with a company which is trying to re-establish itself financially.
Amendments which are superfluous or likely significantly to change the effect of other provisions in the directives without good reason, namely Amendments Nos 8, 19, 20 in part, 22, 29, 30 in part, 43, 127, 44, 45 in part, 55, 59, 60, 69, 70 in part, 71, 72, 94, 96, 108, 111, 143, 156, 162, 172 in part and 173.
Amendments which, without justification, detract from the powers delegated by the legislator to the Commission under existing law, namely Amendment No 107.
The last category of amendments not acceptable to the Commission as regards the first proposal are those amendments which remove clarificatory changes designed to create greater legal security, namely Amendment No 99 on the weighting of award criteria, Amendment No 100 on abnormally low tenders as a result of State aid, Amendments Nos 144, 145, 146, 148 and 149 modifying the definition of works contracts, and Amendment No 161 on the principles governing time limits.
I note that Parliament has taken advantage of this recasting of the four directives to question the Community
in areas where the Commission has not proposed any changes. I refer here in particular to the amendments raising the thresholds, which will significantly reduce the directives' scope, above all – may I say to Mrs McCarthy – with respect to small and medium enterprises. If those proposals were to be adopted, the Commission would have to give serious thought as to whether the proposal should be retained at all.
Many of the amendments put forward will help make an important contribution to better procurement and are to be welcomed. The Commission supports those amendments which add to the simplification and modernisation process. They are Amendments: Nos 1, 3, 167, 141, 4, 13, 16, 17, 24, 28, 34, 36, 174, 40, 50, 128, 53, 79, 80, 85, 88, 97, 109 – to the extent that it concerns production processes – and 112.
The Commission can also accept the substance of a number of amendments, subject to some drafting changes, namely Amendments Nos 2, 10, 42 in part, 45, 46, 47, 123, 52 in part, 93 and 95 in part, 109, 110 and 154 concerning the extent to which environmental considerations can be taken into account at different stages of an award procedure. Similarly, Amendments Nos 11, 15, 48 in part, 51, 129, 52, 86, 87, 124, 89, 100 in part, 110 and 164 concerning the need to ensure that tenderers comply with employment law, can be included in the directive in an appropriate form. That is also partially the case for Amendment No 163 concerning information on sub-contracting.
Various amendments designed to address the increasing centralisation of procurement are also acceptable, subject to some redrafting, namely Amendments Nos 5, 6, 20 in part, 126, 21, 41, 168, 172 in part and 175.
In a similar vein, Amendment No 38 concerning consortia formed by contracting authorities and Amendments Nos 39 and 40 are also acceptable.
A number of amendments add to the broad range of electronic means available to contracting authorities, namely Amendments Nos 23, 54 and 65 concerning reverse electronic auctions, as well as Amendments Nos 74 and 104, which deal with the integrity and confidentiality of data supplied by operators.
Concerning confidentiality of data, part of Amendment No 31 can be accepted, though Amendment No 77 would then be superfluous and would have to be rejected."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples