Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-16-Speech-3-166"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020116.11.3-166"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"That is it as far as the first directive is concerned.
Amendment No 76 on the coal and solid fuel sector is acceptable to the extent that it requires voluntary application of Directive 94/22 to be taken into account for the purposes of Article 29, however without such voluntary application being associated with any legal presumption.
Amendments Nos 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, and 86 concerning increased transparency on remedies. Subject to acceptance of the substance of the Commission's proposal on Article 29 the Commission could also support Amendments Nos 13 and 16 concerning transferral of entities offering postal services from the Public Sector Directive to the Utilities Directive. The objective of allowing economic exploitation of coal-generated heat at the heart of Amendment No 15 will be taken into account through the acceptance of Amendment No 29. As drafted the amendment is not acceptable as it would have quite different effects from those intended.
Concerning the issue of contracts awarded between related entities, Amendment No 27 is acceptable in part, as far as the possibilities of awarding service contracts to newly created, affiliated undertakings and of awards of certain service contracts to a joint venture are concerned. Amendments Nos 51 and 75 concerning preservation of confidentiality in respect of information forwarded by electronic means are acceptable. Various amendments which I would describe as clarificatory and which deal with a range of subjects are also acceptable, namely Amendments Nos 22, 30, 53, 113 in part, and 117.
On the other hand the Commission has no alternative but to reject amendments which question the Community
and which detract from modernisation of the directives or make the regime more complex. Accordingly, the Commission cannot accept the following:
Amendments to raise the directive's thresholds by approximately 50%, the effect of which would be to remove from the scope of the directive a large number of contracts currently covered or otherwise greatly reduce transparency; namely Amendments Nos 20, 46, 72, 102, 105 and 107.
Amendments introducing new exceptions to the scope of the directives without appropriate justification, the effect of which would be to remove a number of contracts from Community competition; namely Amendments Nos 6, 19, 24, 25, 26, parts of 27, 28, 45 and 84.
Amendments which would substantially change the conditions provided for in Article 29 and Annex X for the Commission to grant legally binding exemptions in the case of liberalisation having resulted in effective competition or which would create inconsistencies between this directive and other Community legislation: Amendments Nos 31, 58, 76 insofar as its inclusion in Annex X would create a legal presumption, and 77.
Those 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 8, 17, 65, 94, 104, 110 and 122 concerning award criteria which allow for the possibility of using non-economic criteria, in particular social or environmental criteria.
Amendments which weaken attempts to modernise the directives by reducing the scope for using electronic procurement; namely Amendments Nos 49, 50, 73, 74 and 103.
Amendments imposing disproportionate requirements on SMEs through regulation of subcontracting, in Amendments Nos 32, 41, 42, and amendments introducing social considerations into award procedures in a manner incompatible with the directive, namely Amendments Nos 33, 55, 62, 63, 71 and 88.
As regards the second directive, the so-called Utilities Directive, it is the second proposal adopted by the Commission in May 2000. Besides the objectives of simplification and modernisation, which I just mentioned, this second proposal is particularly aimed at reviewing the scope of the directive in the light of ongoing or future liberalisation of the sectors concerned. This proposal is also a recasting of the existing texts, with the proposed changes incorporated in a single text. I can only repeat the misgivings caused, in particular, by the proposed amendments concerning the threshold values.
Amendments on technical specifications either introducing environmental considerations in a manner incompatible with the directives or introducing improper requirements concerning equivalence of technical solutions; namely Amendment No 34 for the part concerning eco-labels, 36 for the part concerning costs, 39, 91, 98 and 100.
Amendments which are not compatible with the flexible nature of this directive, which is applicable to both public and private commercial entities, and amendments transferring provisions from the public sector directive without good reasons, namely Amendments Nos 10, 11, 52, 54, parts of 59, parts of 60 and Amendment No 61.
Amendments which are superfluous, would create significant legal uncertainty or are likely significantly to change the effect of other provisions in the directives without good reason; namely Amendments Nos 1, 5, 12, 14, 23, 48, parts of Amendment No 66 on the weighting of award criteria, 106, 112, 114, 115, 120, 121, 123 and 124.
In my reply to Parliament and in view of the fact that Parliament deserves to have the opinion of the Commission on all the amendments which have been tabled, I see that I have been speaking for 24 minutes. I have some replies to question put to me during the debate but I fear that would take me far beyond the time allotted so I really am in your hands as to what you want me to do.
Many of the amendments put forward will help make an important contribution to better procurement and are therefore to be welcomed. The Commission supports the amendments consistent with the line it has taken, such as Amendments Nos 2, 7, 21, 37, 43, 47, 95, 111 and 116. The Commission can also – although somewhat reluctantly – accept Amendment No 29, given the large consensus on this amendment in both Parliament and Council.
Subject to drafting changes the Commission can equally accept the substance of a large number of amendments:
Amendments Nos 3, 18, 34 in part, 35, 36, 38, 40, 64, 87, 89, 92, 96, 99, 101, 118 and 119 concerning technical specifications, the possibility of taking environmental concerns into account at various stages of an award procedure and means of proving technical and financial capacity.
Amendments Nos 4, 9, 44 in part, 56, 90 in part, 93, 97 in part, and 108 in part concerning observance of other legislation, in particular social legislation, clauses relating to the execution of contracts and provisions concerning sub-contracting.
Amendments Nos 57, 59, 60 and 109 concerning exclusion criteria are acceptable in part to the extent that obligatory exclusions are limited to contracting entities which are public authorities and that the list of grounds for obligatory exclusion corresponds to that provided for under the Public Sector Directive.
Amendments Nos 66 in part, 67, 68, and 69 regarding simplification of the provisions on mentioning the relative weighting of award criteria.
Amendment No 70, depending on language versions as changes are not required for certain of them, concerning abnormally low tenders."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples