Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-30-Speech-1-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030630.10.1-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will refer to Commissioner Bolkestein’s article in last Saturday’s ‘
’ – an article, Commissioner, that you published under your own name – and from which, with your permission, I will quote just one extract: ‘It is important that authorities should get the highest possible return on taxpayers’ money, and that this important economic sphere should be fully opened up to competition in the internal market, as open and competitive procurement guarantees an improvement in services of general interest, ensures that public goods are used effectively, prevents corruption and stimulates both economic growth and the creation of jobs’.
On that, Commissioner, I can back you 100%; the only problem I have is that I am one of those who believe that what we have received from the Council as a Common Position fails to comply with these very requirements and conditions. I am one of those who take the view that the existing laws on procurement in the European Union have worked so far; they are written down in four directives, to which one must add the settled case-law of the European Court of Justice, which was handed down over many years, and which has proved its value. We have doubts as to whether this Common Position, this Council document, is indeed suited to maintaining the quality we have hitherto enjoyed.
Many of us are concerned that the new elements in this directive have not reduced the danger of manipulation, but will end up increasing it. Many are worried that we will have, not more competition, but less. Referring back to this article, let me point out that the representatives of industry to whom I have spoken, were not concerned that this document might result in increased competition, but that there could end up being less of it. I believe that most of my group’s amendments had the specific aim in mind of improving a whole array of crucial points in this directive.
Another aspect I would like to address is that of the environmental and social criteria, which, as I am well aware, are matters of great contention in this House. I do maintain, though, that European legislation should be right in terms of the legal system, and what that means is that I deal with environmental issues under the heading of environmental legislation and use legislation on social affairs to deal with social issues. The law on procurement is not part of environmental law, or of social security law; it has to do with business law, which means to say that the only issues to be considered in the field of procurement law are those of economic viability. It is for that reason that I have my own grave misgivings as to whether it is in any way right to deal here with issues relating to the environmental and social criteria. It is, though, evidently the majority view both in the Council and – to judge by the outcome of first reading – in this House, that if these matters are to be dealt with, we have to ensure that they are taken into account, not as part of the awarding of the contract, but in the criteria applying when the contract is put out to tender. I regard as unacceptable anything that, in relation to the award of the contract – independently, as it were, of what the various service providers knew when the contract was put out to tender – can end up resulting in further decision-making, or can make it possible for that to be manipulated.
I speak not only for myself but also for my group when I say that I regret the fact that it has not been possible to come to a compromise beforehand between the groups on the issues raised by this proposal. The end result of this will be a political showdown between the political groups in this House, while the Commission and the Council of Ministers get their directives through; what I fear, quite simply, is that there is little prospect for qualified majorities on the reciprocal amendments. I question whether that is a good thing for this House or for Europe. That concludes the comments that I wanted to make on this proposal on behalf of my group."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples