Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-16-Speech-3-140"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020116.11.3-140"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating you on your election to the presidency of this House and I wish you and the entire House a successful two and a half years.
Lastly, Mr President, two directives are before Parliament which are essentially similar in that certain specific sectors have been liberalised or will be in the not-too-distant future. Telecommunications are already considered to have been liberalised and are therefore not being taken into consideration. The gradual liberalisation of the water, energy and transport sectors, monitored directly by the Commission or, upon request, by the individual States, will allow the second directive to expire without making it necessary to amend the first directive.
Overall, I hope that objective considerations will prompt us to adopt provisions which are specific to the sectors without expanding on them dangerously, provisions which will increasingly further the development of the internal market, which take into account the forthcoming accession to the Union of other countries which have their own traditions and needs, and which will make our rules increasingly uniform rather than fragmented.
Furthermore, I feel we ought to acknowledge that the work carried out by the Commission in its proposal deserves our greatest appreciation.
Lastly, I have to say that I am proud to have helped to develop and, I hope, improve legislation which both contributes to the building of a more united, stronger Europe and also curbs the fraud and malpractice which very often prevail in economics. Precisely in order to prevent loopholes, it is better for the directives to suffer a setback, should this prove necessary, than to have rules which are too loose.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the time has come to vote on the directive on public supply contracts, public service contracts and public works contracts and the directive on specific sectors – entities operating in the water, energy and transport sectors – in plenary. The Commission worked on them for four years, conducting a series of hearings, studies and assessments. Then Parliament worked on them for a further two years. A very well-attended public hearing took place and the Committee of the Regions, trade associations and professionals from all over Europe were also consulted.
The fact that such a huge amount of work has been necessary should not surprise us, considering that public works contracts take up around 15% of the Union’s total GDP, that is over EUR 1 500 billion. It is estimated that only 20% of that sum is actually covered by the provisions of the current directives in that the threshold above which it is mandatory to apply them is relatively high and, in any case, more or less equal to that laid down in the agreements for the participation of third countries. The current directives are now outdated and therefore need revising and bringing into line with new technologies and new market trends. It was precisely the need to increasingly develop the internal market which prompted the Commission to research and propose the directives in question. The subject is of considerable importance and could not and still must not be treated lightly. In addition to individual Members, four Parliamentary committees delivering opinions and the committee responsible – the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market – examined the texts and tabled amendments: almost more than half this House has been able to examine, debate and amend the texts.
It is a simple matter to summarise the contents: they revise and modernise the current directives, they introduce electronic auctions; they clarify the standards on technical specifications, they define rules on award criteria, they simplify the thresholds and they introduce a Common Procurement Vocabulary.
Overall, the proposals deserve our support and, indeed, have it: we are all aware of how important they are and we all want their path to be smooth. However, the most significant past and present problems which have emerged and which are the subject of debate within the different political groupings, and between the groupings and between national representatives need to be highlighted.
The thresholds, or the value below which the directives are not binding. This value, which – as I have said – is already relatively high, corresponds, however, to the value laid down in the agreements with third countries, in line with the Commission’s proposal. It has been proposed to increase this value. That would raise two problems: it would reduce the number of work contracts required to comply with the directives, possibly to the advantage of third countries whose existing contracts cannot be reviewed. It would also allow contracting authorities to operate outside the common rules, with the associated risks. However, it has been maintained that, even if the thresholds are raised, the number of contracts awarded to European tenderers will not decrease because, below a certain value, it is not economically beneficial for businesses to operate away from their region, still less their country. A further consideration is the possibility that each Member State and each regional government could apply local rules where the threshold is not reached. That would mean that the higher the thresholds, the greater the disparities between legislation within the Union. Thus, the rules within the Union would become even less uniform.
In my opinion, whatever the thresholds, we must not allow there to be differing legislation within the Union. That would shrink, rather than expand the common market; it would also make it possible for individual territorial legislative authorities to restrict access in their regional or national territory purely to local operators. This should only happen where the matter is not regulated by the directives. Thus, the general contents of the directives must be included in national or regional legislation as well, and an amendment has been tabled proposing this.
Another major issue is environmental and social concerns. It has been proposed that the directive should incorporate specific rules governing these areas. This suggestion has prompted broad, far-reaching debate and could lead to the report being referred back to committee if a position supported by a sufficient majority is not achieved at the vote. I feel that a law intended to further the internal market’s development in an economic sector and increase competitiveness cannot introduce principles which are not already laid down by the sector’s legislation. The Commission’s proposal contains sufficient provisions as it is to ensure that all the principles in force on the environment and workers’ rights are respected in the drawing up of calls for tender. This legislation cannot be expanded or altered by means of directives whose scope should be limited to works, supply and service contracts. The related amendments, adopted, moreover, at the vote by a number of committees delivering opinions and by the committee responsible, seek to introduce new rules. Were these amendments also to be adopted in plenary, I feel that it would be better to keep the current texts unaltered rather than to have texts which, although more up-to-date, could well mean a step backwards in basic areas.
There is a further issue which these texts cannot disregard but which the Commission has failed to deal with adequately: intellectual services. The time has come to make a clear distinction between intellectual services and executive services, between design and execution. This is a difficult concept for certain trade associations to take on board: as they see it, they are defending long-established positions. However, intellectual activity cannot be considered to be the same as manufacturing something and a company cannot do everything. It cannot carry out both design and execution, except in exceptional cases or where specific technologies are involved. There are two of reasons for this:
are not quantifiable: no two ideas are alike. The history of Europe as a whole, give or take a century, is full of different kinds of works which have survived the passage of time because of their artistic value. Not everything, not every service can be compared to a work of art, but the products of the mind cannot be confused with mere execution. An executing company possesses skills and experience and executive technology and is therefore the most suitable company to design and implement others’ ideas on a technical level, but that is all, with a few rare exceptions. By separating intellectual services from executive services we will be according the professions and the products of the mind their due value. Joint contract awards, where contracts for executive design alone and execution are awarded together, are appropriate if there are intellectual service providers qualified as such according to the prevailing legislation in the company or attached to it. These considerations are the basis both for the amendment which makes it possible to award contracts for the design and execution of works either separately or together but requires justification to be produced where mixed contracts are awarded, and for the amendment which clearly defines what is meant by preliminary project paper, final project paper and executive project paper."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"works of art"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples