Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-30-Speech-1-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030630.10.1-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I, and presumably also my fellow Swedish MEPs, have been presented with a number of comments on this report from concerned Swedish authorities. In Sweden, these authorities are used to being regarded as competent economic actors with quite extensive freedom of action. They believe that the Commission’s proposal would, in a number of respects, reduce their efficiency without increasing either competition or legal certainty. They refer to matters such as the right to enter into framework agreements, of which they often make use, concerning intellectual services and building contracts. They mention the new Article 41a, to the effect that award procedures can only be cancelled under very special circumstances. They wonder what would happen, for example, when there was a change in the political majority and wonder if it might not in those circumstances be possible to cancel an agreement entered into. They also refer to a number of other points on which Swedish practice is much more efficient than what is proposed in these directives.
It is said that public authorities are bureaucratic and inefficient. If that is the case, then it is, in general, due to the fact that we politicians devise exaggeratedly detailed legislation. I think that the Commission’s proposal for a directive on the award of contracts is one such example – I am tempted to say nightmare example – of legislation that creates public sector inefficiency and that gives rise to more problems than it solves. I really do think that the whole proposal for a directive should be withdrawn. The closest I can get to bringing about such an outcome is probably to support an amendment by Mr Manders of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, in which the Commission is called upon to reflect on the situation and reconsider whether the proposal does not create more problems than it solves.
I know that the situation is different in different countries, but I find it strange that the lowest possible price is a consideration with such a dominant role to play in the Commission’s proposal. When private businesses award contracts, they make an overall assessment of a number of factors, of which price is just one. Why cannot public bodies be viewed in the same way and be given the same freedom to make a complex assessment of tenders submitted? Why, in a legal text, should a list be drawn up of which capricious considerations should, or should not, be taken into account? These lists are arbitrary. Why is the Commission so restrictive when it comes to certain factors such as, for example, social needs and environmental and employment considerations, which have more to do with the quality of the products than with purely quantitative relations?
I think that the Commission should consider tabling instead a directive laying down general principles and guidelines, that is to say one that does not go into details in this way but is instead more interested in how the public administrations are to be made more efficient and democratic in the Member States. It would then be possible to find significantly more flexible solutions to these problems."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples