Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-30-Speech-1-082"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030630.10.1-082"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it.
This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender.
I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of
procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services.
My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender.
I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines.
Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it; any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously.
Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"e"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples