Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA) debated the International Public Procurement Instrument (IPI) on Tuesday 26 October. While the draft regulation had been stalled since 2016, the EU Council approved its negotiating position in early June (see EUROPE 12732/22).
In Parliament, 535 amendments have been tabled to the draft report, which will be voted on in the INTA committee on 25 November. According to rapporteur Daniel Caspary (EPP, Germany), these amendments are equally divided between technical changes, which are of a formal nature, and substantive changes, on which MEPs will have to agree.
For most MEPs, the readability and effectiveness of the instrument are fundamental. “It is important that the instrument is structured and easy to understand and apply. The responsible authorities must be able to use it easily. A ‘mega-law’ in which we put too many details would not serve anyone”, said Mr Caspary.
The agreement reached in the EU Council provides for the Commission to take action against a third country if it discriminates against European companies in public procurement. After investigating such cases, the Commission could penalise the third-country companies in question in two ways: by assigning a penalty to their score in the context of a public contract or by excluding them from that contract. However, this instrument would only apply to public procurement above €15 million.
Most of the discussions in the European Parliament are about: – whether or not to include a score adjustment in the instrument as an alternative to excluding companies; – €15 million threshold amount; – and the exceptions provided for.
The Renew Europe and Greens/EFA groups consider it important to keep the score adjustment in the text. The Christian Democrat rapporteur considers that this complicates the mechanism, but he is willing to discuss it.
Several groups on the left—S&D, The Left, Greens/EFA—would also like to introduce clauses on respect for the environment and workers’ rights in the legislative text. “We must be consistent with all EU texts”, said Emmanuel Maurel (The Left, France). (Original version in French by Léa Marchal)