Strasbourg, 17/01/2002 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday at first reading, according to codecision procedure, the European Parliament voted 176 and 124 amendments respectively, on: - the proposal of a general directive concerning the coordination of procedures for the awarding of public supply contracts, public service contracts and public works contracts (the proposal has taken four years work at the European Commission and two at the European Parliament, noted the rapporteur, Forza Italia member Stefano Zappalà), - and on the proposal for a sector-specific directive concerning the water, energy and transport sectors (see summaries of reports in EUROPE of 11 January, p.10).
Mr Zappalà said he was pleased with the vote which, he felt, "is revolutionary for Community public procurement", "provides technical certainty" and allows crime to be combated, while providing for the exclusion of public markets in the case of "fraudulent behaviour, drugs, bankruptcy, condemnation affecting professional morality, and the violation of working and safety standards". Among the main novelties, the rapporteur places emphasis on: - raising thresholds from which contracting will be covered by directives (hence, fewer public contracts will be covered, but the "European principles" should be honoured whatever the level of the thresholds, stressed Mr Zappalà). The European Commission proposes a threshold of EUR 5.3 million for public works contracts awarded by all contracting authorities, while the Parliament calls for this to be raised to 7 million. The Commission, moreover, proposes EUR 130,000 for public supplies and services markets passed by central contracting authorities and EUR 200,000 for the other contracting authorities, with the Parliament calling respectively for EUR 200,000 and 300,000; - the introduction of a distinction between "intellectual services and executive services", namely between those responsible for projects and those responsible for implementing the projects (something the rapporteur was very keen on: see below).
Regarding the introduction in the two directives of the possibility of taking account of the environmental characteristics of an offer, the Parliament, which adopted a compromise amendment by the EPP-ED, Socialist and Liberal Groups, specifies this means "including those relating to production methods". It adds "and tendering policy regarding equal treatment".
The debate brought disagreements to the fore, sometimes within the same party
The two reports were adopted by a narrow margin by the Legal Committee (14 to 11 with 4 abstentions for the general directive; 16 votes in favour with 11 abstentions on the sectoral directive), supporting Mr Zappala's idea of raising the thresholds by around 50% compared with the figures proposed by the European Commission above which public procurement contracts are subject to EU legislation, but the MEPs did not agree with the rapporteur on an issue close to his heart - making a clear distinction between intellectual and implementation services.
Stefano Zappala explained that in preparing the report he had had meetings with a huge number of stakeholders and he emphasised the directive's scope. Each year, public procurement contracts account for around 15% of GDP in the EU or more than EUR 1500 bn, but only around 20% of these contracts are currently covered by EU legislation because the thresholds are relatively high (identical to those that apply to third countries). All the same, he said, he suggested raising them higher still, responding to people who saw this as an unjustified advantage to third countries (since their thresholds would not be amended) that they were only interested in public procurement above a certain level. Mr Zappala summarised the objectives of the new directives as: updating the existing standards and merging them in a single relatively user-friendly text; introducing electronic purchasing mechanisms; clarifying technical specifications standards; providing details of adjudication criteria standards; simplifying the thresholds; and introducing common wording for public procurement. The rapporteur acknowledged that various other issues, apart from the thresholds, were also controversial, namely taking political and social criteria into account (he wants to avoid introducing new social and political criteria); and the distinction between intellectual and implementation services (the European Commission had not looked into this, but the Forza Italia MEP said that intellectual and implementation activities could not be considered in the same light and a line had to be drawn between designing contracts and carrying them out).
The draftsmen of the opinions of the various other Committees all called for social and environmental criteria to be taken into account. This was the view, for example, of the German Social Democrat Bernhard Rapkay (Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee), the British Labour MEP Stephen Hughes (Social Affairs Committee) who stressed that social criteria would be applied in strict respect of competition rules, and the Swedish Green Inger Schörling (Environment Committee) who stressed the need to take sustainable development into account. The Industry Committee hardly has a reputation for stressing social affairs, but the vast majority felt that social aspects could not be ignored, explained draftsman Helmut Kuhne (German Social Democrat). The Belgian Green Pierre Jonckheer (draftsman for the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee on the sectoral directive) called for adjudication authorities to be able to allocate 15% of public procurement contracts to SMEs.
One of the arguments put forward by the spokespersons of the various political groups against an over-rigid directive was the role that local authorities should continue to play in the award of public contracts. This was argued by the Austrian Social Democrat, Maria Berger, for example, who slammed standards that would lead to more selfish behaviour dictated by economic interests. The Finnish Liberal Astrid Thors had the same fears, saying the Commission talks about profitability in this love-hate directive, while we talk about local authorities' decision-making powers. She added that in practice, there were very few cross-border bids, saying that Finns had great difficulty winning markets in Germany as a result of the collective agreement clauses. Turning to the Swedish EPP-ED MEP Charlotte Cederschiöld, she insisted that the same went for Sweden. The Court of Justice will soon be ruling on cities using environmental criteria when granting public contracts (bus fuel), noted Finnish Green Heidi Hautala, hoping that the Court would recognise the importance of local authorities. The same line was taken by French Communist Sylviane Ainardi, calling for employment, the environment and town and country planning to be put on a par with price criteria; the German Social Democrat Evelyne Gebhardt ("the single market cannot be the only orthodoxy"); the British Liberal Diana Wallis and the Scottish National Party member of the Greens/EFA group, Neil MacCormick, who stressed the importance of measures being taken in full consideration of the leading role of local authorities. It is the quality of the service that must have top priority, said Irish Brian Crowley, of Fianna Fail, who also raised the tricky issue of sanctions against those that are guilty of fraud. Those who are found guilty of offences such as money laundering or fraud must be excluded from public markets, Armando Cossutta (Partito dei Comunisti italiani) also affirmed. He went on to say: "unfortunately, in my country the presence of the Mafia can be felt, but connivance with the Mafia is absolutely unacceptable". For some MEPs, the need to clarify the rules is of prime importance: the inclusion of new criteria complicates the situation, says Rijk van Dam (Europe of Democracies and Diversities), who considers that social policy must remain national. British Conservative Malcolm Harbour fears that amendments introducing new criteria result in reducing access to public markets, and expresses his perplexity about the request for higher thresholds. German Christian Democrat Klaus-Heiner Lehne, acknowledged the fact that the EPP-ED Group had not, on Wednesday evening, yet determined its position on the question of thresholds, on which opinions differ. Provisions that could "make the single market break up" must not be introduced, but we are not so "far from the reality" that we do not know we must also take account of economic and social aspects, said Mr Lehne. He went on to specify that such criteria should be applied while ensuring that "conditions are the same for all". Furthermore, Mr Lehne welcomed the "essential" innovation consisting in introducing the "Justiziabilität" (justiciableness) of public market tenderers, which at present is not secured in all Member States.
The complex nature of the debate was obvious in the speech delivered by Commissioner Frits Bolkestein. During twenty-four minutes, the Commissioner presented the amendments that the European Commission is able to agree to and above all those that it cannot accept, essentially because, through these amendments, the Parliament would bring the question of acquis communautaire back into question. Mr Bolkestein first of all cited the amendments concerning thresholds but also those that introduce new exceptions without suitable justification, those that would have resulted in going against the very objectives of the directives, amendments that would impose disproportionate restrictions on SMEs, those that would reduce transparency, those that would not be compatible with the flexible nature of the directive, those that would run counter to increased legal security, and, finally, a number of superfluous amendments.
EP plenary session (cont.)