Strasbourg, 20/06/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 20 June, the European Parliament adopted the own-initiative report by Arlene McCarthy (PES, UK) on specific problems in the transposition and application of European legislation on public procurement (directive 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC). Amongst other things, this report recommends the adoption of the specific Commission action plan, aiming to help the Member States to tackle the problems arising, and to create advisement agencies for questions related to public procurement, at national level.
During the plenary debate the day before, Arlene McCarthy laid out the reasons why the parliamentary committee on the internal market produced the report. “Negative articles” in the press have criticised insufficient adherence to European rules on public procurement, particularly those on “non-discrimination on the basis of nationality”. “Concerns” have also been voiced on the “growing number of illegally awarded mutual agreement contracts”. She listed the various recommendations of the report: the Commission's presentation of an “action plan strongly encouraging the Member States to tackle problems” such as an inconsistent transposition, throughout the EU, of the optional elements of the new directives (e.g.: competitive dialogue, framework agreements, electronic bidding) and insufficient data gathering; better “information sharing”; increased use of “informal dispute settlement” mechanisms; the Commission drafting “guidelines on the application of social criteria” in public procurement, once it has concluded its specific study; the “exchange of best practice”; systematic training for public utility purchasing professionals; the creation of “national advisement agencies” to help the public authorities and tenderers.
Charlie McCreevy reacted positively to this last proposal. “Providing advice on public procurement (…) via a national body is a good idea”, he said. The European Commissioner with responsibility for the Internal Market called for the creation of national agencies of its type, possibly by extending the competencies of “points of contact or internal market centres” being created in certain countries of the EU and with responsibility for dossiers such as the indentation of the “services” directive, free circulation of goods all the SOLVIT dispute settlement network. Referring to the “infringement proceedings” launched in March against seven Member States which have failed to transpose the European directives (see EUROPE 9391), he criticised the “overly large” presence of infringements of public procurement rules as a proportion of all Community legislation.
PPP. On the “hot” topic of the application of the rules on public procurement to public-private partnerships (PPP), Ms McCarthy stated that the post-“Teckal ruling” jurisprudence was insufficient to bring “legal clarity to what the public authorities should be doing”. She reiterated the position of the EP, which calls for a directive on concessions, and for clarification of the rules on so-called “institutional” PPPs (see EUROPE 9296). “I am not convinced of the need for legislative action. On the basis of the available evidence, I believe that it would be premature to choose this path”, replied Mr McCreevy. He voiced his preference for waiting for the results of the impact study currently being carried out by his services. (mb)