Mr President, we are addressing in this part-session – the vote is to be held on Wednesday – a reform which, because of the interest it has raised and the debate it has prompted, is certainly one of the key elements of this legislature and one of the key stages in the opening up of the markets and the implementation of the internal market in Europe. We are approaching second reading after overcoming a number of difficulties encountered recently with translations and amendments – even now, this evening, the facility for tabling amendments is open until 7 p.m; in fact, it is about to close. In any case, this issue is of such significance as to require some in-depth comments. We have conducted a lengthy debate, both direct and indirect, with the Commission. I would like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein and all the members of his staff for losing no time in addressing the issue. We have worked on it together on many occasions, outside the Chamber, outside Parliament but within the institutions, in an attempt to achieve the best possible outcome. I would like to thank all the Members who have made useful contributions through their interest, their input and the amendments they have deemed it necessary to table. It is a major, important reform which is coming to the end of the Parliamentary process after a period which has lasted for almost the whole of this legislature. Simplification, the alignment of technological and social development and the completion of the internal market were and are still the imperative goals driving Parliament. Debate, dialogue and the diversity of political positions and national interests have stimulated and shaped the conclusions. Public works, public supply and public service contracts account for EUR 1400 billion each year in the Union, which means and shows that this legislation concerns the very powerhouse of the Community’s economy. We are drawing up general, fundamental rules, on the basis of which specific national rules will be laid down. These general rules must contain principles which will be useful to all, not just to a few, which will be useful to the Community as a whole, not just to partisan lobbies; rules which will provide certainty, transparency, fair competition and an internal market which is open to all. Procurement rules cannot and must not differ according to the value: administrative procedures may differ above or below an appropriate threshold, but the principles cannot differ. At present, the thresholds mean that only about an eighth of the sum I quoted relates to European competitions. The rest is lost because of national or regional regulations. For this reason, I for my part acknowledge that the thresholds should be abolished. However, since that cannot happen, a requirement has been proposed which, moreover, already exists indirectly, according to which the basic principles of the legislation must, at any event, always be observed, including by independent territorial legislation. It is necessary for all possible procedures to be modernised and for the use of increasingly rapidly developing technologies to be permitted and codified. The awarding bodies will thus benefit from the proposals made, adopting electronic systems not just for the management of competitions and the receiving of bids but for the actual auctions too. Of course, auctions are required to be limited to the purchasing of codified, standardised materials. We want firms’ freedom of organisation to be accorded due value and made use of, with every possibility of subcontracting left open for that share of the work which, once identified, can be entrusted to firms for whom the principal contractor is answerable. In order not to complicate participation in the competition, it is appropriate for partners to be identified after the work has been subcontracted. The complex issue – and this has been a very controversial point – of awarding design and execution contracts jointly, appreciated and appreciable for some specific categories of contracts, cannot be a hard and fast rule. It is clearly appropriate and natural to separate services and works, just as it can be clearly appropriate and natural to treat them jointly, subject to prior justification. By respecting this principle we are consolidating qualitative competition too, which would otherwise be in danger of being squeezed out in a purely economic and technological context, being moreover the prerogative of the company alone and therefore not always beneficial to the contracting authority. This principle is the basis for the rapporteur’s proposals. We must remember that we are dealing with a directive which is of high and singular economic importance and, as such, cannot and must not contain rules or principles which are governed by specific legislation such as specific social or environmental requirements. The environmental and social dimensions have processes which are defined and can be defined specifically and therefore made mandatory by means of other vehicles and in other contexts. However, some principles are laid down and proposed in the provision which refer particularly to respect for the needs of disadvantaged groups and the legislation on safety in the workplace. The environment – the great victim of our time – is also dealt with exhaustively. Any further excesses in this area are to be avoided. With contracts being awarded on the basis of the most economically advantageous price, there has to be a weighting criterion properly defined in calls for tenders, in that, otherwise, there would be a discretionary power in the a posteriori application of parameters which has created many legal problems throughout Community territory in the past. The confidentiality of information which, according to the pre-established procedures, is provided to the contracting entity by the interested parties will be protected and safeguarded by specific rules. As regards ‘in-house’ contracts, there are conflicting points of view: the representatives of producers’ associations are decidedly against reserving contracts for an enterprise of which the contracting entity is part, even if it has independent legal personality, without a competition, and your rapporteur agrees with them. It has been proposed to extend the causes of exclusion where there are sentences for subsequent offences relating to the tendering company on grounds of bankruptcy, unfair behaviour, failure to respect collective work contracts or drug dealing. Lastly, it has been proposed to set up an independent agency to provide control mechanisms for contracts in the Member States. Without prejudice to the possibility of instigating legal proceedings, we hope that this agency will be able to verify the procedures followed and also be able to cancel awards which do not comply with the legislation. In conclusion, Mr President, the content of the rules under debate, because of their economic significance and because of their employment, social, environmental and economic implications, can be described without any shadow of doubt as essential to the organisation of modern-day society. Differing political positions and different political or bureaucratic points of view mean that a widely supported process is not possible. On the other hand, rejection and referral to committee or conciliation as the – not unproblematic – final stage in producing legislation is both possible and desirable. All this is in the interests of the Union and in the interests of an internal market which must become increasingly consolidated and transparent. The vote taken the day after tomorrow will confirm the democratic process, which there is no doubt that we must all follow. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE