Mr President, we have worked for a long time on these important procurement directives, and it is now time for a final debate and a vote on the outcome of the conciliation. I would take the liberty of providing a short résumé. Viewed in a Green perspective, the Commission’s original proposal was completely unacceptable when it came to environmental and social criteria in the case of public procurement. I was, however, very optimistic about the procurement directives once a majority of the European Parliament, at both first and second readings, had strongly supported the proposal to give the procuring parties greater freedom and legal entitlement to take account of, and incorporate, environmental and social criteria in public procurement. Unfortunately, I saw from the very beginning that the Commission did not really want to acknowledge the fact that Articles 2 and 6 of the Treaty, together with the Sixth Environmental Action Programme and other policy documents, clearly state that environmental and social considerations must be incorporated into all EU policy and that public procurement must be used to achieve the objective of sustainable development. The outcome of the conciliation is quite clearly better than the Commission’s original proposal and the old rules, but I think that we have unfortunately missed a unique opportunity to be as progressive as the pledges and the talk of sustainable development would seem to require. I think that the Council has demonstrated a stronger will and greater flexibility, for example through raising the threshold value. I nonetheless believe that, during the conciliation, there was a failure to resolve the important issue arising from the fact that, with a value of 14% of GDP, public procurement really could make a difference to the EU’s environmental policy and promote ‘green’ procurement. I would thank my fellow MEPs, who fought hard for this during the conciliation negotiations. The criteria said to be of an environmental character are among those that, according to the agreed wording, must be set by the procuring entity. This term does not, however, include the methods through which goods are manufactured. Nor does it include the life cycle perspective, that is to say the period from the manufacture of the goods to their becoming waste. Nor does it include the long-term effects, nor the internationalisation of the external costs. What, therefore, is meant by criteria of an environmental character? Will not a discussion arise concerning the interpretation and implications of the term and, as a concomitant of this, legal uncertainty too? I think we have missed a brilliant opportunity to promote sustainable development and an improved quality of life for the present, and future, generations. This was also the reason why the representatives of the Group of the voted ‘no’ in the Conciliation Committee’s final vote. I believe that many members of the Group will in any case vote in favour of the proposal. That is what I myself am going to do. Despite these criticisms I have made, I naturally hope that the package of draft legislation will promote open and free procurement and also, when all is said and done, still promote environmental and social considerations in this connection.

Political group: Verts-ALE