Proposition 53K3401

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 juin 2006 relative aux marchés publics et à certains marchés de travaux, de fournitures et de services et la loi du 13 août 2011 relative aux marchés publics et à certains marchés de travaux, de fournitures et de services dans les domaines de la défense et de la sécurité.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Carl Devlies
LE Benoît Drèze
MR Damien Thiéry
Open Vld Luk Van Biesen
PS | SP Olivier Henry
Vooruit Karin Temmerman

Submission date

Feb. 25, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive labour law defence policy energy efficiency energy saving migrant worker award of contract public safety public procurement criminal law residence permit rights of aliens employer

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

April 2, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for your excellent report.

We are talking about a bill. You know that the law on public procurement is a non-insignificant law for this country. This law determines a lot of economic happening and also determines the way in which governments deal with suppliers of services, goods or works and is therefore quite important in that sense.

Again, it turns out that the simple transposition of Article 6 of Directive 2012/27/EU of 25 October 2012 and of Directive 2009/52/EC of 18 June 2009 was a little delayed, that one preferred to take a look at the law rather than the substance of the case, and that a number of persons in this hemisphere were instructed to withdraw the field with a legislative proposal.

The point is that this bill creates a precedent for the European Parliament. In the course of the discussion of this proposal in the committee, we were able to conclude that, in addition to our own group staff who can provide expert input, we will in the future be able to use the study services of the Chancellor’s for our personal initiatives in this Parliament.

What shows up? A draft law is submitted to the committee by a number of committees. However, at the moment we enter into discussion, we are no longer discussing the proposal with the candidates, but with the Chancellors.

I assume that this does not only apply to the colleagues of PS, but that any one of us who wishes to amend freely technical matters by way of law can subsequently resort to the services of the Chancellor. I have the impression that they are happy to be at their disposal, although they also succeed – but probably because of the great pressure of time – to leave here and there an ambiguity in the proposals they so willingly write for our people’s representatives.

After all, what is shown? At the moment when the government really has nothing to do but to timely and straightforwardly transpose a number of directives, one still prefers to attach to them a number of ideological – I don’t know how to call them otherwise – principles. When questions are asked, decent answers remain out. It just has to be so. At least we managed to remove one uncertainty in the commission. I would like to thank you – not the applicants but the others – for accepting one of our amendments.

However, a second uncertainty remains. Before the report, I will try to explain it in simple language.

This draft law regulates the transposition of an EU directive which actually aims to ⁇ higher energy efficiency in the context of works submitted by the government. Of course, no one can oppose this.

The special thing is that one actually makes it mandatory to only take into account those offers that take into account high energy efficiency performance. The add-on under the grass is that the directive suggests making this mandatory for federal and regional governments, but there is no talk about local governments.

What is the result of the transposition of this Directive into Belgian legislation? Article 5 states: “The contracting authorities to which paragraph 1 does not apply shall consider, as regards the products, services and buildings to be determined by the King, exclusively the acquisition of products, services and buildings with high energy efficiency performance”. Colleagues, if we read “consider only buildings with high energy efficiency performance” then that is an obligation. That is much more than what the directive says.

The directive was about encouraging local authorities. As a local government, you will be blessed with an old building here or there to which you will have to perform some fire-fighting work at the request of the fire department. At the moment you start, you are faced with this new element in the law. I wish the people who are active at the local level a lot of success in implementing or complying with this legislation.

Colleagues, the issue seems futial, but it is not. After all, it again creates confusion in a law that, as I pointed out in my introduction, is so tremendously important for a number of economic contacts between governments and suppliers, namely business. At that moment, such carelessness leads to uncertainty and equally many legal proceedings.

So there is at least one major winner of this change, especially the lawyers. Do not say that I did not warn you.

In any case, we will remember.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, two objectives are met in this bill drafted in perfect collaboration with the Chancellor’s services. This is basically a technical proposal, and you will agree with it.

The first objective is to partially transpose the EU Energy Efficiency Directive. This transposition is urgent as its deadline is 5 June 2014. Article 6 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure that at least central governments purchase high-energy products, services and buildings.

However, the implementation of the Directive provides certain flexibility for the contracting authority, in particular where energy efficiency performance is difficult to ⁇ from a budgetary and economic point of view.

The second objective is the transposition of a Directive laying down minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals. That provision therefore requires Member States to provide for a clause excluding from access to public procurement undertakings which have employed illegally staying third-country nationals for a maximum period of five years.

During the presentation of this proposal in the committee, the observations of Ecolo and the N-VA were taken into account, to whom I thank for their contributions, in order to empower the King to impose a maximum duration of application of the exclusion and to set the modalities to be met in this regard. The duration of the exclusion may in no case exceed five years.

Thank you for your attention, dear colleagues.