What it is
Proposal to require social conditions in public contracts
It is a members’ bill. Introduced by parliamentary groups, the Senate, regional governments or citizens. It was introduced on 21 November 2013. Introduced by: Grupo Parlamentario Catalán (Convergència i Unió).
Official title: Private member's bill on the inclusion of social clauses in public contracting.
Source: Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000126· updated 11 Nov
Automatic summary, not yet reviewed
- The bill would require companies bidding for public contracts to prove they meet the legal obligation to reserve 2% of jobs for workers with disabilities, or that they have adopted the legally allowed alternative measures. For contracts linked to employment promotion, this would be a requirement to bid; for other contracts, it would be enough to prove it before signing.
- It would also require anyone receiving public subsidies to prove compliance with that job reservation, and would exclude from all public aid those convicted of discrimination offenses, sanctioned for serious labor violations, or failing to meet rules protecting people with disabilities.
- The bill would reserve 7% of each contracting body's total annual contracting to Special Employment Centers and Integration Companies. These entities would also be exempt from providing a guarantee on reserved contracts.
- The bill would add social criteria for scoring bids, such as the number of workers with disabilities or at risk of exclusion who will perform the contract, subcontracting with Special Employment Centers and Integration Companies, equality between women and men, the share of permanent staff, and respect for human rights and ILO labor standards.
- If passed, the law would take effect 30 days after publication in the Official State Gazette (Boletín Oficial del Estado).
Who it affects
- Companies seeking public contracts or public subsidies, which would have to prove compliance with disability rules.: New proof requirements and possible exclusions.
- Workers with disabilities and people at risk of social exclusion, who would gain job opportunities.: More reserved jobs and contracts.
- Special Employment Centers and Integration Companies, which would get a share of public contracting reserved for them.: Preferential access to contracts and exemption from guarantees.
- Contracting bodies of the General State Administration, which would have to apply these requirements and criteria.: New rules when bidding out and awarding contracts.
Words worth knowing
- Licitación (tender)
- A competition where several companies submit bids and the government picks the one it considers best.
- Centro Especial de Empleo (Special Employment Center)
- A company where most workers are people with disabilities who have difficulty working in normal conditions.
- Empresa de Inserción (Integration Company)
- A company that mostly hires people at risk of social exclusion to help them enter the job market.
- Pliego de cláusulas administrativas (contract terms document)
- The document where the government sets the contract conditions and how bids will be scored.
- Garantía (guarantee)
- Money or a bond the winning bidder deposits as security in case it fails to perform the contract.
It summarizes the text as it was introduced. It is written by artificial intelligence and may contain mistakes: the official text is what counts. Read the official text · How we make summaries
Where it stands
How far did it get?
It took 2 of 7 steps. It reached Admitted, and today it is rejected.
- Introduced21 November 2013Someone registers the text in the Congreso.
- Admitted26 November 2013The Bureau of the Congreso accepts it and, for a members’ bill, the plenary decides whether to consider it.
- Amendmentsnot reachedGroups propose changes.
- Committeenot reachedA committee goes through the text in detail.
- Plenarynot reachedAll 350 deputies vote.
- Senatenot reachedThe Senate can pass it, amend it or veto it.
- BOEnot reachedIt is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and comes into force.
See the 6 official steps on a timeline
18 February 2014
How did the plenary vote?
Voted on: Private Member's Bill by the Catalan Parliamentary Group (Convergència i Unió), on the incorporation of social clauses in public procurement.
Source: Congreso de los Diputados, vote 3 of sitting 165· updated 10 Nov
Each dot is a seat. Tap one, or use the arrow keys, to see who it is.
Your province
How did the deputies from your province vote?
And your senators: the Senate does not link its votes to this law in its open data, so we cannot put them side by side here.
Or see how most of each province voted
- A Coruña More votes against 3 yes · 5 no
- Albacete More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Alicante/Alacant More votes against 4 yes · 7 no
- Almería More votes against 2 yes · 4 no
- Araba/Álava More votes in favour 3 yes · 1 no
- Asturias More votes in favour 5 yes · 3 no
- Ávila More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Badajoz More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Barcelona More votes in favour 23 yes · 7 no
- Bizkaia More votes in favour 6 yes · 1 no
- Burgos More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Cáceres More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Cádiz More votes against 2 yes · 5 no · 1 abst.
- Cantabria More votes against 1 yes · 4 no
- Castellón/Castelló More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Ceuta More votes against 0 yes · 1 no
- Ciudad Real More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Córdoba Tie 3 yes · 3 no
- Cuenca More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Gipuzkoa More votes in favour 4 yes · 1 no
- Girona More votes in favour 5 yes · 1 no
- Granada More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
- Guadalajara More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Huelva Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Huesca More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Illes Balears More votes against 3 yes · 5 no
- Jaén Tie 3 yes · 3 no
- La Rioja More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Las Palmas More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
- León More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Lleida More votes in favour 3 yes · 1 no
- Lugo More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Madrid Tie 16 yes · 16 no
- Málaga More votes against 4 yes · 6 no
- Melilla More votes against 0 yes · 1 no
- Murcia More votes against 2 yes · 8 no
- Navarra More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Ourense More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Palencia More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Pontevedra More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Salamanca More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Santa Cruz de Tenerife More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
- Segovia More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Sevilla More votes in favour 7 yes · 5 no
- Soria Tie 1 yes · 1 no
- Tarragona More votes in favour 4 yes · 2 no
- Teruel More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Toledo More votes against 2 yes · 4 no
- Valencia/València More votes against 7 yes · 8 no
- Valladolid More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Zamora More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Zaragoza More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
More details: how each group and each province voted
The groups
Who voted in favour and who against?
In favour, most of Socialista, Vasco (EAJ-PNV), Mixto, GC-CiU, GIP and GUPyD. Against, most of Popular en el Congreso. 2 deputies voted differently from their group.
By province: in 10 most voted in favour; in 37, against.
Coloured by how most of each province’s deputies voted.
- In favour: 10
- Against: 37
- Tie: 5
| Group | Seats | How it voted |
|---|---|---|
| Socialista | 110 | 104 in favour · 1 against · 1 abst. · 4 did not vote |
| Vasco (EAJ-PNV) | 5 | 5 in favour |
| Mixto | 18 | 15 in favour · 3 did not vote |
| GC-CiU | 16 | 15 in favour · 1 did not vote |
| GIP | 11 | 11 in favour |
| GUPyD | 5 | 5 in favour |
| Popular en el Congreso | 185 | 176 against · 9 did not vote |
What happens next
What happens now?
It goes no further. A similar one could be introduced later.
Sources
Where does all this come from?
- Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000126
Official title, type, author, dates and stage.
Retrieved 11 November 2026
- Congreso de los Diputados, vote 3 of sitting 165
The count and every seat’s vote.
Retrieved 10 November 2026
- The data comes from the open files of the Congreso, the Senate and the BOE, unaltered.
- Each deputy’s province is the one of their seat on the day of the vote.
- We only say “passed” or “rejected” when the majority needed is certain; otherwise we say which side had more votes.