Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-01-Speech-4-036"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2007-02-01"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Acordul privind achiziţiile publice (AAP) (dezbatere)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070201.4.4-036"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-02-01-Speech-4-037⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Syed Kamall⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, I should like to congratulate you once again, and to thank the Commissioner. In Britain, SMEs are unfairly shut out of public procurement due to well-meaning requirements such as corporate social responsibility and environmental standards; quite often a requirement for three years of audited accounts, which many small businesses cannot meet; a lack of competitive tendering; the bundling of contracts that become too big for SMEs and favour the large companies; and secrecy and a lack of transparency. We know that the EU directive requires transparency and competitive tendering, but most contracts that SMEs bid for are quite often below the threshold. So when you speak to SMEs and ask them what they want to see, they say they want to see a cut in bureaucracy and paperwork. They want to see authorities avoiding the one-size-fits-all requirement for certification. They want to see contracts advertised on websites such as ‘supply2.gov’, and they also want to see unbundled contracts. But we have to recognise that government departments are not commercial organisations and will often want to seek to avoid the extra work involved in multiple tenders, so we therefore need to provide incentives for governments and local government. In America, targets have been provided as to whether fair competition actually does or does not exist. SMEs do not require quotas, but they need a performance metric to see whether there is fair competition. Also in America there are small SME advisers helping the government to enable SMEs to have fair access. These requirements – benchmarks and competition advocates – would probably not be allowed under the WTO agreement, and I understand the reason, but it does unintentionally forbid measures which ensure fair competition. The WTO agreement is actually generally positive, as it is anti-protectionist, but it forbids measures which are needed to help small businesses. So while some Member States want an opt-out, others rightly fear that this would increase protectionism. Therefore, let us call on the Commission to seek a compromise whereby an opt-out is secured, but a new agreement is drafted to allow SME-friendly measures and to greatly extend anti-protectionist measures. If we allow SME-friendly measures, the agreement would remove America’s reasons for its opt-out, which has been used to retain the Buy America Act. It would also help British and European SMEs to compete globally."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (2005-05-12--2009-07-13)²³ substitute; Delegation for relations with Canada (2005-06-13--2007-03-13)²³ unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (2005-05-12--2009-07-13)²³ substitute; LIBE (2007-01-31--2008-06-03)²³ member; INTA (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)²³
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I should like to congratulate you once again, and to thank the Commissioner. In Britain, SMEs are unfairly shut out of public procurement due to well-meaning requirements such as corporate social responsibility and environmental standards; quite often a requirement for three years of audited accounts, which many small businesses cannot meet; a lack of competitive tendering; the bundling of contracts that become too big for SMEs and favour the large companies; and secrecy and a lack of transparency. We know that the EU directive requires transparency and competitive tendering, but most contracts that SMEs bid for are quite often below the threshold. So when you speak to SMEs and ask them what they want to see, they say they want to see a cut in bureaucracy and paperwork. They want to see authorities avoiding the one-size-fits-all requirement for certification. They want to see contracts advertised on websites such as ‘supply2.gov’, and they also want to see unbundled contracts. But we have to recognise that government departments are not commercial organisations and will often want to seek to avoid the extra work involved in multiple tenders, so we therefore need to provide incentives for governments and local government. In America, targets have been provided as to whether fair competition actually does or does not exist. SMEs do not require quotas, but they need a performance metric to see whether there is fair competition. Also in America there are small SME advisers helping the government to enable SMEs to have fair access. These requirements – benchmarks and competition advocates – would probably not be allowed under the WTO agreement, and I understand the reason, but it does unintentionally forbid measures which ensure fair competition. The WTO agreement is actually generally positive, as it is anti-protectionist, but it forbids measures which are needed to help small businesses. So while some Member States want an opt-out, others rightly fear that this would increase protectionism. Therefore, let us call on the Commission to seek a compromise whereby an opt-out is secured, but a new agreement is drafted to allow SME-friendly measures and to greatly extend anti-protectionist measures. If we allow SME-friendly measures, the agreement would remove America’s reasons for its opt-out, which has been used to retain the Buy America Act. It would also help British and European SMEs to compete globally."@cs¹ "Hr. formand! Jeg vil gerne lykønske Dem igen og sige tak til kommissæren. I Storbritannien udelukkes SMV'erne på uretfærdig vis fra offentlige indkøb som følge af velmenende krav om f.eks. virksomhedernes sociale ansvar og miljøstandarder; ofte et krav om tre år med reviderede regnskaber, hvilket mange mindre virksomheder ikke kan opfylde; manglende konkurrence ved udbudene; sammenlægning af kontrakter, så de bliver for store for SMV'erne og favoriserer store virksomheder; samt fortrolighed og manglende åbenhed. Vi ved, at EU-direktiverne indeholder krav om åbenhed og konkurrence inden for udbudene, men de fleste kontrakter, som SMV'erne byder på, ligger ret ofte under tærsklen. Så når man taler med SMV'er og spørger dem, hvad de ønsker, svarer de mindre bureaukrati og papirarbejde. De ønsker, at myndighederne undgår det generelle krav om certificering. De ønsker, at kontrakterne annonceres på websteder som "supply2.gov", og de ønsker også, at kontrakterne ikke kombineres. Men vi må erkende, at ministerierne ikke er kommercielle organisationer og ofte ønsker at undgå det ekstra arbejde ved flere forskellige udbud, så derfor må vi tilbyde incitamenter til regeringerne og de lokale myndigheder. I USA har man indført nogle mål for at undersøge, hvorvidt man virkelig har eller ikke har retfærdig konkurrence. SMV'er kræver ikke kvoter, men de har brug for en måling af resultaterne for at se, hvorvidt der hersker fri konkurrence. I USA har man også rådgivere for små SMV'er, der hjælper det offentlige med at sikre SMV'erne lige adgang. Disse krav - benchmarks og konkurrenceadvokater - vil formentlig ikke være tilladt i henhold til WTO-aftalen, og jeg forstår begrundelsen, men den hindrer uforvarende foranstaltninger, der sikrer retfærdig konkurrence. WTO-aftalen er faktisk hovedsagelig positiv, fordi den er anti-protektionistisk, men den forhindrer foranstaltninger, der er nødvendige for at hjælpe de små virksomheder. Så mens nogle medlemsstater ønsker at trække sig ud, frygter andre med rette, at dette vil forøge protektionismen. Lad os derfor opfordre Kommissionen til at lede efter et kompromis, hvor man sikres muligheden for at vælge fra, men hvor der samtidig udformes en ny aftale for at give mulighed for SMV-venlige foranstaltninger og for at udvide de anti-protektionistiske foranstaltninger betydeligt. Hvis vi tillader SMV-venlige foranstaltninger, vil aftalen fjerne USA's begrundelser for at holde sig udenfor, som landet har benyttet til at holde fast i loven om at købe amerikansk. Det vil også hjælpe de britiske og europæiske SMV'er til at kunne konkurrere på globalt plan."@da² "Herr Präsident! Ich möchte Ihnen noch einmal gratulieren und dem Kommissar danken. In Großbritannien sind KMU aufgrund wohl gemeinter Anforderungen wie dem verantwortungsbewussten Unternehmertum und Umweltstandards ungerechterweise vom öffentlichen Beschaffungswesen ausgeschlossen. Recht häufig liegt es an der Bestimmung, dass die geprüften Rechnungsabschlüsse der letzten drei Jahre vorgelegt werden müssen, der viele Kleinunternehmen nicht nachkommen können; an mangelnden Ausschreibungen; an der Bündelung von Aufträgen, die damit zu groß für KMU werden und große Unternehmen begünstigen, und an Heimlichtuerei und zu wenig Transparenz. Wir wissen, dass die EU-Richtlinie Transparenz und Ausschreibungen verlangt, doch die meisten Aufträge, für die KMU bieten, liegen oft unter der genannten Grenze. Wenn man KMU nach ihren Wünschen fragt, dann wollen sie weniger Bürokratie und Formalitäten. Sie wollen, dass die Behörden die Einheitsanforderungen für eine Registrierung umgehen. Sie wollen, dass Ausschreibungen auf Webseiten wie „supply2.gov“ veröffentlich werden, und sie wollen auch, dass Aufträge nicht mehr gebündelt werden. Doch wir müssen uns darüber im Klaren sein, dass Regierungsstellen keine Wirtschaftsunternehmen und häufig versuchen, die zusätzliche Arbeit zu vermeiden, die bei mehrfachen Ausschreibungen anfällt. Deshalb müssen wir Anreize für Regierungen und Lokalbehörden schaffen. In den USA wurden Zielwerte festgelegt, um zu prüfen, ob ein fairer Wettbewerb besteht. KMU benötigen keine Quoten, aber einen Leistungsmaßstab, um zu sehen, ob ein fairer Wettbewerb herrscht. In den USA gibt es zudem KMU-Berater, die die Regierung dabei unterstützen, einen gleichberechtigten Zugang für KMU sicherzustellen. Diese Anforderungen – Richtwerte und Wettbewerbsbeistände – wären im Rahmen des WTO-Übereinkommens wahrscheinlich nicht zulässig, und ich kann den Grund nachvollziehen, doch damit werden unbeabsichtigt auch Maßnahmen untersagt, die einen fairen Wettbewerb gewährleisten. Im Grunde ist das WTO-Übereinkommen generell positiv, weil es sich gegen Protektionismus richtet, aber es untersagt auch Maßnahmen, die notwendig sind, um Kleinunternehmen zu helfen. Während einige Mitgliedstaaten also eine Opt-out-Regelung befürworten, befürchten andere zu Recht, dass dies Protektionismus begünstigen würde. Deshalb sollten wir die Kommission auffordern, sich um einen Kompromiss zu bemühen, der eine Opt-out-Regelung sicherstellt, so lange ein neues Übereinkommen aufgesetzt wird, das KMU-freundliche Maßnahmen ermöglicht und antiprotektionistische Maßnahmen deutlich ausweitet. Wenn wir KMU-freundliche ermöglichen, hätten die USA keine Gründe mehr, von der Opt-out-Möglichkeit Gebrauch zu machen, die dazu benutzt wurde, die „Buy American“-Bestimmungen aufrechtzuerhalten. Zudem würde es britische und europäische KMU dabei unterstützen, weltweit in Wettbewerb zu treten."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να σας συγχαρώ και πάλι και να ευχαριστήσω τον Επίτροπο. Στη Βρετανία, οι ΜΜΕ αποκλείονται άδικα από τις δημόσιες συμβάσεις εξαιτίας καλοπροαίρετων απαιτήσεων όπως η εταιρική κοινωνική ευθύνη και τα περιβαλλοντικά πρότυπα· αρκετά συχνά εξαιτίας μιας απαίτησης για ελεγμένους ισολογισμούς τριών ετών, την οποία πολλές μικρές επιχειρήσεις δεν πληρούν, της έλλειψης ανταγωνιστικής υποβολής προσφορών, της σώρευσης συμβάσεων που είναι υπερβολικά μεγάλες για τις ΜΜΕ και ευνοούν τις μεγάλες εταιρείες, και της μυστικότητας και της έλλειψης διαφάνειας. Γνωρίζουμε ότι η κοινοτική οδηγία απαιτεί διαφάνεια και ανταγωνιστική υποβολή προσφορών, αλλά οι περισσότερες συμβάσεις για τις οποίες οι ΜΜΕ υποβάλλουν προσφορές είναι αρκετά συχνά κάτω από το όριο. Συνεπώς, όταν απευθύνεται κάποιος στις ΜΜΕ και τις ρωτά τι θέλουν, απαντούν ότι θέλουν μείωση της γραφειοκρατίας και του όγκου των εγγράφων. Θέλουν να αποφεύγουν οι αρχές τη γενική απαίτηση για πιστοποίηση. Θέλουν να διαφημίζονται οι συμβάσεις σε δικτυακούς τόπους όπως ο «supply2.gov» και θέλουν χωριστές συμβάσεις. Πρέπει όμως να αναγνωρίσουμε ότι οι κυβερνητικές υπηρεσίες δεν είναι εμπορικοί οργανισμοί και συχνά επιθυμούν να αποφεύγουν το πρόσθετο έργο που σχετίζεται με τις πολλαπλές προσφορές, πρέπει επομένως να παρέχουμε κίνητρα στις κυβερνήσεις και στην τοπική αυτοδιοίκηση. Στην Αμερική, παρέχονται στόχοι ως προς το αν υπάρχει ή δεν υπάρχει στην πραγματικότητα δίκαιος ανταγωνισμός. Οι ΜΜΕ δεν χρειάζονται ποσοστώσεις, αλλά ένα σύστημα μέτρησης της απόδοσης για να διαπιστώνεται αν υπάρχει θεμιτός ανταγωνισμός. Επίσης στην Αμερική υπάρχουν σύμβουλοι των ΜΜΕ που βοηθούν την κυβέρνηση να διευκολύνει τις ΜΜΕ να αποκτήσουν θεμιτή πρόσβαση. Αυτές οι απαιτήσεις –τα σημεία αναφοράς και οι υποστηρικτές του ανταγωνισμού– πιθανόν δεν θα επιτρέπονται στο πλαίσιο της συμφωνίας του ΠΟΕ και κατανοώ τον λόγο, αλλά άθελά του απαγορεύει μέτρα που διασφαλίζουν τον θεμιτό ανταγωνισμό. Η συμφωνία στο πλαίσιο του ΠΟΕ είναι πραγματικά θετική σε γενικές γραμμές, καθώς είναι κατά του προστατευτισμού, αλλά απαγορεύει μέτρα τα οποία είναι απαραίτητα για τη διευκόλυνση των μικρών επιχειρήσεων. Έτσι, ενώ ορισμένα κράτη μέλη θέλουν τη δυνατότητα παρέκκλισης, ορισμένα άλλα δικαίως φοβούνται ότι αυτό θα αύξανε τον προστατευτισμό. Κατά συνέπεια, ας ζητήσουμε από την Επιτροπή να επιδιώξει έναν συμβιβασμό σύμφωνα με τον οποίο θα διασφαλίζεται η δυνατότητα παρέκκλισης, αλλά και να εκπονηθεί μια νέα συμφωνία η οποία θα προβλέπει μέτρα φιλικά για τις ΜΜΕ και θα επεκτείνει σε μεγάλο βαθμό τα μέτρα κατά του προστατευτισμού. Αν επιτρέψουμε την εφαρμογή μέτρων φιλικών για τις ΜΜΕ, η συμφωνία θα άρει τους λόγους της Αμερικής για την παρέκκλισή της, η οποία χρησιμοποιήθηκε για να διατηρηθεί ο νόμος Buy America (Αγοράστε αμερικανικά). Θα βοηθούσε επίσης τις βρετανικές και ευρωπαϊκές ΜΜΕ να γίνουν ανταγωνιστικές σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο."@el¹⁰ "Señor Presidente, le felicito una vez más y doy las gracias al señor Comisario. En el Reino Unido, las PYME son injustamente relegadas de los mercados de contratación pública debido a la aplicación de requisitos bienintencionados como la responsabilidad social de las empresas y las normas ambientales; en bastantes casos se exige presentar las cuentas auditadas de tres ejercicios, un requisito que muchas pequeñas empresas no pueden cumplir; la ausencia de licitación competitiva; la agrupación de contratos, que resultan demasiado voluminosos para las PYME y favorecen a las grandes empresas; y el secreto y la falta de transparencia. Sabemos que la directiva de la UE requiere exige transparencia y licitación competitiva, pero la mayoría de los contratos por los que licitan las PYME suelen estar por debajo del umbral. Así que cuando uno habla con las PYME y les pregunta qué es lo que quieren, dicen que quieren que se reduzca la burocracia y el papeleo. Quieren que las autoridades supriman el requisito de certificación aplicable a todos por igual. Quieren que los contratos se anuncien en sitios web como «supply2.gov» y quieren también que no se agrupen los contratos. Pero tenemos que reconocer que las administraciones públicas no son empresas comerciales y que a menudo tratan de evitar el trabajo adicional que implican las sucesivas licitaciones, por lo que tenemos que incentivar a los Gobiernos y las entidades locales. En los Estados Unidos se han fijado objetivos para determinar si existe realmente o no una competencia leal. Las PYME no necesitan cuotas, pero sí indicadores para saber si existe competencia leal. También en los Estados Unidos hay asesores que ayudan al Gobierno a facilitar un acceso justo a las PYME. Estos requisitos –evaluaciones comparativas y defensores de la competencia– probablemente no serían compatibles con el acuerdo de la OMC, y entiendo el motivo, pero este prohíbe de manera no intencionada medidas que aseguran una competencia leal. El acuerdo de la OMC es, de hecho, positivo en términos generales, puesto que es contrario al proteccionismo, pero prohíbe medidas que son necesarias para ayudar a las pequeñas empresas. Así pues, mientras unos Estados miembros desean una exclusión voluntaria, otros temen con razón que eso aumente el proteccionismo. Por tanto, pidamos a la Comisión que busque un compromiso en el que esté asegurada la exclusión voluntaria, pero que se elabore un nuevo acuerdo que permita medidas favorables a las PYME y aumente considerablemente las medidas antiproteccionistas. Si permitimos la adopción de medidas favorables a las PYME, el acuerdo echará por tierra las razones de los Estados Unidos para su exclusión voluntaria, que han esgrimido para mantener la ley estadounidense de contratación pública Ayudaría además a las PYME británicas y europeas a competir en el mercado mundial."@es²¹ "Mr President, I should like to congratulate you once again, and to thank the Commissioner. In Britain, SMEs are unfairly shut out of public procurement due to well-meaning requirements such as corporate social responsibility and environmental standards; quite often a requirement for three years of audited accounts, which many small businesses cannot meet; a lack of competitive tendering; the bundling of contracts that become too big for SMEs and favour the large companies; and secrecy and a lack of transparency. We know that the EU directive requires transparency and competitive tendering, but most contracts that SMEs bid for are quite often below the threshold. So when you speak to SMEs and ask them what they want to see, they say they want to see a cut in bureaucracy and paperwork. They want to see authorities avoiding the one-size-fits-all requirement for certification. They want to see contracts advertised on websites such as ‘supply2.gov’, and they also want to see unbundled contracts. But we have to recognise that government departments are not commercial organisations and will often want to seek to avoid the extra work involved in multiple tenders, so we therefore need to provide incentives for governments and local government. In America, targets have been provided as to whether fair competition actually does or does not exist. SMEs do not require quotas, but they need a performance metric to see whether there is fair competition. Also in America there are small SME advisers helping the government to enable SMEs to have fair access. These requirements – benchmarks and competition advocates – would probably not be allowed under the WTO agreement, and I understand the reason, but it does unintentionally forbid measures which ensure fair competition. The WTO agreement is actually generally positive, as it is anti-protectionist, but it forbids measures which are needed to help small businesses. So while some Member States want an opt-out, others rightly fear that this would increase protectionism. Therefore, let us call on the Commission to seek a compromise whereby an opt-out is secured, but a new agreement is drafted to allow SME-friendly measures and to greatly extend anti-protectionist measures. If we allow SME-friendly measures, the agreement would remove America’s reasons for its opt-out, which has been used to retain the Buy America Act. It would also help British and European SMEs to compete globally."@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, haluan vielä kerran onnitella teitä ja kiittää komission jäsentä. Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa pk-yritykset jätetään epäoikeudenmukaisesti sivuun julkisista hankinnoista hyvää tarkoittavien vaatimusten, kuten yritysten yhteiskuntavastuun ja ympäristönormien, takia. Melko usein pk-yrityksiltä vaaditaan kolmen vuoden tarkastettu tilinpäätös, mikä on monille niistä kohtuutonta. Muita syitä ovat tarjouskilpailujen puute, pk-yrityksille liian laajat mutta suuryrityksille edulliset sopimuspaketit sekä salassapitovelvoite ja avoimuuden puute. Tiedämme, että EU:n direktiivissä edellytetään avoimuutta ja tarjouskilpailuja, mutta useimmat sopimukset, joista pk-yritykset kilpailevat, eivät täytä näitä vaatimuksia. Kysyttäessä pk-yrityksiltä niiden toiveita, ne toivovat byrokratian ja muodollisuuksien karsimista. Ne toivovat viranomaisten luopuvan yleispätevistä todistusvaatimuksista. Ne toivovat, että sopimuksista ilmoitetaan esimerkiksi sellaisilla Internet-sivustoilla kuin "supply2.gov", ja ne toivovat myös, ettei sopimuksia niputettaisi. On kuitenkin ymmärrettävä, etteivät julkiset laitokset ole kaupallisia organisaatioita, ja ne pyrkivät monasti välttämään useiden eri tarjousten aiheuttamaa lisätyötä, joten EU:n on tarjottava hallituksille ja paikallishallinnolle kannustimia. Yhdysvalloissa asetettujen tavoitteiden avulla on tarkoitus selvittää, onko kilpailu todella oikeudenmukaista. Pk-yritykset eivät tarvitse kiintiöitä vaan suoritusarvoja selvittääkseen kilpailun oikeudenmukaisuuden. Yhdysvalloissa on myös pienimuotoista pk-yritysneuvontaa, jolla autetaan hallitusta tarjoamaan pk-yrityksille tasavertaiset mahdollisuudet. Nämä vaatimukset – viitearvot ja kilpailuasiamiehet – eivät todennäköisesti olisi WTO:n sopimuksen mukaan sallittuja, ja ymmärrän syyn siihen, mutta sopimuksessa kielletään tahattomasti toimenpiteet oikeudenmukaisen kilpailun turvaamiseksi. WTO:n sopimus on tosin yleisesti ottaen myönteinen, koska sillä torjutaan protektionismia, mutta siinä kielletään pienyritysten auttamiseen tarvittavat toimenpiteet. Samalla kun toiset jäsenvaltiot haluavat jättäytyä sopimuksen ulkopuolelle, toiset pelkäävät perustellusti tämän lisäävän protektionismia. Kehottakaamme siis komissiota etsimään kompromissiratkaisua, jolla varmistetaan mahdollisuus jättäytyä sopimuksen ulkopuolelle sekä laaditaan uusi sopimus pk-yritysten tukitoimenpiteistä ja protektionismin vastaisten toimenpiteiden huomattavasta laajentamisesta. Sallimalla sopimuksessa pk-yritysten tukitoimenpiteet tehtäisiin tyhjäksi Yhdysvaltojen osallistumattomuusperusteet, joilla on varmistettu Buy American Act -lain säilyttäminen. Siten autettaisiin myös Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan ja Euroopan pk-yrityksiä kilpailemaan maailmanmarkkinoilla."@fi⁷ "Monsieur le Président, je voudrais vous féliciter une fois de plus et je voudrais remercier le commissaire. Au Royaume-Uni, les PME sont injustement tenues à l’écart des marchés publics à cause d’exigences bien intentionnées comme la responsabilité sociale des sociétés et les normes environnementales, la présentation de comptes révisés pour les trois années précédentes - condition difficile à respecter pour de nombreuses petites entreprises -, le manque d’appels d’offres concurrentiels, le couplage de contrats, dont le volume devient trop important pour les PME et qui favorise les grandes entreprises, ainsi que le secret et le manque de transparence. Nous savons que la directive de l’Union européenne nécessite de la transparence et un appel d’offres concurrentiel, mais la plupart des contrats pour lesquels les PME soumissionnent se situent souvent au-dessous du seuil. Alors, quand vous parlez aux PME et que vous leur demandez ce qu’elles veulent, elles disent qu’elles veulent une réduction de la bureaucratie et de la paperasserie. Elles veulent que les autorités évitent d’imposer la même exigence de certification à tout le monde. Elles veulent que les contrats soient publiés en ligne sur des sites comme «supply2.gov» et elles veulent aussi des contrats découplés. Il faut reconnaître néanmoins que les ministères ne sont pas des organisations commerciales et qu’ils chercheront souvent à éviter le surplus de travail qu’impliquent les appels d’offres multiples. Nous devons donc fournir des incitations aux gouvernements et aux autorités locales. Aux États-Unis, des objectifs ont été fixés pour savoir si la concurrence équitable existe ou non. Les PME n’ont pas besoin de quotas, mais elles ont besoin d’un indicateur de performance pour savoir s’il existe une concurrence équitable. Toujours aux États-Unis, des conseillers pour les petites PME aident le gouvernement à garantir aux PME un accès équitable. L’accord de l’OMC sur les marchés publics n’autoriserait probablement pas ces exigences - les benchmarks et les avocats de la concurrence -, et j’en comprends les raisons, mais il interdit involontairement les mesures qui assurent une concurrence équitable. En fait, cet accord est positif dans l’ensemble, parce qu’il est antiprotectionniste, mais il interdit les mesures nécessaires pour aider les petites entreprises. Donc, tandis que certains États membres réclament la clause de renonciation, d’autres craignent à juste titre que cette clause n’augmente le protectionnisme. C’est pourquoi nous devons demander à la Commission de rechercher un compromis qui garantisse la renonciation, mais qui prévoie la rédaction d’un nouvel accord permettant l’adoption de mesures respectueuses des PME et une vaste extension des mesures antiprotectionnistes. Si nous autorisons des mesures respectueuses des PME, l’accord éliminera les raisons que les États-Unis ont de s’abstenir, qui ont servi pour conserver la loi . Cela aiderait aussi les PME britanniques et européennes à rivaliser au niveau mondial."@fr⁸ "Mr President, I should like to congratulate you once again, and to thank the Commissioner. In Britain, SMEs are unfairly shut out of public procurement due to well-meaning requirements such as corporate social responsibility and environmental standards; quite often a requirement for three years of audited accounts, which many small businesses cannot meet; a lack of competitive tendering; the bundling of contracts that become too big for SMEs and favour the large companies; and secrecy and a lack of transparency. We know that the EU directive requires transparency and competitive tendering, but most contracts that SMEs bid for are quite often below the threshold. So when you speak to SMEs and ask them what they want to see, they say they want to see a cut in bureaucracy and paperwork. They want to see authorities avoiding the one-size-fits-all requirement for certification. They want to see contracts advertised on websites such as ‘supply2.gov’, and they also want to see unbundled contracts. But we have to recognise that government departments are not commercial organisations and will often want to seek to avoid the extra work involved in multiple tenders, so we therefore need to provide incentives for governments and local government. In America, targets have been provided as to whether fair competition actually does or does not exist. SMEs do not require quotas, but they need a performance metric to see whether there is fair competition. Also in America there are small SME advisers helping the government to enable SMEs to have fair access. These requirements – benchmarks and competition advocates – would probably not be allowed under the WTO agreement, and I understand the reason, but it does unintentionally forbid measures which ensure fair competition. The WTO agreement is actually generally positive, as it is anti-protectionist, but it forbids measures which are needed to help small businesses. So while some Member States want an opt-out, others rightly fear that this would increase protectionism. Therefore, let us call on the Commission to seek a compromise whereby an opt-out is secured, but a new agreement is drafted to allow SME-friendly measures and to greatly extend anti-protectionist measures. If we allow SME-friendly measures, the agreement would remove America’s reasons for its opt-out, which has been used to retain the Buy America Act. It would also help British and European SMEs to compete globally."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, ancora una volta mi congratulo con lei e ringrazio il Commissario. Nel Regno Unito le PMI sono ingiustamente tagliate fuori dagli appalti pubblici a causa di requisiti stabiliti a fin di bene, come la responsabilità sociale delle imprese e le norme ambientali, nonché molto spesso una condizione di tre anni di contabilità sottoposti a revisione contabile, che molte piccole società non possono soddisfare, l’assenza di licitazione concorrenziale; l’accorpamento di contratti che diventano troppo ingenti per le PMI e favoriscono le grandi imprese, e infine segretezza e mancanza di trasparenza. Noi sappiamo che la direttiva UE richiede trasparenza e gare d’appalto concorrenziali, ma la maggior parte dei contratti per i quali le PMI partecipano alle gare d’appalto è spesso al di sotto della soglia minima. Quindi quando si interpellano le PMI e si chiede loro cosa auspicherebbero, la risposta è che vorrebbero meno burocrazia e meno scartoffie. Vorrebbero che le autorità evitassero i requisiti indifferenziati in materia di certificazione. Vorrebbero che i contratti fossero pubblicati su siti come supply2.gov e vorrebbero anche il frazionamento dei contratti. Ma dobbiamo riconoscere che gli enti pubblici non sono organizzazioni commerciali e spesso cercheranno di evitare il lavoro supplementare che comportano le gare d’appalto multiple, perciò dobbiamo offrire incentivi ai governi e alle amministrazioni locali. In America sono stati fissati criteri atti a stabilire se sussista realmente o meno una concorrenza leale. Non è necessario fissare quote per le PMI, ma per queste imprese c’è bisogno di un sistema di misurazione dell’esecuzione per vedere se vi sia una concorrenza leale. In America esistono anche consulenti per le piccole imprese che aiutano lo Stato a garantire un accesso equo per le PMI. Questi requisiti – parametri e consulenti per la concorrenza – non sarebbero probabilmente permessi nel quadro dell’accordo OMC, e ne capisco la ragione, ma ciò impedisce involontariamente l’introduzione di misure che assicurino una concorrenza equa. L’accordo dell’OMC è di fatto positivo, in generale, poiché è antiprotezionistico, ma non permette misure necessarie per aiutare le piccole imprese. Quindi mentre alcuni Stati membri vogliono un altri temono giustamente che questo aumenterebbe il protezionismo. Esortiamo quindi la Commissione a cercare un compromesso in cui sia assicurato un ma anche a formulare un nuovo accordo che contenga misure favorevoli alle PMI ed estenda decisamente le misure antiprotezionistiche. Se consentissimo misure favorevoli alle PMI, l’accordo eliminerebbe le ragioni per l’ dell’America, usato per mantenere il . Aiuterebbe anche le PMI britanniche ed europee a prendere parte alla concorrenza mondiale."@it¹² "Mr President, I should like to congratulate you once again, and to thank the Commissioner. In Britain, SMEs are unfairly shut out of public procurement due to well-meaning requirements such as corporate social responsibility and environmental standards; quite often a requirement for three years of audited accounts, which many small businesses cannot meet; a lack of competitive tendering; the bundling of contracts that become too big for SMEs and favour the large companies; and secrecy and a lack of transparency. We know that the EU directive requires transparency and competitive tendering, but most contracts that SMEs bid for are quite often below the threshold. So when you speak to SMEs and ask them what they want to see, they say they want to see a cut in bureaucracy and paperwork. They want to see authorities avoiding the one-size-fits-all requirement for certification. They want to see contracts advertised on websites such as ‘supply2.gov’, and they also want to see unbundled contracts. But we have to recognise that government departments are not commercial organisations and will often want to seek to avoid the extra work involved in multiple tenders, so we therefore need to provide incentives for governments and local government. In America, targets have been provided as to whether fair competition actually does or does not exist. SMEs do not require quotas, but they need a performance metric to see whether there is fair competition. Also in America there are small SME advisers helping the government to enable SMEs to have fair access. These requirements – benchmarks and competition advocates – would probably not be allowed under the WTO agreement, and I understand the reason, but it does unintentionally forbid measures which ensure fair competition. The WTO agreement is actually generally positive, as it is anti-protectionist, but it forbids measures which are needed to help small businesses. So while some Member States want an opt-out, others rightly fear that this would increase protectionism. Therefore, let us call on the Commission to seek a compromise whereby an opt-out is secured, but a new agreement is drafted to allow SME-friendly measures and to greatly extend anti-protectionist measures. If we allow SME-friendly measures, the agreement would remove America’s reasons for its opt-out, which has been used to retain the Buy America Act. It would also help British and European SMEs to compete globally."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, I should like to congratulate you once again, and to thank the Commissioner. In Britain, SMEs are unfairly shut out of public procurement due to well-meaning requirements such as corporate social responsibility and environmental standards; quite often a requirement for three years of audited accounts, which many small businesses cannot meet; a lack of competitive tendering; the bundling of contracts that become too big for SMEs and favour the large companies; and secrecy and a lack of transparency. We know that the EU directive requires transparency and competitive tendering, but most contracts that SMEs bid for are quite often below the threshold. So when you speak to SMEs and ask them what they want to see, they say they want to see a cut in bureaucracy and paperwork. They want to see authorities avoiding the one-size-fits-all requirement for certification. They want to see contracts advertised on websites such as ‘supply2.gov’, and they also want to see unbundled contracts. But we have to recognise that government departments are not commercial organisations and will often want to seek to avoid the extra work involved in multiple tenders, so we therefore need to provide incentives for governments and local government. In America, targets have been provided as to whether fair competition actually does or does not exist. SMEs do not require quotas, but they need a performance metric to see whether there is fair competition. Also in America there are small SME advisers helping the government to enable SMEs to have fair access. These requirements – benchmarks and competition advocates – would probably not be allowed under the WTO agreement, and I understand the reason, but it does unintentionally forbid measures which ensure fair competition. The WTO agreement is actually generally positive, as it is anti-protectionist, but it forbids measures which are needed to help small businesses. So while some Member States want an opt-out, others rightly fear that this would increase protectionism. Therefore, let us call on the Commission to seek a compromise whereby an opt-out is secured, but a new agreement is drafted to allow SME-friendly measures and to greatly extend anti-protectionist measures. If we allow SME-friendly measures, the agreement would remove America’s reasons for its opt-out, which has been used to retain the Buy America Act. It would also help British and European SMEs to compete globally."@lv¹³ "Mr President, I should like to congratulate you once again, and to thank the Commissioner. In Britain, SMEs are unfairly shut out of public procurement due to well-meaning requirements such as corporate social responsibility and environmental standards; quite often a requirement for three years of audited accounts, which many small businesses cannot meet; a lack of competitive tendering; the bundling of contracts that become too big for SMEs and favour the large companies; and secrecy and a lack of transparency. We know that the EU directive requires transparency and competitive tendering, but most contracts that SMEs bid for are quite often below the threshold. So when you speak to SMEs and ask them what they want to see, they say they want to see a cut in bureaucracy and paperwork. They want to see authorities avoiding the one-size-fits-all requirement for certification. They want to see contracts advertised on websites such as ‘supply2.gov’, and they also want to see unbundled contracts. But we have to recognise that government departments are not commercial organisations and will often want to seek to avoid the extra work involved in multiple tenders, so we therefore need to provide incentives for governments and local government. In America, targets have been provided as to whether fair competition actually does or does not exist. SMEs do not require quotas, but they need a performance metric to see whether there is fair competition. Also in America there are small SME advisers helping the government to enable SMEs to have fair access. These requirements – benchmarks and competition advocates – would probably not be allowed under the WTO agreement, and I understand the reason, but it does unintentionally forbid measures which ensure fair competition. The WTO agreement is actually generally positive, as it is anti-protectionist, but it forbids measures which are needed to help small businesses. So while some Member States want an opt-out, others rightly fear that this would increase protectionism. Therefore, let us call on the Commission to seek a compromise whereby an opt-out is secured, but a new agreement is drafted to allow SME-friendly measures and to greatly extend anti-protectionist measures. If we allow SME-friendly measures, the agreement would remove America’s reasons for its opt-out, which has been used to retain the Buy America Act. It would also help British and European SMEs to compete globally."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ook ik wil u graag feliciteren en tevens mijn dank overbrengen aan de commissaris. In Engeland worden KMO’s onterecht uitgesloten van overheidsopdrachten als gevolg van goedbedoelde voorschriften op het gebied van maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen en milieunormen; een van die voorwaarden is vaak dat er over een periode van drie jaar gecontroleerde jaarrekeningen overgelegd moeten worden, een voorwaarde waaraan veel kleine bedrijven niet kunnen voldoen. Daarnaast is er een gebrek aan openbare aanbestedingen op basis van eerlijke concurrentieoverwegingen en worden contracten te vaak gebundeld, zodat deze te groot zijn voor KMO’s. Tot slot is er sprake van een voorkeursbehandeling voor grote bedrijven, te veel geheimzinnigheid in de procedures en een gebrek aan transparantie. Wij weten dat transparantie en aanbestedingen op basis van eerlijke concurrentieoverwegingen vereist zijn op basis van de EU-richtlijn, maar de meeste opdrachten waar KMO’s op inschrijven, voldoen niet aan die norm. Als er aan KMO’s gevraagd wordt waar zij behoefte aan hebben, luidt het antwoord “minder bureaucratie en papierwerk”. Zij willen dat de autoriteiten het “one-size-fits-all”-vereiste voor de gunning van opdrachten laten varen. Zij willen dat opdrachten aangekondigd worden via websites als “supply.2.gov” en zij willen geen megacontracten, maar opgesplitste contracten. Wij moeten echter wel onderkennen dat regeringsinstanties geen commerciële organisaties zijn en vaak de extra werkzaamheden willen vermijden die verbonden zijn aan het beoordelen van meerdere deeloffertes. Dat betekent dat wij regeringen en lokale overheidsinstanties op dat gebied stimulansen moeten bieden. In Amerika zijn er streefcijfers vastgesteld om te kunnen bepalen of er al dan niet van een eerlijke mededinging sprake is. KMO’s hebben geen behoefte aan quota’s, maar zij willen prestatie-indicatoren om vast te kunnen stellen of er inderdaad sprake is van eerlijke concurrentie. In Amerika doen overheidsinstanties ook een beroep op KMO-adviseurs om te zorgen dat kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen op een eerlijke toegang tot overheidsopdrachten kunnen rekenen. Dergelijke omstandigheden – hulpmiddelen voor benchmarking en concurrentievoordelen – zijn in het kader van de WTO-overeenkomst waarschijnlijk niet toegestaan, en ik begrijp waarom. Hierdoor worden echter wel onbedoeld maatregelen tegengehouden die voor een eerlijke concurrentie kunnen zorgen. In het algemeen is de strekking van de WTO-overeenkomst eigenlijk positief omdat zij protectionisme tegengaat, maar tegelijkertijd worden maatregelen verboden die noodzakelijk zijn om kleine ondernemingen te steunen. Terwijl een aantal lidstaten dus voorstander is van een “opt-out”, vrezen anderen dat het protectionisme hier juist door wordt bevorderd. Laten wij de Commissie daarom oproepen om een compromis tot stand te brengen waarbij enerzijds die “opt-out” gewaarborgd is, maar anderzijds ook een nieuwe overeenkomst wordt opgesteld die KMO-vriendelijke maatregelen mogelijk maakt en waardoor het antiprotectionisme aanzienlijk wordt uitgebreid. Als wij KMO-vriendelijke maatregelen toestaan, is de achterliggende reden voor de Amerikaanse “opt-out”, het handhaven van de “Buy America Act”, weggenomen. Door dergelijke maatregelen zijn Britse en Europese KMO’s ook beter in staat om op mondiaal niveau de concurrentie aan te gaan."@nl³ "Mr President, I should like to congratulate you once again, and to thank the Commissioner. In Britain, SMEs are unfairly shut out of public procurement due to well-meaning requirements such as corporate social responsibility and environmental standards; quite often a requirement for three years of audited accounts, which many small businesses cannot meet; a lack of competitive tendering; the bundling of contracts that become too big for SMEs and favour the large companies; and secrecy and a lack of transparency. We know that the EU directive requires transparency and competitive tendering, but most contracts that SMEs bid for are quite often below the threshold. So when you speak to SMEs and ask them what they want to see, they say they want to see a cut in bureaucracy and paperwork. They want to see authorities avoiding the one-size-fits-all requirement for certification. They want to see contracts advertised on websites such as ‘supply2.gov’, and they also want to see unbundled contracts. But we have to recognise that government departments are not commercial organisations and will often want to seek to avoid the extra work involved in multiple tenders, so we therefore need to provide incentives for governments and local government. In America, targets have been provided as to whether fair competition actually does or does not exist. SMEs do not require quotas, but they need a performance metric to see whether there is fair competition. Also in America there are small SME advisers helping the government to enable SMEs to have fair access. These requirements – benchmarks and competition advocates – would probably not be allowed under the WTO agreement, and I understand the reason, but it does unintentionally forbid measures which ensure fair competition. The WTO agreement is actually generally positive, as it is anti-protectionist, but it forbids measures which are needed to help small businesses. So while some Member States want an opt-out, others rightly fear that this would increase protectionism. Therefore, let us call on the Commission to seek a compromise whereby an opt-out is secured, but a new agreement is drafted to allow SME-friendly measures and to greatly extend anti-protectionist measures. If we allow SME-friendly measures, the agreement would remove America’s reasons for its opt-out, which has been used to retain the Buy America Act. It would also help British and European SMEs to compete globally."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, gostaria de o felicitar mais uma vez, e agradecer ao senhor Comissário."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, I should like to congratulate you once again, and to thank the Commissioner. In Britain, SMEs are unfairly shut out of public procurement due to well-meaning requirements such as corporate social responsibility and environmental standards; quite often a requirement for three years of audited accounts, which many small businesses cannot meet; a lack of competitive tendering; the bundling of contracts that become too big for SMEs and favour the large companies; and secrecy and a lack of transparency. We know that the EU directive requires transparency and competitive tendering, but most contracts that SMEs bid for are quite often below the threshold. So when you speak to SMEs and ask them what they want to see, they say they want to see a cut in bureaucracy and paperwork. They want to see authorities avoiding the one-size-fits-all requirement for certification. They want to see contracts advertised on websites such as ‘supply2.gov’, and they also want to see unbundled contracts. But we have to recognise that government departments are not commercial organisations and will often want to seek to avoid the extra work involved in multiple tenders, so we therefore need to provide incentives for governments and local government. In America, targets have been provided as to whether fair competition actually does or does not exist. SMEs do not require quotas, but they need a performance metric to see whether there is fair competition. Also in America there are small SME advisers helping the government to enable SMEs to have fair access. These requirements – benchmarks and competition advocates – would probably not be allowed under the WTO agreement, and I understand the reason, but it does unintentionally forbid measures which ensure fair competition. The WTO agreement is actually generally positive, as it is anti-protectionist, but it forbids measures which are needed to help small businesses. So while some Member States want an opt-out, others rightly fear that this would increase protectionism. Therefore, let us call on the Commission to seek a compromise whereby an opt-out is secured, but a new agreement is drafted to allow SME-friendly measures and to greatly extend anti-protectionist measures. If we allow SME-friendly measures, the agreement would remove America’s reasons for its opt-out, which has been used to retain the Buy America Act. It would also help British and European SMEs to compete globally."@ro¹⁸ "Mr President, I should like to congratulate you once again, and to thank the Commissioner. In Britain, SMEs are unfairly shut out of public procurement due to well-meaning requirements such as corporate social responsibility and environmental standards; quite often a requirement for three years of audited accounts, which many small businesses cannot meet; a lack of competitive tendering; the bundling of contracts that become too big for SMEs and favour the large companies; and secrecy and a lack of transparency. We know that the EU directive requires transparency and competitive tendering, but most contracts that SMEs bid for are quite often below the threshold. So when you speak to SMEs and ask them what they want to see, they say they want to see a cut in bureaucracy and paperwork. They want to see authorities avoiding the one-size-fits-all requirement for certification. They want to see contracts advertised on websites such as ‘supply2.gov’, and they also want to see unbundled contracts. But we have to recognise that government departments are not commercial organisations and will often want to seek to avoid the extra work involved in multiple tenders, so we therefore need to provide incentives for governments and local government. In America, targets have been provided as to whether fair competition actually does or does not exist. SMEs do not require quotas, but they need a performance metric to see whether there is fair competition. Also in America there are small SME advisers helping the government to enable SMEs to have fair access. These requirements – benchmarks and competition advocates – would probably not be allowed under the WTO agreement, and I understand the reason, but it does unintentionally forbid measures which ensure fair competition. The WTO agreement is actually generally positive, as it is anti-protectionist, but it forbids measures which are needed to help small businesses. So while some Member States want an opt-out, others rightly fear that this would increase protectionism. Therefore, let us call on the Commission to seek a compromise whereby an opt-out is secured, but a new agreement is drafted to allow SME-friendly measures and to greatly extend anti-protectionist measures. If we allow SME-friendly measures, the agreement would remove America’s reasons for its opt-out, which has been used to retain the Buy America Act. It would also help British and European SMEs to compete globally."@sk¹⁹ "Mr President, I should like to congratulate you once again, and to thank the Commissioner. In Britain, SMEs are unfairly shut out of public procurement due to well-meaning requirements such as corporate social responsibility and environmental standards; quite often a requirement for three years of audited accounts, which many small businesses cannot meet; a lack of competitive tendering; the bundling of contracts that become too big for SMEs and favour the large companies; and secrecy and a lack of transparency. We know that the EU directive requires transparency and competitive tendering, but most contracts that SMEs bid for are quite often below the threshold. So when you speak to SMEs and ask them what they want to see, they say they want to see a cut in bureaucracy and paperwork. They want to see authorities avoiding the one-size-fits-all requirement for certification. They want to see contracts advertised on websites such as ‘supply2.gov’, and they also want to see unbundled contracts. But we have to recognise that government departments are not commercial organisations and will often want to seek to avoid the extra work involved in multiple tenders, so we therefore need to provide incentives for governments and local government. In America, targets have been provided as to whether fair competition actually does or does not exist. SMEs do not require quotas, but they need a performance metric to see whether there is fair competition. Also in America there are small SME advisers helping the government to enable SMEs to have fair access. These requirements – benchmarks and competition advocates – would probably not be allowed under the WTO agreement, and I understand the reason, but it does unintentionally forbid measures which ensure fair competition. The WTO agreement is actually generally positive, as it is anti-protectionist, but it forbids measures which are needed to help small businesses. So while some Member States want an opt-out, others rightly fear that this would increase protectionism. Therefore, let us call on the Commission to seek a compromise whereby an opt-out is secured, but a new agreement is drafted to allow SME-friendly measures and to greatly extend anti-protectionist measures. If we allow SME-friendly measures, the agreement would remove America’s reasons for its opt-out, which has been used to retain the Buy America Act. It would also help British and European SMEs to compete globally."@sl²⁰ "Herr talman! Jag vill lyckönska er än en gång, och jag vill även tacka kommissionsledamoten. I Storbritannien utestängs de små och medelstora företagen på ett orättvist sätt från offentlig upphandling på grund av de välmenande krav som är knutna till företagens sociala ansvar och miljönormer. Det ställs ganska ofta krav på tre års reviderade räkenskaper, något som småföretagen inte kan uppfylla. Det sker inte någon konkurrensutsatt anbudsinfordran. Kontraktspaket som blir alltför omfattande för små och medelstora företag förekommer, vilket gynnar storföretagen. Ett annat inslag är hemlighetsmakeri och en brist på insyn och öppenhet. Vi vet att det i EU:s direktiv ställs krav på insyn och på en konkurrensutsatt anbudsinfordran, men de flesta kontrakt som små och medelstora företag lämnar anbud på ligger ganska ofta under tröskelgränsen. När man därför talar med de ansvariga för små och medelstora företag och frågar hur de vill ha det säger de att de vill ha mindre byråkrati och mindre pappersarbete. De vill att myndigheterna ska avstå från kravet på att samma villkor ska gälla för alla när det gäller certifiering. De vill att kontrakten ska annonseras på webbplatser som ”supply2.gov”, och de vill även ha bort kontraktspaketen. Vi måste emellertid inse att regeringsdepartementen inte är några kommersiella organisationer och att de ofta vill försöka undvika det extraarbete som flera anbud innebär, och vi måste alltså tillhandahålla incitament för regeringarna och de lokala myndigheterna. I Förenta staterna har målbeskrivningar tillhandahållits för att ta reda på om det verkligen föreligger en sund konkurrens. Små och medelstora företag kräver inga kvoter, men de behöver ett resultatmått för att se om det föreligger en sund konkurrens. I Förenta staterna finns det även rådgivare för små och medelstora företag, som hjälper regeringen att underlätta för små och medelstora företag att få ett rättvist tillträde. Kraven – riktmärken och konkurrensförespråkare – skulle antagligen inte vara tillåtna enligt WTO-avtalet, och jag förstår skälet till detta, men avtalet innebär ett oavsiktligt förbud mot åtgärder som utgör en garanti för sund konkurrens. WTO-avtalet är ju i stort sett positivt eftersom det är icke-protektionistiskt, men det innebär ett förbud mot de åtgärder som är nödvändiga för att underlätta för småföretagen. Medan vissa medlemsstater alltså vill ha en möjlighet till undantag finns det andra som med all rätt befarar att detta skulle innebära ökad protektionism. Jag föreslår därför att vi uppmanar kommissionen att utarbeta en kompromisslösning som innebär att undantag får göras men att ett nytt avtal utarbetas som syftar dels till att möjliggöra åtgärder som gynnar de små och medelstora företagen, dels till att skapa ett betydligt större utrymme för icke-protektionistiska åtgärder. Om vi tillåter åtgärder som innebär att små och medelstora företag gynnas skulle avtalet bidra till att undanröja de skäl som Förenta staterna anfört för att motivera den undantagsklausul som har legat till grund för att behålla ”Buy American Act”. Avtalet skulle också bidra till att göra det lättare för de brittiska och europeiska små och medelstora företagen att konkurrera på världsmarknaden."@sv²²
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Buy America Act)."²¹ "Buy America"⁸ "Buy America Act"¹² "Syed Kamall (PPE-DE ). –"^{18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4} "opt-out"¹² "web"¹²