Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-01-Speech-4-040"

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.20070201.4.4-040"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-02-01-Speech-4-041⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Charlie McCreevy⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, I should like to thank all Members for their comments. I attach the utmost importance to public procurement. Proper, fair and transparent procedures are crucial not only for businesses that want to bid for projects but also for authorities that would be able to save themselves and taxpayers huge amounts of money if they applied the procedures properly. Getting commitments from our trading partners to open their procurement market for European bidders is essential. Our companies have something to offer. They are competitive, but too often they are simply not allowed or invited to make a bid. SMEs benefit from public procurement. They already have a big share of the market, but I do not think that setting aside quotas or giving preferential treatment is the answer. If we were to do that, so would more of our trading partners and the result would be that European companies would lose out. I believe that all sides are best served by open markets. Our SMEs are dynamic and strong. They will benefit as well. Mrs Mann asked to be kept informed. I shall ask my officials to keep her committee closely informed. They will attend meetings of the committee and will answer your questions about the details of the negotiations. Various Members referred to special arrangements for SMEs and that this should be part of our negotiating stance. As I have said, I do not agree. I agree with a lot of what Mr Kamall said, and his observation that Member States themselves could do a lot to assist their SMEs in the area of public procurement without contravening any rules at all. If they unbundled some of their contracts and cut out a lot of the bureaucracy, that would benefit SMEs substantially, and would not require the setting-aside of quotas. Where I would disagree is with the conclusion drawn by some people that the way to do this better for SMEs is to set aside quotas. Mr Kamall also raised the issue of the United States having a Small Business Act and an agency to deal with these matters. However, the figures show that, either in volume or in quantity terms, SMEs in Europe get a far higher percentage of contracts than they do in the United States. That should be of some interest to people. Therefore, I say – and people are entitled to disagree with my views on this – that public procurement is all about competing: the best goods and services for the lowest amount. That means value for money. Reserving parts of the market underlines this. We were also discussing SMEs in an earlier debate this morning. Members said that SMEs need opportunities. I certainly agree. However, protectionism is not the answer. But, of course, we will not be naive: we expect our trading partners to open their markets as well."@en⁴
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I should like to thank all Members for their comments. I attach the utmost importance to public procurement. Proper, fair and transparent procedures are crucial not only for businesses that want to bid for projects but also for authorities that would be able to save themselves and taxpayers huge amounts of money if they applied the procedures properly. Getting commitments from our trading partners to open their procurement market for European bidders is essential. Our companies have something to offer. They are competitive, but too often they are simply not allowed or invited to make a bid. SMEs benefit from public procurement. They already have a big share of the market, but I do not think that setting aside quotas or giving preferential treatment is the answer. If we were to do that, so would more of our trading partners and the result would be that European companies would lose out. I believe that all sides are best served by open markets. Our SMEs are dynamic and strong. They will benefit as well. Mrs Mann asked to be kept informed. I shall ask my officials to keep her committee closely informed. They will attend meetings of the committee and will answer your questions about the details of the negotiations. Various Members referred to special arrangements for SMEs and that this should be part of our negotiating stance. As I have said, I do not agree. I agree with a lot of what Mr Kamall said, and his observation that Member States themselves could do a lot to assist their SMEs in the area of public procurement without contravening any rules at all. If they unbundled some of their contracts and cut out a lot of the bureaucracy, that would benefit SMEs substantially, and would not require the setting-aside of quotas. Where I would disagree is with the conclusion drawn by some people that the way to do this better for SMEs is to set aside quotas. Mr Kamall also raised the issue of the United States having a Small Business Act and an agency to deal with these matters. However, the figures show that, either in volume or in quantity terms, SMEs in Europe get a far higher percentage of contracts than they do in the United States. That should be of some interest to people. Therefore, I say – and people are entitled to disagree with my views on this – that public procurement is all about competing: the best goods and services for the lowest amount. That means value for money. Reserving parts of the market underlines this. We were also discussing SMEs in an earlier debate this morning. Members said that SMEs need opportunities. I certainly agree. However, protectionism is not the answer. But, of course, we will not be naive: we expect our trading partners to open their markets as well."@cs¹ "Hr. formand! Jeg vil gerne takke alle medlemmer for deres bemærkninger. Jeg lægger stor vægt på offentlige indkøb. Korrekte, retfærdige og gennemsigtige procedurer er nødvendige ikke bare for virksomheder, der ønsker at byde på projekter, men også for myndighederne, som vil kunne spare sig selv og skatteyderne for store beløb, hvis de anvendte disse procedurer korrekt. Det er vigtigt, at vi opnår løfter fra vores samhandelspartnere om, at de vil åbne deres markeder for bydende fra Europa. Vores virksomheder har noget at tilbyde. De er konkurrencedygtige, men for ofte får de ikke lov til eller bliver ikke inviteret til at byde. SMV'erne nyder godt af offentlige indkøb. De har allerede en stor del af markedet, men jeg tror ikke, at indførelse af kvoter eller indførelse af præferencebehandling er svaret. Hvis vi gjorde det, ville vores samhandelspartnere gøre det samme, og resultatet ville være, at de europæiske virksomheder blev taberne. Jeg tror, at alle sider er bedst tjent med åbne markeder. Vores SMV'er er dynamiske og stærke. De vil også få gavn af det. Fru Mann bad om at blive holdt orienteret. Jeg vil bede mine tjenestemænd holde hendes udvalg nøje underrettet. De vil deltage i udvalgets møder og besvare Deres spørgsmål om de nærmere detaljer i forhandlingerne. Forskellige medlemmer henviste til særlige ordninger for SMV'er, og at dette skulle udgøre en del af vores forhandlingsposition. Som sagt er jeg ikke enig. Jeg er enig i meget af det, hr. Kamall sagde, og hans bemærkning om, at medlemsstaterne selv kunne gøre meget for at bistå deres SMV'er i forbindelse med offentlige indkøb uden at overtræde nogen som helst regler. Hvis de frakoblede nogle af deres kontrakter og skar meget af bureaukratiet væk, ville det gavne SMV'erne kolossalt og ville ikke kræve indførelse af kvoter. Jeg er så uenig i konklusionen fra nogle sider om, at det er bedre for SMV'erne at indføre kvoter. Hr. Kamall var også inde på, at USA har en lov for mindre virksomheder og et agentur, der tager sig af disse spørgsmål. Men tallene viser, at både med hensyn til antal og mængder, får SMV'erne i Europa en langt højere procentdel af kontrakterne end i USA. Det burde være af interesse for nogen. Derfor siger jeg - og man har ret til at være uenig med mig her - at offentlige indkøb drejer sig om konkurrence: de bedste varer og tjenester for den laveste pris. Det betyder, at man får noget for pengene. Dette understreges ved at reservere dele af markedet. Vi diskuterede også SMV'er ved en forhandling tidligere i dag. Medlemmerne sagde, at SMV'erne har brug for muligheder. Jeg er helt enig. Men protektionisme er ikke svaret. Men vi skal naturligvis ikke være naive: Vi forventer også, at vores samhandelspartnere åbner deres markeder."@da² ". Herr Präsident! Ich möchte allen Abgeordneten für ihre Anmerkungen danken. Ich messe dem öffentlichen Beschaffungswesen höchste Bedeutung bei. Ordnungsgemäße, faire und transparente Verfahren sind nicht nur für Unternehmen wesentlich, die an Ausschreibungen teilnehmen wollen, sondern auch für Behörden, die für sich selbst und zugunsten der Steuerzahler enorme Summen sparen könnten, wenn sie die Verfahren ordnungsgemäß durchführen würden. Wir brauchen auf jeden Fall die Zusagen unserer Handelspartner einholen, dass sie ihre Beschaffungsmärkte für europäische Bieter öffnen. Unsere Unternehmen haben etwas zu bieten. Sie sind wettbewerbsfähig, doch viel zu oft ist es ihnen nicht erlaubt oder sie werden nicht aufgefordert, ein Gebot vorzulegen. Das öffentliche Beschaffungswesen hat Vorteile für KMU. Sie besitzen bereits einen großen Marktanteil, doch ich denke nicht, dass Quoten festzulegen oder eine Präferenzbehandlung vorzusehen die Antwort ist. Wenn wir dies tun, dann würden mehr Handelspartner nachziehen, und im Ergebnis würden europäische Unternehmen den Kürzeren ziehen. Meiner Meinung nach wäre allen Seiten am besten mit offenen Märkten gedient. Unsere KMU sind dynamisch und stark. Sie werden ebenfalls ihren Nutzen daraus ziehen. Frau Mann hat darum gebeten, auf dem Laufenden gehalten zu werden. Ich werde meine Mitarbeiter bitten, ihren Ausschuss regelmäßig zu unterrichten. Sie werden an Ausschusssitzungen teilnehmen und Ihre Fragen zu Verhandlungsdetails beantworten. Mehrere Abgeordnete haben Sonderregelungen für KMU angesprochen und dass das Teil unserer Verhandlungsposition sein sollten. Wie bereits gesagt, sehe ich das nicht so. Ich stimme vielem von dem zu, was Herr Kamall geäußert hat, auch seiner Feststellung, dass Mitgliedstaaten selbst viel tun könnten, um ihre KMU im Bereich des öffentlichen Beschaffungswesens zu unterstützen, ohne gegen eine einzige Regel zu verstoßen. Es wäre schon deutlich günstiger für KMU, wenn einige Aufträge entbündelt und ein Großteil der Bürokratie abgebaut würden, und Quoten würden sich erübrigen. Der Folgerung einiger Abgeordneter, dass ein besserer Weg für KMU die Reservierung von Quoten wäre, kann ich nicht zustimmen. Herr Kamall ist außerdem angesprochen, dass die USA mit dem „Small Business Act“ über ein Gesetz für Kleinunternehmen sowie über eine Agentur verfügen, die mit diesen Angelegenheiten befasst ist. Die Zahlen zeigen jedoch, dass KMU in Europa sowohl umfang- als auch mengenmäßig einen weit größeren Anteil an Aufträgen erhalten als KMU in den USA. Dies dürfte für einige von Ihnen interessant sein. Ich sage daher – und Sie dürfen mir gerne widersprechen –, dass es beim öffentlichen Beschaffungswesen vor allem um Wettbewerb geht: die besten Waren und Dienstleistungen zum niedrigsten Preis. Dies bedeutet ein gutes Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis. Teile des Marktes zu belegen unterstreicht dies. Wir haben über KMU auch schon in einer Aussprache heute Morgen gesprochen. Die Abgeordneten erklärten, dass KMU Chancen bräuchten. Dem pflichte ich sicherlich bei. Doch Protektionismus ist nicht die Lösung. Aber wir werden natürlich nicht naiv sein: Wir erwarten von unseren Handelspartnern, dass sie ihre Märkte ebenfalls öffnen."@de⁹ ". Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω όλους τους βουλευτές για τις παρατηρήσεις τους. Θεωρώ ότι το θέμα των δημόσιων συμβάσεων είναι ύψιστης σημασίας. Οι ορθές, δίκαιες και διαφανείς διαδικασίες είναι ζωτικής σημασίας όχι μόνο για τις επιχειρήσεις που θέλουν να συμμετάσχουν σε διαγωνισμούς για έργα, αλλά και για τις αρχές που θα μπορούν να εξοικονομήσουν για εκείνες και τους φορολογούμενους τεράστια χρηματικά ποσά αν οι διαδικασίες εφαρμοστούν σωστά. Η εξασφάλιση δεσμεύσεων από τους εμπορικούς εταίρους μας για το άνοιγμα της αγοράς δημόσιων συμβάσεών τους στους Ευρωπαίους που συμμετέχουν σε διαγωνισμούς είναι ουσιαστικής σημασίας. Οι εταιρείες μας έχουν πολλά να προσφέρουν. Είναι ανταγωνιστικές, αλλά συχνά δεν έχουν το δικαίωμα ή δεν καλούνται να υποβάλουν προσφορές. Οι ΜΜΕ ωφελούνται από τις δημόσιες συμβάσεις. Κατέχουν ήδη ένα μεγάλο μερίδιο της αγοράς, αλλά δεν πιστεύω ότι η απάντηση έγκειται στην εφαρμογή ποσοστώσεων ή την προτιμησιακή μεταχείριση. Αν το κάναμε αυτό, θα έκαναν το ίδιο και οι περισσότεροι εμπορικοί εταίροι μας και το αποτέλεσμα θα ήταν αρνητικό για τις ευρωπαϊκές εταιρείες. Πιστεύω ότι όλες οι πλευρές εξυπηρετούνται καλύτερα με τις ανοιχτές αγορές. Οι ΜΜΕ μας είναι δυναμικές και ισχυρές. Θα ωφεληθούν και αυτές. Η κ. Mann ζήτησε να τηρείται ενήμερη. Θα ζητήσω από τους υπαλλήλους μου να κρατούν την επιτροπή της ενήμερη. Θα παρίστανται σε συνεδριάσεις της επιτροπής και θα απαντούν στις ερωτήσεις σας σχετικά με τις λεπτομέρειες των διαπραγματεύσεων. Διάφοροι βουλευτές αναφέρθηκαν στις ειδικές ρυθμίσεις για τις ΜΜΕ και ότι αυτό θα πρέπει να αποτελέσει μέρος της διαπραγματευτικής μας θέσης. Όπως είπα, δεν συμφωνώ. Συμφωνώ με πολλά από όσα είπε ο κ. Kamall και με την παρατήρησή του ότι τα ίδια τα κράτη μέλη θα μπορούσαν να κάνουν πολλά για να βοηθήσουν τις ΜΜΕ τους στον τομέα των δημόσιων συμβάσεων χωρίς να παραβαίνουν κανέναν απολύτως κανόνα. Αν διαχώριζαν ορισμένες από τις συμβάσεις τους και εξάλειφαν ένα μεγάλο μέρος της γραφειοκρατίας, αυτό θα ωφελούσε σημαντικά τις ΜΜΕ και δεν θα χρειαζόταν η εφαρμογή ποσοστώσεων. Εκεί που θα διαφωνούσα είναι με το συμπέρασμα ορισμένων ότι για να γίνει αυτό με τον καλύτερο τρόπο για τις ΜΜΕ θα πρέπει να εφαρμοστούν ποσοστώσεις. Ο κ. Kamall έθεσε επίσης το θέμα των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, οι οποίες έχουν έναν νόμο για τις μικρές επιχειρήσεις και μια υπηρεσία που ασχολείται με αυτά τα θέματα. Ωστόσο, τα αριθμητικά στοιχεία δείχνουν ότι, είτε ως προς τον όγκο είτε ως προς την ποσότητα, οι ΜΜΕ στην Ευρώπη λαμβάνουν πολύ μεγαλύτερο ποσοστό συμβάσεων από ό,τι στις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες. Αυτό θα πρέπει να ενδιαφέρει πολλούς. Επομένως, υποστηρίζω –και έχετε το δικαίωμα να διαφωνήσετε με τις απόψεις μου σε αυτό το θέμα– ότι οι δημόσιες συμβάσεις έχουν να κάνουν με τον ανταγωνισμό: τα καλύτερα αγαθά και υπηρεσίες για το χαμηλότερο ποσό. Αυτό σημαίνει σχέση κόστους-ωφέλειας. Η διατήρηση τμημάτων της αγοράς υπογραμμίζει αυτήν την ανάγκη. Συζητούσαμε επίσης για τις ΜΜΕ σε μια προηγούμενη συζήτηση σήμερα το πρωί. Οι βουλευτές είπαν ότι οι ΜΜΕ χρειάζονται ευκαιρίες. Συμφωνώ απολύτως. Ωστόσο, ο προστατευτισμός δεν είναι η απάντηση. Αλλά, φυσικά, δεν πρόκειται να φανούμε αφελείς: περιμένουμε και από τους εμπορικούς εταίρους μας να ανοίξουν τις αγορές τους."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, quiero dar las gracias a todos los diputados por sus comentarios. La contratación pública es a mi juicio sumamente importante. La existencia de procedimientos adecuados, justos y transparentes es crucial, no solo para las empresas que quieran licitar por la adjudicación de proyectos, sino también para las autoridades que podrán ahorrarse a sí mismas y a los contribuyentes ingentes sumas de dinero si aplican correctamente esos procedimientos. Es fundamental que consigamos de nuestros socios comerciales el compromiso de abrir sus mercados de contratación pública a licitantes europeos. Nuestras empresas tienen algo que ofrecer. Son competitivas, pero demasiado a menudo no se les permite o no se les invita a licitar. Las PYME se benefician de la contratación pública. Ya tienen una importante cuota de mercado, pero no creo que la respuesta esté en la reserva de cuotas o en un trato preferente. Si hiciéramos eso, más socios comerciales nuestros harían lo mismo y el resultado sería que las empresas europeas saldrían perjudicadas. Creo que todas las partes se benefician de unos mercados abiertos. Nuestras PYME son dinámicas y fuertes. Ellas también se beneficiarán. La señora Mann ha pedido que se la mantenga informada. Pediré a mis funcionarios que mantengan perfectamente informada a su comisión. Asistirán a las reuniones de la comisión y responderán a sus preguntas sobre los detalles de las negociaciones. Varios diputados se han referido a medidas especiales para las PYME y a la necesidad de que formen parte de nuestra posición negociadora. Como ya he dicho, no estoy de acuerdo con esto. Estoy de acuerdo con mucho de lo que ha dicho el señor Kamall y con su comentario de que los propios Estados miembros pueden hacer mucho por ayudar a sus PYME en el ámbito de la contratación pública sin incumplir ninguna regla. Si se desagrupan algunos de sus contratos y se reduce buena parte de la burocracia, las PYME se verán muy beneficiadas y se evitará la necesidad de reservar cuotas para ellas. Pero discrepo de la conclusión sacada por algunas personas de que la mejor forma de hacer eso para las PYME consiste en reservar cuotas. El señor Kamall ha recordado también que los Estados Unidos tienen una Ley sobre las pequeñas empresas y una agencia que se ocupa de estos asuntos. No obstante, las cifras demuestran que, tanto en volumen como en cantidad, las PYME en Europa obtienen un porcentaje mucho mayor de contratos que en los Estados Unidos. Eso debería interesarles. Por tanto, digo –y tienen derecho a discrepar de mi opinión al respecto– que la contratación pública consiste básicamente en competir para ofrecer los mejores bienes y servicios al menor precio. Eso significa optimizar los recursos. La reserva de partes del mercado subraya esto. Esta misma mañana ya hemos debatido también sobre las PYME. Algunos diputados han dicho que las PYME necesitan oportunidades. Estoy totalmente de acuerdo. Pero el proteccionismo no es la respuesta. Por supuesto, no seremos ingenuos: esperamos que nuestros socios comerciales abran también sus mercados."@es²¹ "Mr President, I should like to thank all Members for their comments. I attach the utmost importance to public procurement. Proper, fair and transparent procedures are crucial not only for businesses that want to bid for projects but also for authorities that would be able to save themselves and taxpayers huge amounts of money if they applied the procedures properly. Getting commitments from our trading partners to open their procurement market for European bidders is essential. Our companies have something to offer. They are competitive, but too often they are simply not allowed or invited to make a bid. SMEs benefit from public procurement. They already have a big share of the market, but I do not think that setting aside quotas or giving preferential treatment is the answer. If we were to do that, so would more of our trading partners and the result would be that European companies would lose out. I believe that all sides are best served by open markets. Our SMEs are dynamic and strong. They will benefit as well. Mrs Mann asked to be kept informed. I shall ask my officials to keep her committee closely informed. They will attend meetings of the committee and will answer your questions about the details of the negotiations. Various Members referred to special arrangements for SMEs and that this should be part of our negotiating stance. As I have said, I do not agree. I agree with a lot of what Mr Kamall said, and his observation that Member States themselves could do a lot to assist their SMEs in the area of public procurement without contravening any rules at all. If they unbundled some of their contracts and cut out a lot of the bureaucracy, that would benefit SMEs substantially, and would not require the setting-aside of quotas. Where I would disagree is with the conclusion drawn by some people that the way to do this better for SMEs is to set aside quotas. Mr Kamall also raised the issue of the United States having a Small Business Act and an agency to deal with these matters. However, the figures show that, either in volume or in quantity terms, SMEs in Europe get a far higher percentage of contracts than they do in the United States. That should be of some interest to people. Therefore, I say – and people are entitled to disagree with my views on this – that public procurement is all about competing: the best goods and services for the lowest amount. That means value for money. Reserving parts of the market underlines this. We were also discussing SMEs in an earlier debate this morning. Members said that SMEs need opportunities. I certainly agree. However, protectionism is not the answer. But, of course, we will not be naive: we expect our trading partners to open their markets as well."@et⁵ ". Arvoisa puhemies, kiitän kaikkia parlamentin jäseniä heidän huomautuksistaan. Panen erittäin paljon painoa julkisille hankinnoille. Oikeat, oikeudenmukaiset ja avoimet menettelyt ovat ratkaisevan tärkeitä sekä yrityksille, jotka haluavat osallistua hankkeista käytäviin tarjouskilpailuihin, että viranomaisille, jotka pystyisivät säästämään valtavat määrät omaa ja veronmaksajien rahaa soveltamalla menettelyjä asianmukaisesti. On oleellista saada kauppakumppaneiltamme lupaus hankintamarkkinoiden avaamisesta eurooppalaisille tarjouksentekijöille. Yhtiöillämme on jotakin tarjottavaa. Ne ovat kilpailukykyisiä, mutta liian usein ne eivät yksinkertaisesti saa lupaa tehdä tarjousta tai niille ei esitetä tarjouspyyntöä. Pk-yritykset hyötyvät julkisista hankinnoista. Niillä on jo iso markkinaosuus, mutta mielestäni kiintiöistä luopuminen tai suosituimmuuskohtelu ei ole ratkaisu. Jos turvautuisimme näihin keinoihin, niin tekisi myös suurempi osa kauppakumppaneistamme, ja eurooppalaiset yritykset jäisivät tappiolle. Mielestäni kaikki osapuolet hyötyvät eniten avoimista markkinoista. EU:n pk-yritykset ovat aktiivisia ja vahvoja, joten nekin hyötyvät. Jäsen Mann halusi pysyä ajan tasalla. Kehotan virkamiehiäni toimittamaan valiokunnalle tarkat tiedot. He osallistuvat valiokunnan kokouksiin ja vastaavat kysymyksiinne neuvottelujen yksityiskohdista. Useat jäsenvaltiot mainitsivat pk-yrityksiä koskevat erityisjärjestelyt, jotka on niiden mielestä sisällytettävä komission neuvottelukantaan. Totesin, etten ole samaa mieltä. Olen Jäsen Kamallin kanssa samaa mieltä monesta asiasta ja hänen huomautuksestaan, jonka mukaan jäsenvaltiot voisivat itse tehdä paljon pk-yritystensä hyväksi julkisten hankintojen alalla rikkomatta sääntöjä. Jos ne keventäisivät joitakin sopimuksiaan ja karsisivat byrokratiaa reippaalla kädellä, siitä olisi pk-yrityksille tuntuvaa hyötyä, eikä kiintiöistä tarvitsisi luopua. Sen sijaan olen eri mieltä joidenkin ihmisten päätelmästä, jonka mukaan pk-yritysten kannalta tämä voitaisiin tehdä paremmin luopumalla kiintiöistä. Jäsen Kamall toi myös esiin Yhdysvaltojen pienyrityslakia ja näitä asioita käsittelevää virastoa koskevan kysymyksen. Luvuista kuitenkin käy ilmi, että Euroopassa pk-yritykset saavat joko paljon laajemman tai määrältään suuremman osuuden sopimuksista kuin Yhdysvalloissa. Tällä luulisi olevan jotain merkitystä ihmisille. Siksi totean – ja ihmisillä on oikeus olla eri mieltä näkemyksistäni – että julkisissa hankinnoissa on kyse kilpailusta: parhaat tavarat ja palvelut pienimmällä rahamäärällä, toisin sanoen vastinetta rahoille. Tätä korostetaan varaamalla osa markkinoista. Keskustelimme myös aiemmin tänä aamuna pk-yrityksistä. Parlamentin jäsenet totesivat niiden tarvitsevan mahdollisuuksia. Olen aivan samaa mieltä. Protektionismi ei kuitenkaan ole ratkaisu. Tästä huolimatta emme tietenkään ole naiiveja, vaan odotamme myös kauppakumppaneidemme avaavan markkinansa."@fi⁷ "Monsieur le Président, je voudrais remercier tous les députés pour leurs commentaires. J’attache la plus grande importance aux marchés publics. Des procédures appropriées, équitables et transparentes sont essentielles non seulement pour les entreprises qui souhaitent soumissionner, mais aussi pour les autorités qui pourraient économiser et faire économiser aux contribuables beaucoup d’argent si elles appliquaient les procédures comme il se doit. Il est essentiel d’obtenir l’engagement de nos partenaires commerciaux à ouvrir leurs marchés publics aux soumissionnaires européens. Nos entreprises ont quelque chose à offrir. Elles sont concurrentielles, mais trop souvent elles ne sont pas autorisées ou invitées à présenter une offre. Les PME profitent des marchés publics. Elles possèdent déjà une grosse part du marché, mais je ne pense pas que le fait de prévoir des quotas ou d’accorder un traitement préférentiel soit la solution. Si nous le faisons, un plus grand nombre de nos partenaires le feront aussi et le résultat sera que les Européens y perdront. Je pense que toutes les parties sont mieux servies par des marchés ouverts. Nos petites et moyennes entreprises sont dynamiques et fortes. Elles en profiteront aussi. Mme Mann a demandé à être tenue informée. Je vais demander à mes fonctionnaires de tenir sa commission étroitement informée. Ils participeront à des réunions de la commission et répondront à vos questions au sujet des détails des négociations. Plusieurs députés ont fait référence à des arrangements spéciaux pour les PME, qui devraient faire partie de notre position de négociation. Comme je l’ai dit, je ne suis pas d’accord. Je suis d’accord avec beaucoup de choses qui ont été dites par M. Kamall, ainsi qu’avec sa remarque affirmant que les États membres eux-mêmes pourraient faire beaucoup pour aider leurs PME dans le domaine des marchés publics, sans enfreindre aucune règle. S’ils découplaient certains de leurs contrats et réduisaient une bonne partie de la bureaucratie, cela profiterait énormément aux PME et éviterait de devoir prévoir des quotas. Par contre, je ne suis pas d’accord avec la conclusion de ceux qui pensent que la meilleure manière consiste à réserver des quotas aux PME. M. Kamall a soulevé également la question des États-Unis, qui possèdent une loi pour les petites entreprises et une agence chargée de ces questions. Les chiffres montrent cependant que, à la fois en termes de volume et de quantité, les PME européennes décrochent un pourcentage de contrats plus élevé que leurs homologues aux États-Unis. C’est intéressant à savoir. C’est pourquoi, je suis convaincu - et on peut ne pas être d’accord avec moi sur ce point - que les marchés publics ont tout à voir avec la concurrence: les meilleurs biens et services au meilleur prix. C’est ce qui s’appelle en avoir pour son argent. En réservant des parties du marché, on souligne cela. Nous avons également discuté des PME lors d’un autre débat ce matin. Des députés ont dit que les PME ont besoin d’occasions. J’en conviens aisément. Néanmoins, le protectionnisme n’est pas la solution. Bien sûr, nous ne serons pas naïfs: nous attendons de nos partenaires commerciaux qu’ils ouvrent aussi leurs marchés."@fr⁸ "Mr President, I should like to thank all Members for their comments. I attach the utmost importance to public procurement. Proper, fair and transparent procedures are crucial not only for businesses that want to bid for projects but also for authorities that would be able to save themselves and taxpayers huge amounts of money if they applied the procedures properly. Getting commitments from our trading partners to open their procurement market for European bidders is essential. Our companies have something to offer. They are competitive, but too often they are simply not allowed or invited to make a bid. SMEs benefit from public procurement. They already have a big share of the market, but I do not think that setting aside quotas or giving preferential treatment is the answer. If we were to do that, so would more of our trading partners and the result would be that European companies would lose out. I believe that all sides are best served by open markets. Our SMEs are dynamic and strong. They will benefit as well. Mrs Mann asked to be kept informed. I shall ask my officials to keep her committee closely informed. They will attend meetings of the committee and will answer your questions about the details of the negotiations. Various Members referred to special arrangements for SMEs and that this should be part of our negotiating stance. As I have said, I do not agree. I agree with a lot of what Mr Kamall said, and his observation that Member States themselves could do a lot to assist their SMEs in the area of public procurement without contravening any rules at all. If they unbundled some of their contracts and cut out a lot of the bureaucracy, that would benefit SMEs substantially, and would not require the setting-aside of quotas. Where I would disagree is with the conclusion drawn by some people that the way to do this better for SMEs is to set aside quotas. Mr Kamall also raised the issue of the United States having a Small Business Act and an agency to deal with these matters. However, the figures show that, either in volume or in quantity terms, SMEs in Europe get a far higher percentage of contracts than they do in the United States. That should be of some interest to people. Therefore, I say – and people are entitled to disagree with my views on this – that public procurement is all about competing: the best goods and services for the lowest amount. That means value for money. Reserving parts of the market underlines this. We were also discussing SMEs in an earlier debate this morning. Members said that SMEs need opportunities. I certainly agree. However, protectionism is not the answer. But, of course, we will not be naive: we expect our trading partners to open their markets as well."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, desidero ringraziare tutti i deputati intervenuti per le loro osservazioni. Attribuisco la massima importanza agli appalti pubblici. Procedure corrette, eque e trasparenti sono essenziali non solo per le imprese che vogliono fare un’offerta d’appalto per i progetti, ma anche per le autorità che potrebbero risparmiare a sé e ai contribuenti enormi somme di denaro se applicassero correttamente le procedure. E’ essenziale ottenere dai nostri commerciali l’impegno ad aprire i mercati degli appalti pubblici alle imprese europee. Le nostre imprese hanno qualcosa da offrire. Sono competitive, ma troppo spesso non sono autorizzate o invitate a partecipare alle gare d’appalto. Le PMI traggono vantaggi dagli appalti pubblici. Detengono già una cospicua quota del mercato, ma non penso che riservare quote o concedere un trattamento preferenziale sia la soluzione. Se ricorressimo a tali misure, farebbe altrettanto un maggior numero di nostri commerciali e il risultato sarebbe che le imprese europee ci perderebbero. Io credo che tutte le parti interessate siano avvantaggiate dall’apertura dei mercati. Le nostre PMI sono dinamiche e forti. Anch’esse ne trarranno profitto. L’onorevole Mann ha chiesto di essere tenuta informata. Chiederò ai miei funzionari di mantenere costantemente informata la sua commissione. Presenzieranno alle riunioni della commissione e risponderanno alle vostre domande sui particolari dei negoziati. Vari deputati hanno fatto riferimento a disposizioni speciali per le PMI, affermando che questo punto dovrebbe far parte della nostra posizione negoziale. Come ho detto, non sono d’accordo. Condivido gran parte di ciò che ha detto l’onorevole Kamall nonché la sua osservazione secondo cui gli stessi Stati membri potrebbero fare molto per aiutare le loro PMI nel campo degli appalti pubblici senza violare alcuna regola. Se provvedessero al frazionamento di alcuni dei loro contratti ed eliminassero gran parte della burocrazia, le PMI ne beneficerebbero in misura sostanziale e ciò non richiederebbe di riservare loro quote. Non sono invece d’accordo con quanti hanno concluso che il modo migliore di aiutare le PMI è la fissazione di quote. L’onorevole Kamall ha altresì sollevato la questione degli Stati Uniti che hanno uno e un’agenzia incaricata di occuparsi di tali questioni. Comunque, le cifre indicano che, in termini sia di volume sia di quantità, le PMI in Europa ottengono una percentuale di contratti di gran lunga più elevata di quanto non accada negli Stati Uniti. Questo dato dovrebbe risultare interessante. Perciò affermo – e se qualcuno non è d’accordo con me su questo punto ha tutto il diritto di dirlo – che negli appalti pubblici è fondamentale la concorrenza: si tratta di ottenere i beni e i servizi migliori all’importo più basso. Significa spendere bene il denaro a disposizione, come evidenzia la riserva di parti del mercato. Abbiamo affrontato il problema delle PMI anche in una precedente discussione svoltasi questa mattina. I deputati hanno affermato che le PMI hanno bisogno di opportunità. Senza dubbio sono d’accordo. Tuttavia, il protezionismo non è la soluzione. Ma, ovviamente, non saremo ingenui: ci aspettiamo che anche i nostri commerciali aprano i loro mercati."@it¹² "Mr President, I should like to thank all Members for their comments. I attach the utmost importance to public procurement. Proper, fair and transparent procedures are crucial not only for businesses that want to bid for projects but also for authorities that would be able to save themselves and taxpayers huge amounts of money if they applied the procedures properly. Getting commitments from our trading partners to open their procurement market for European bidders is essential. Our companies have something to offer. They are competitive, but too often they are simply not allowed or invited to make a bid. SMEs benefit from public procurement. They already have a big share of the market, but I do not think that setting aside quotas or giving preferential treatment is the answer. If we were to do that, so would more of our trading partners and the result would be that European companies would lose out. I believe that all sides are best served by open markets. Our SMEs are dynamic and strong. They will benefit as well. Mrs Mann asked to be kept informed. I shall ask my officials to keep her committee closely informed. They will attend meetings of the committee and will answer your questions about the details of the negotiations. Various Members referred to special arrangements for SMEs and that this should be part of our negotiating stance. As I have said, I do not agree. I agree with a lot of what Mr Kamall said, and his observation that Member States themselves could do a lot to assist their SMEs in the area of public procurement without contravening any rules at all. If they unbundled some of their contracts and cut out a lot of the bureaucracy, that would benefit SMEs substantially, and would not require the setting-aside of quotas. Where I would disagree is with the conclusion drawn by some people that the way to do this better for SMEs is to set aside quotas. Mr Kamall also raised the issue of the United States having a Small Business Act and an agency to deal with these matters. However, the figures show that, either in volume or in quantity terms, SMEs in Europe get a far higher percentage of contracts than they do in the United States. That should be of some interest to people. Therefore, I say – and people are entitled to disagree with my views on this – that public procurement is all about competing: the best goods and services for the lowest amount. That means value for money. Reserving parts of the market underlines this. We were also discussing SMEs in an earlier debate this morning. Members said that SMEs need opportunities. I certainly agree. However, protectionism is not the answer. But, of course, we will not be naive: we expect our trading partners to open their markets as well."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, I should like to thank all Members for their comments. I attach the utmost importance to public procurement. Proper, fair and transparent procedures are crucial not only for businesses that want to bid for projects but also for authorities that would be able to save themselves and taxpayers huge amounts of money if they applied the procedures properly. Getting commitments from our trading partners to open their procurement market for European bidders is essential. Our companies have something to offer. They are competitive, but too often they are simply not allowed or invited to make a bid. SMEs benefit from public procurement. They already have a big share of the market, but I do not think that setting aside quotas or giving preferential treatment is the answer. If we were to do that, so would more of our trading partners and the result would be that European companies would lose out. I believe that all sides are best served by open markets. Our SMEs are dynamic and strong. They will benefit as well. Mrs Mann asked to be kept informed. I shall ask my officials to keep her committee closely informed. They will attend meetings of the committee and will answer your questions about the details of the negotiations. Various Members referred to special arrangements for SMEs and that this should be part of our negotiating stance. As I have said, I do not agree. I agree with a lot of what Mr Kamall said, and his observation that Member States themselves could do a lot to assist their SMEs in the area of public procurement without contravening any rules at all. If they unbundled some of their contracts and cut out a lot of the bureaucracy, that would benefit SMEs substantially, and would not require the setting-aside of quotas. Where I would disagree is with the conclusion drawn by some people that the way to do this better for SMEs is to set aside quotas. Mr Kamall also raised the issue of the United States having a Small Business Act and an agency to deal with these matters. However, the figures show that, either in volume or in quantity terms, SMEs in Europe get a far higher percentage of contracts than they do in the United States. That should be of some interest to people. Therefore, I say – and people are entitled to disagree with my views on this – that public procurement is all about competing: the best goods and services for the lowest amount. That means value for money. Reserving parts of the market underlines this. We were also discussing SMEs in an earlier debate this morning. Members said that SMEs need opportunities. I certainly agree. However, protectionism is not the answer. But, of course, we will not be naive: we expect our trading partners to open their markets as well."@lv¹³ "Mr President, I should like to thank all Members for their comments. I attach the utmost importance to public procurement. Proper, fair and transparent procedures are crucial not only for businesses that want to bid for projects but also for authorities that would be able to save themselves and taxpayers huge amounts of money if they applied the procedures properly. Getting commitments from our trading partners to open their procurement market for European bidders is essential. Our companies have something to offer. They are competitive, but too often they are simply not allowed or invited to make a bid. SMEs benefit from public procurement. They already have a big share of the market, but I do not think that setting aside quotas or giving preferential treatment is the answer. If we were to do that, so would more of our trading partners and the result would be that European companies would lose out. I believe that all sides are best served by open markets. Our SMEs are dynamic and strong. They will benefit as well. Mrs Mann asked to be kept informed. I shall ask my officials to keep her committee closely informed. They will attend meetings of the committee and will answer your questions about the details of the negotiations. Various Members referred to special arrangements for SMEs and that this should be part of our negotiating stance. As I have said, I do not agree. I agree with a lot of what Mr Kamall said, and his observation that Member States themselves could do a lot to assist their SMEs in the area of public procurement without contravening any rules at all. If they unbundled some of their contracts and cut out a lot of the bureaucracy, that would benefit SMEs substantially, and would not require the setting-aside of quotas. Where I would disagree is with the conclusion drawn by some people that the way to do this better for SMEs is to set aside quotas. Mr Kamall also raised the issue of the United States having a Small Business Act and an agency to deal with these matters. However, the figures show that, either in volume or in quantity terms, SMEs in Europe get a far higher percentage of contracts than they do in the United States. That should be of some interest to people. Therefore, I say – and people are entitled to disagree with my views on this – that public procurement is all about competing: the best goods and services for the lowest amount. That means value for money. Reserving parts of the market underlines this. We were also discussing SMEs in an earlier debate this morning. Members said that SMEs need opportunities. I certainly agree. However, protectionism is not the answer. But, of course, we will not be naive: we expect our trading partners to open their markets as well."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik wil graag alle afgevaardigden bedanken die een bijdrage hebben geleverd aan dit debat. Ik hecht bijzonder veel waarde aan openbare aanbesteding. Adequate, rechtvaardige en transparante procedures zijn cruciaal. Zij zijn niet alleen cruciaal voor bedrijven die in willen schrijven op projecten, maar ook voor de betreffende overheidsinstanties, omdat zij voor zichzelf en voor de belastingbetalers enorme bedragen kunnen besparen als zij de procedures op juiste wijze toepassen. Het is essentieel dat onze handelspartners zich ertoe verbinden om hun overheidsopdrachtenmarkten voor Europese inschrijvers te openen. Onze ondernemingen hebben namelijk iets te bieden. Zij werken concurrerend, maar te vaak is het hun niet toegestaan om op een aanbesteding in te schrijven of worden zij niet uitgenodigd om een bod uit te brengen. KMO’s profiteren van overheidsopdrachten. Zij hebben al een groot marktaandeel verworven, maar zelf denk ik niet dat het instellen van quota’s of een preferentiële behandeling tot een oplossing zal leiden. Als wij daartoe zouden overgaan, zouden ook meer van onze handelspartners dat voorbeeld volgen en daarvan wordt het Europese bedrijfsleven de dupe. Naar mijn idee zijn alle partijen het meest gediend bij open markten. Onze KMO’s zijn dynamisch en sterk. Ook zij zullen hiervan profiteren. Mevrouw Mann wil graag op de hoogte worden gehouden. Ik zal mijn medewerkers vragen om haar Commissie internationale handel volledig op de hoogte te houden. Daartoe zullen zij bijeenkomsten van haar commissie bijwonen en vragen beantwoorden over de details van de onderhandelingen. Een aantal leden heeft verwezen naar speciale regelingen voor KMO’s en dergelijke regelingen moeten deel uitmaken van onze insteek bij de onderhandelingen. Zoals eerder gezegd, ben ik het echter niet met alles eens. Ik kan mij bij veel dingen aansluiten die de heer Kamall heeft gezegd, bijvoorbeeld zijn constatering dat de lidstaten zelf veel kunnen doen ter ondersteuning van KMO’s op het gebied van de openbare aanbestedingen zonder dat daarbij in strijd met de regels wordt gehandeld. Als een aantal grote contracten opgesplitst zou worden en veel bureaucratische rompslomp zou verdwijnen, zouden de KMO’s daar veel profijt van hebben en zijn gereserveerde quota’s ook niet nodig. Ik sta echter niet achter de conclusie van een aantal mensen dat het reserveren van bepaalde quota’s voor KMO’s de beste manier is om deze bedrijven te ondersteunen. De heer Kamall verwees ook naar het feit dat de Verenigde Staten over een “Small Business Act” beschikken en over een agentschap om de bijbehorende zaken af te handelen. Uit de cijfers blijkt echter dat zowel qua omvang als aantal een veel hoger percentage contracten aan KMO’s in Europa wordt uitbesteed dan in de VS. Dat moet voor een aantal mensen toch een interessant gegeven zijn. Daarom ben ik van mening – en mensen hoeven het daar uiteraard niet mee eens te zijn – dat bij aanbestedingen van overheidsopdrachten alles om mededinging draait: de beste goederen en diensten voor de laagste prijzen. Dan krijg je waar voor je geld. Het reserveren van bepaalde delen van de markt onderstreept dit alleen maar. In een debat eerder vandaag hebben wij ook over KMO’s gediscussieerd. Afgevaardigden zeiden toen dat KMO’s kansen nodig hebben. Daar ben ik het helemaal mee eens, maar protectionisme is niet het antwoord. Aan de andere kant zullen wij ons ook niet naïef opstellen: wij verwachten van onze handelspartners eveneens dat zij hun markten openstellen."@nl³ "Mr President, I should like to thank all Members for their comments. I attach the utmost importance to public procurement. Proper, fair and transparent procedures are crucial not only for businesses that want to bid for projects but also for authorities that would be able to save themselves and taxpayers huge amounts of money if they applied the procedures properly. Getting commitments from our trading partners to open their procurement market for European bidders is essential. Our companies have something to offer. They are competitive, but too often they are simply not allowed or invited to make a bid. SMEs benefit from public procurement. They already have a big share of the market, but I do not think that setting aside quotas or giving preferential treatment is the answer. If we were to do that, so would more of our trading partners and the result would be that European companies would lose out. I believe that all sides are best served by open markets. Our SMEs are dynamic and strong. They will benefit as well. Mrs Mann asked to be kept informed. I shall ask my officials to keep her committee closely informed. They will attend meetings of the committee and will answer your questions about the details of the negotiations. Various Members referred to special arrangements for SMEs and that this should be part of our negotiating stance. As I have said, I do not agree. I agree with a lot of what Mr Kamall said, and his observation that Member States themselves could do a lot to assist their SMEs in the area of public procurement without contravening any rules at all. If they unbundled some of their contracts and cut out a lot of the bureaucracy, that would benefit SMEs substantially, and would not require the setting-aside of quotas. Where I would disagree is with the conclusion drawn by some people that the way to do this better for SMEs is to set aside quotas. Mr Kamall also raised the issue of the United States having a Small Business Act and an agency to deal with these matters. However, the figures show that, either in volume or in quantity terms, SMEs in Europe get a far higher percentage of contracts than they do in the United States. That should be of some interest to people. Therefore, I say – and people are entitled to disagree with my views on this – that public procurement is all about competing: the best goods and services for the lowest amount. That means value for money. Reserving parts of the market underlines this. We were also discussing SMEs in an earlier debate this morning. Members said that SMEs need opportunities. I certainly agree. However, protectionism is not the answer. But, of course, we will not be naive: we expect our trading partners to open their markets as well."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, gostaria de agradecer as observações de todos os deputados. Atribuo a máxima importância aos contratos públicos. Procedimentos adequados, justos e transparentes são fundamentais não só para as empresas que querem candidatar-se a projectos, mas também para as autoridades que poderão poupar a si mesmas e aos contribuintes quantias avultadas se aplicarem os procedimentos como deve ser. Conseguir compromissos da parte dos nossos parceiros comerciais no sentido de abrirem o seu mercado de contratos públicos aos proponentes europeus é essencial. As nossas empresas têm qualquer coisa para oferecer. São competitivas, mas, com demasiada frequência, não são simplesmente autorizadas ou convidadas a apresentar uma proposta. As PME beneficiam de contratos públicos. Já têm uma boa quota de mercado, mas não me parece que reservar quotas ou dar um tratamento preferencial seja a resposta. Se fossemos fazer isso, também o fariam a maioria dos nossos parceiros comerciais e o resultado seria que as empresas europeias ficariam a perder. Considero que todas as partes estão mais bem servidas por mercados abertos. As nossas PME são dinâmicas e fortes. Também elas beneficiarão. A senhora deputada Mann pediu para continuar a ser informada. Pedirei aos meus funcionários para manterem a sua comissão informada ao pormenor. Estarão presentes nas reuniões da comissão e responderão às vossas perguntas sobre os pormenores da negociação. Vários deputados referiram disposições especiais para as PME e a necessidade de essas fazerem parte da nossa posição negocial. Como já disse, não concordo. Concordo em grande parte com o que o senhor deputado Kamall disse e com a sua observação de que os próprios Estados-Membros poderiam fazer muito para ajudar as suas PME na área dos contratos públicos sem entrar de forma alguma em conflito com quaisquer normas. Se separarem alguns dos seus contratos e reduzirem significativamente a burocracia, isso já beneficiaria substancialmente as PME e não exigiria a reserva de quotas. O que não subscrevo é a conclusão a que alguns chegaram, a saber, que a maneira de beneficiar as PME é reservar quotas. O senhor deputado Kamall também levantou a questão de os Estados Unidos terem uma lei para as pequenas empresas e uma agência para dar resposta a estas questões. Contudo, os números mostram que, quer em termos de volume, quer em termos de quantidade, as PME na Europa têm uma percentagem de adjudicação de contratos de longe mais elevada que nos Estados Unidos. Este dado deve interessar a alguns. Por conseguinte, digo – e as pessoas têm o direito de discordar dos meus pontos de vista nesta matéria – que os contratos públicos têm tudo a ver concorrência: os melhores bens e serviços pelo montante mais baixo. Isso significa uma boa relação custo-eficácia. Reservar partes do mercado sublinha isto. Também estivemos a discutir sobre as PME num debate realizado ainda esta manhã. Os deputados dizem que as PME precisam de oportunidades. Concordo inteiramente. Contudo, o proteccionismo não é a resposta. Mas claro, não seremos ingénuos: estamos à espera de os nossos parceiros comerciais abrirem também os seus mercados."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, I should like to thank all Members for their comments. I attach the utmost importance to public procurement. Proper, fair and transparent procedures are crucial not only for businesses that want to bid for projects but also for authorities that would be able to save themselves and taxpayers huge amounts of money if they applied the procedures properly. Getting commitments from our trading partners to open their procurement market for European bidders is essential. Our companies have something to offer. They are competitive, but too often they are simply not allowed or invited to make a bid. SMEs benefit from public procurement. They already have a big share of the market, but I do not think that setting aside quotas or giving preferential treatment is the answer. If we were to do that, so would more of our trading partners and the result would be that European companies would lose out. I believe that all sides are best served by open markets. Our SMEs are dynamic and strong. They will benefit as well. Mrs Mann asked to be kept informed. I shall ask my officials to keep her committee closely informed. They will attend meetings of the committee and will answer your questions about the details of the negotiations. Various Members referred to special arrangements for SMEs and that this should be part of our negotiating stance. As I have said, I do not agree. I agree with a lot of what Mr Kamall said, and his observation that Member States themselves could do a lot to assist their SMEs in the area of public procurement without contravening any rules at all. If they unbundled some of their contracts and cut out a lot of the bureaucracy, that would benefit SMEs substantially, and would not require the setting-aside of quotas. Where I would disagree is with the conclusion drawn by some people that the way to do this better for SMEs is to set aside quotas. Mr Kamall also raised the issue of the United States having a Small Business Act and an agency to deal with these matters. However, the figures show that, either in volume or in quantity terms, SMEs in Europe get a far higher percentage of contracts than they do in the United States. That should be of some interest to people. Therefore, I say – and people are entitled to disagree with my views on this – that public procurement is all about competing: the best goods and services for the lowest amount. That means value for money. Reserving parts of the market underlines this. We were also discussing SMEs in an earlier debate this morning. Members said that SMEs need opportunities. I certainly agree. However, protectionism is not the answer. But, of course, we will not be naive: we expect our trading partners to open their markets as well."@ro¹⁸ "Mr President, I should like to thank all Members for their comments. I attach the utmost importance to public procurement. Proper, fair and transparent procedures are crucial not only for businesses that want to bid for projects but also for authorities that would be able to save themselves and taxpayers huge amounts of money if they applied the procedures properly. Getting commitments from our trading partners to open their procurement market for European bidders is essential. Our companies have something to offer. They are competitive, but too often they are simply not allowed or invited to make a bid. SMEs benefit from public procurement. They already have a big share of the market, but I do not think that setting aside quotas or giving preferential treatment is the answer. If we were to do that, so would more of our trading partners and the result would be that European companies would lose out. I believe that all sides are best served by open markets. Our SMEs are dynamic and strong. They will benefit as well. Mrs Mann asked to be kept informed. I shall ask my officials to keep her committee closely informed. They will attend meetings of the committee and will answer your questions about the details of the negotiations. Various Members referred to special arrangements for SMEs and that this should be part of our negotiating stance. As I have said, I do not agree. I agree with a lot of what Mr Kamall said, and his observation that Member States themselves could do a lot to assist their SMEs in the area of public procurement without contravening any rules at all. If they unbundled some of their contracts and cut out a lot of the bureaucracy, that would benefit SMEs substantially, and would not require the setting-aside of quotas. Where I would disagree is with the conclusion drawn by some people that the way to do this better for SMEs is to set aside quotas. Mr Kamall also raised the issue of the United States having a Small Business Act and an agency to deal with these matters. However, the figures show that, either in volume or in quantity terms, SMEs in Europe get a far higher percentage of contracts than they do in the United States. That should be of some interest to people. Therefore, I say – and people are entitled to disagree with my views on this – that public procurement is all about competing: the best goods and services for the lowest amount. That means value for money. Reserving parts of the market underlines this. We were also discussing SMEs in an earlier debate this morning. Members said that SMEs need opportunities. I certainly agree. However, protectionism is not the answer. But, of course, we will not be naive: we expect our trading partners to open their markets as well."@sk¹⁹ "Mr President, I should like to thank all Members for their comments. I attach the utmost importance to public procurement. Proper, fair and transparent procedures are crucial not only for businesses that want to bid for projects but also for authorities that would be able to save themselves and taxpayers huge amounts of money if they applied the procedures properly. Getting commitments from our trading partners to open their procurement market for European bidders is essential. Our companies have something to offer. They are competitive, but too often they are simply not allowed or invited to make a bid. SMEs benefit from public procurement. They already have a big share of the market, but I do not think that setting aside quotas or giving preferential treatment is the answer. If we were to do that, so would more of our trading partners and the result would be that European companies would lose out. I believe that all sides are best served by open markets. Our SMEs are dynamic and strong. They will benefit as well. Mrs Mann asked to be kept informed. I shall ask my officials to keep her committee closely informed. They will attend meetings of the committee and will answer your questions about the details of the negotiations. Various Members referred to special arrangements for SMEs and that this should be part of our negotiating stance. As I have said, I do not agree. I agree with a lot of what Mr Kamall said, and his observation that Member States themselves could do a lot to assist their SMEs in the area of public procurement without contravening any rules at all. If they unbundled some of their contracts and cut out a lot of the bureaucracy, that would benefit SMEs substantially, and would not require the setting-aside of quotas. Where I would disagree is with the conclusion drawn by some people that the way to do this better for SMEs is to set aside quotas. Mr Kamall also raised the issue of the United States having a Small Business Act and an agency to deal with these matters. However, the figures show that, either in volume or in quantity terms, SMEs in Europe get a far higher percentage of contracts than they do in the United States. That should be of some interest to people. Therefore, I say – and people are entitled to disagree with my views on this – that public procurement is all about competing: the best goods and services for the lowest amount. That means value for money. Reserving parts of the market underlines this. We were also discussing SMEs in an earlier debate this morning. Members said that SMEs need opportunities. I certainly agree. However, protectionism is not the answer. But, of course, we will not be naive: we expect our trading partners to open their markets as well."@sl²⁰ "Herr talman! Jag vill tacka alla ledamöter för deras kommentarer. Jag lägger mycket stor vikt vid offentlig upphandling. Korrekta, rättvisa och öppna förfaranden är centrala inte bara för företag som vill vinna projekt, utan också för myndigheter som skulle kunna spara stora summor pengar åt sig själva och åt skattebetalarna om de tillämpade förfarandena på rätt sätt. Det är viktigt att våra handelspartner åtar sig att öppna sin upphandlingsmarknad för europeiska anbudsgivare. Våra företag har någonting att erbjuda. De är konkurrenskraftiga, men alltför ofta tillåts de helt enkelt inte lämna anbud, eller också får de ingen anbudsinfordran. Små och medelstora företag vinner på offentlig upphandling. De har redan en stor del av marknaden, men jag tror inte att lösningen är att avstå från kvoter eller att ge förmånsbehandling. Om vi gjorde det skulle flera av våra handelspartner göra likadant, och detta skulle resultera i att europeiska företag drar det kortaste strået. Jag anser att alla parter tjänar mest på öppna marknader. Våra små och medelstora företag är dynamiska och starka. De kommer också att vinna på detta. Erika Mann bad om att hållas underrättad. Jag ska be mina tjänstemän att hålla hennes utskott noggrant informerat. De kommer att delta i utskottets sammanträden och besvara era frågor om detaljerna i förhandlingarna. Olika ledamöter nämnde speciella arrangemang för små och medelstora företag och att detta borde utgöra en del av vår ståndpunkt under förhandlingarna. Som jag redan har sagt håller jag inte med om detta. Jag håller med om mycket av det som Syed Kamall sa, bland annat att medlemsstaterna själva skulle kunna göra mycket för att hjälpa sina små och medelstora företag på området för offentlig upphandling, utan att överträda några regler alls. Om de delade upp några av sina kontraktspaket och tog bort en stor del av byråkratin skulle de små och medelstora företagen ha mycket att vinna, och de skulle inte kräva att man avstår från kvoter. Jag håller inte med om den slutsats som dragits av vissa att situationen skulle förbättras för små och medelstora företag om man avstod från kvoter. Syed Kamall tog också upp ämnet att Förenta staterna har en lag för småföretag och en byrå som tar hand om frågor kring detta. Siffrorna visar dock att antingen det gäller volym eller kvantitet får de små och medelstora företagen i Europa en betydligt högre procentandel kontrakt än sina motsvarigheter i Förenta staterna. Detta borde vara intressant information. Därför menar jag – och folk får ha andra åsikter än mina om detta – att offentlig upphandling handlar om konkurrens, det vill säga de bästa varorna och tjänsterna till det lägsta priset. Detta betyder valuta för pengarna. Genom att reservera delar av marknaden betonar man detta. Vi diskuterade också små och medelstora företag i en tidigare debatt i förmiddags. Ledamöterna sa att små och medelstora företag behöver möjligheter. Det håller jag verkligen med om. Protektionism är dock inte svaret. Men naturligtvis ska vi inte vara naiva, utan vi förväntar oss att våra handelspartner också kommer att öppna sina marknader."@sv²²
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Small Business Act)"¹⁷ "Charlie McCreevy,"^{18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4} "Member of the Commission"^{18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4} "Small Business Act"¹² "partner"¹²