Brussels, 27/01/2010 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 26 February, MEPs from the committee on the internal market and national MPs debated the proposed directive which aims to step up the fight against late payments in contractual relationships between private businesses and either public authorities or private contractors (see EUROPE 9967). Although they acknowledged the importance of this legislative initiative against a backdrop of crisis which weighs heavily on the cash flows of businesses, many of the parliamentarians raised the issue of the difference in treatment between the public and private sectors to be brought in by the directive, for example by imposing a payment time of 30 days on public authorities alone, which they would be obliged to respect when settling their invoices.
"It is difficult to establish a distinction between the public and private sectors", said Barbara Weiler (S&D, Germany), rapporteur on this dossier. Nor is Portuguese MEP José Ribeiro in favour of a distinction of this kind, particularly because, he explained, even though they may do so late, the public authorities always pay in the end. This was echoed by Eva Högl of the German Bundestag, who pleaded in favour of "positive incentives" to pay up on time. Why such "manifest discrimination" against the public sector, asked the Greek parliamentarian, Mr Protopappas. The Italian senator Monica Baldi would rather see a payment time of 60 days than 30 days for the state authorities. Philippe Juvin of France and Zuzana Roithová of the Czech Republic, both members of the EPP Group, and Polish MP Pawe³ Poncyljusz highlighted the specific nature of certain sectors, such as hospitals. The EU itself pays in 90 days, Edvard Kožušník (ECR, Czech Republic) pointed out.
A payment time of 30 days for public authorities is "entirely reasonable", argued Cristian Buºoi (ALDE, Romania), whilst acknowledging the possibility of setting derogations in place for exceptional circumstances, but not exceeding a period of "60 days". This time limit already exists in the Netherlands, said Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL, Netherlands). The Irish MEP Michael Ahern stressed his country's active role in bringing down the payment times of the public authorities: in 91% of cases, the deadline of 15 days, which has been in place since 2009, is observed. In the view of Lord Bowness of the House of Lords, 30 days is reasonable for the UK public sector. Polish senator Eryk Smulewicz supports this, arguing that the public sector has easy access to financing such as the structural funds. The European Commission is aware of the specific nature of certain public activities, but it hopes to continue with a differentiated approach between the public and private sectors, said Liliana Brykman.
5% rate. Under the proposed directive, a business suffering delayed payment could claim compensation equivalent to 5% of the amount owed. Without generally calling the principle of sanctions into question, most of those who took the floor felt that the rate proposed was too high. According to Lord Bowness, payment of compensation on top of the interest payments is unacceptable, because it is the taxpayer who ends up picking up the tab. Mr de Jong is in favour of a lower rate (1% or 2%), to increase exponentially with the delay in payment. The Lithuanian MP Mr Budris would also prefer a rate of 2%. The German Green Heide Rühle would not wish to see a penalty of 5% imposed from day one. "It would be more useful to revise the text to include a sliding scale: one day late or one year late is not the same thing" said Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D, Germany). Mr Buºoi, on the other hand, feels that 5% should apply from day one, together with a gradual increase. Catalonian MP Jordi Vilajoana, believes that the penalty should rise as high as 10%. The Commission acknowledged the opposition of the European and national parliamentarians to a penalty rate of 5%. (M.B./transl.fl)