Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-14-Speech-3-368"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000614.15.3-368"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, unfortunately Mr Murphy cannot be here with us this evening and I therefore have the honour of representing him here today. However, I am at a disadvantage. I was not involved in the work of the conciliation committee, although I have studied the documents. So please forgive me if I am not quite as well informed as the members who helped in the conciliation procedure.
I should like to thank those members because, even as someone who was not involved, I can say that this is an important directive. It is important to SMEs, it is important to the public sector, it is probably a far more important instrument for promoting employment than many of the resolutions passed here in this House.
I can still remember the earlier debates: late payments are a breach of contract and this directive stipulates that the purchaser must pay the vendor the full sum owed within 30 days of receipt of the goods. Otherwise, he must pay a penalty in the form of interest etc. Discussions with the Council gave rise to a whole series of problems which we have now managed to settle, several sittings later. One of the main problems was the question of retention of title, whereby the vendor retains ownership of the goods pending full payment. It was also agreed that freedom of contract cannot be invoked in order to limit the effects of the so-called anti-abuse clause. We have agreed on a clear regulation here which ensures that the debtor cannot procure additional liquidity or additional advantages at the creditor’s expense.
In addition – and this was an important point – the principle of equal treatment between the public and private sectors has been acknowledged. As far as interest is concerned, we have compromised between the 6% proposed by Council and the 8% proposed by Parliament, agreeing in the conciliation procedure on 7%.
All in all, it is a reasonable result and, I repeat, it is a result which will mainly help SMEs in the Union. I personally was most surprised to read that late payments were one of the main reasons for bankruptcies in Europe. Apparently some 450,000 jobs are lost in the EU every year as a result. We often spend a great deal of money on very few jobs. Here we are achieving the desired effect cost-free, as it were, and I think that Parliament should make it clear to the outside world that it has done job security a huge service.
Allow me to close with one more comment regarding the Commission. Late payments are a breach of contract even when it is the Commission which is late paying. This does not figure in the directive but, in my experience as an MEP, we often hear complaints when we visit SMEs and large companies alike, that the Commission is often far too late honouring the payment commitments which it has entered into in research promotion or other areas.
I hope that the Commission will be guided by the spirit of this directive and make its own payments on time, because here too, I repeat, this is breach of contract.
My warmest thanks once again to everyone involved and I hope that Parliament will vote in favour of this compromise tomorrow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples