Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-08-Speech-3-224"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050608.19.3-224"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Schmit, Mr Borg, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to explain the background to these two questions by the Committee on Budgetary Control. The European Union and Member States lose many hundreds, if not billions, of euros every year due to the loss of excise, VAT and customs revenue from the illicit black market trade in tobacco products. Every container of smuggled cigarettes is costing the European and national authorities lost income to the tune of EUR 1.5 million. During 1995 and 1996, the European Parliament took the lead in the fight against this type of fraud and set up an enquiry committee, which, with John Tomlinson as chairman and Edward Kellett-Bowman as rapporteur, catalogued the problems that occurred during transit and proposed solutions to them. The enquiry committee went to the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam where it carefully studied the fraud techniques which criminal organisations, often of a Mafia-like nature, used to evade normal tax obligations. Let me reiterate that these practices are characteristic of the Mafia, and, over the past few years, they have claimed people’s lives; murders have been committed, officials intimidated and bribed, and in some cases, politicians were working hand in glove with the criminals.
The excellent work by the enquiry committee, the research work of our anti-fraud services Uclaf and Olaf, the Cigarette Fraud Task Force and the careful cooperation between customs and police services are now resulting in major networks being rounded up. In November 2000, the Community lodged a civil complaint before the Court of New York against Philip Morris and Reynolds on account of suspected involvement in the smuggling of cigarettes into the European Union. Ten Member States joined this lawsuit between January and April 2001.
The bare facts that were brought during the debates before the court against Philip Morris forced the tobacco giant to sign a settlement with the European Commission. This multi-annual agreement was signed on 9 July 2004 and aims to fight the smuggling and counterfeiting of cigarettes in an effective manner. At the same time, it puts an end to the legal dispute between the European Union and Philip Morris. The agreement stipulates that Philip Morris will be paying considerable amounts – as high as USD 1.5 billion – into a bank account managed by the European Commission over a 12-year period. It represents a departure in terms of anti-fraud policy and ensures that Philip Morris and the European authorities can combine their efforts and work together more closely. It is likely that this innovative approach will lead to similar agreements being concluded with the other two main tobacco giants 'British American Tobacco' and 'Japan Tobacco' within the not too distant future.
The budgetary authority in the European Union has two arms, namely the Council of Ministers and Parliament. As Members of Parliament, we are extremely anxious about the way in which the Commission and Member States will handle this unexpected, but considerable windfall. According to high-level officials within the Council, the lion’s share of Philip Morris’s funds will end up in the coffers of national Member States. Apparently, 10% will go to the Commission, while the ten Member States that joined the lawsuit will receive 90%. Can the Council and the Commission confirm this distribution?
In this context, it does indeed look like the Member States are behaving like grasping opportunists and mediocre accountants. To me, the 10%-90% split seems to underestimate the efforts on the part of the Commission and Olaf, for what will happen with those funds? In actual fact they should mainly be used to combat fraud. I am very aware that the so-called earmarking of certain funds for specific activities is considered undesirable by the budgetary authority, but it strikes me as only fair that the Council and the Commission make the political commitment to this Parliament to using a considerable proportion of this sum to fight fraud and counterfeiting. Is the Commission prepared to suggest an action plan and a proposal for a budget line to tackle this issue? So much can be done, including more cross-border cooperation, more computers at borders, more and well-trained inspection staff, reinforcement of customs services, investments in tracing and tracking, more effective follow-up policy and extra manpower for Olaf.
Let us therefore focus on spending funds and not solely on splitting them up. This is not just about whose money it is; we should also look for value for money. I am also expecting a progress report from the Commission, possibly behind closed doors, about the negotiations with British American Tobacco and Japan Tobacco.
Finally, only on this basis and on the basis of the agreements we conclude can we continue the debate. From the Council, we expect ideas that transcend the bookkeepers’ mentality and proposals on spending this money wisely. What is the response to this from the Council and the Commission?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples