Press conference&nbsp;on European Parliament inquiry into tax evasion following LuxLeaks in the EP in Brussels. Statements by Philippe LAMBERTS (Greens/EFA, BE), Co-Chair of Greens/EFA group, Gabriele ZIMMER (GUE/NGL, DE) and Sven GIEGOLD (Greens/EFA, DE)

Brussels

LAMBERTS, Philippe (Greens/EFA, BE)

press conference

fight against tax fraud and evasion (T)

GIEGOLD, Sven (Greens/EFA, DE)

ZIMMER, Gabriele (GUE/NGL, DE)

GUE/NGL

European Parliament inquiry into tax evasion following LuxLeaks: extracts from the press conference by Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL

SOUNDBITE (English), Philippe LAMBERTS (Greens/EFA, BE), Co-Chair of Greens/EFA group, "Why did we want this, and we still want, to have an Inquiry Committee? Because it's the most powerful instrument that this Parliament has at its disposal to look after infringements of EU law or maladministration".

SOUNDBITE (English), Philippe LAMBERTS (Greens/EFA, BE), Co-Chair of Greens/EFA group, "We said that if there is a political will to use the Inquiry Committee instrument, then there is a way, there is a legal way to do it; and we started the meeting very positively saying: 'well, we recognise there may be legal shortcomings while some others say they are not, but anyway, if we have a political will, we can have a mandate that will produce an Inquiry Committee and we can have that fast. Quite obviously the 3 big groups have decided otherwise and they had prepared their 'coup' which was a 'Special Committee'. You might say: what's in a name? What's the difference between the two? With an Inquiry Committee you have not only a higher profile instrument, but in substance, an Inquiry Committee has different access rights to national documents. So, both instruments can access EU documents quite in a similar way, but when it comes to national documents - and taxation related documents are by large national documents - well, there is no access rights for the 'Special Committee' and there are access rights for an Inquiry Committee. There lies the key difference and to us the key difference was worth fighting for".

SOUNDBITE (English), Gabriele ZIMMER (GUE/NGL, DE), "It was a political decision today, it was clear that the other groups are not interested in having an Inquiry Committee and it's also clear that the new proposed Special Committee has not the same rights as the Inquire Committee".

SOUNDBITE (English), Sven GIEGOLD (Greens/EFA, DE), "I'm very disappointed about the result; I'm in particular furious because what is normal in National Parliaments, that the minority has the rights to get an Inquiry Committee was denied, not by the Plenary of the House, but by the Conference of Presidents. This is procedurally an assault on European democracy and cannot be accepted. From the point of view of clarifying the accusations towards Luxembourg, Ireland, The Netherlands and in general, aggressive tax competition in Europe, also what we achieved now, a Special Committee can do a good job. We will of course work constructively in the Special Committee and make sure, together with civil society, academics and many others and whistle-blowers that we use this as an opportunity to show to the public the scandal of years of accepting very low corporate tax rates for the largest multinational companies, while small and medium size businesses and normal citizens and normal citizens have to pay their fair share".

SOUNDBITE (English), Philippe LAMBERTS (Greens/EFA, BE), Co-Chair of Greens/EFA group, "We still believe that the Inquiry Committee is a better outcome, but of course we agree also that the 'Special Committee' is second best. We didn't say this is a bad solution is only the second best and we want the best".