Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, VAT fraud is a widespread problem in the European Union, which is unfortunately becoming more common all the time. According to reliable estimates, during the first half of 1998, for example, Member States detected 250 cases of so-called Carousel fraud, worth more than 500 million euros in all. To this must of course be added other types of fraud, and all the fraudulent transactions that remained undetected. We can therefore estimate that VAT fraud costs the EU and its Member States hundreds of millions of euros every year. Generally it is a matter of Carousel Fraud. Carousel Fraud means the acquisition of goods without paying the VAT as required under the rules of the internal market. It is characterised by a chain of invoices, with or without goods, extending across one or more borders. The essential feature of this type of fraud is that one or more links in the chain do not pay invoiced VAT to the tax authority, while other parties in the chain receive VAT refunds based on these very invoices. Carousel Fraud generally concerns small items of value, such as computers and mobile phones. The most effective way of preventing this type of fraud is through close, administrative cooperation between the Member States. It is generally known, however, that the current legal framework is not up to the task. In order to streamline the current legislative framework, the Commission has now put forward a proposal for a regulation that would considerably enhance and improve current forms of administrative cooperation in the field of VAT. I also support the Commission’s proposal for a directive, in addition to which I propose measures in my report to make direct cooperation between the authorities still more effective and practical. The main point of the proposal is to allow for direct contact between local and regional authorities responsible for the fight against fraud. At present, all communication must go through central liaison offices, meaning that all requests pass through one country’s administrative machinery from a local office to a national liaison office and down the same path in the other country. This means that requests for assistance often arrive too late at their proper destination. The tax evaders may well have disappeared by the time the local officials in the country that received the request for help look into the matter. I agree with the Commission that cooperation at local level would improve mutual understanding regarding requests for information, would increase the motivation of tax inspectors, and would avoid wasting the few resources that exist. I therefore wholeheartedly support the Commission proposal, which should be seen as a major step forward in the fight against fraud. All too often, criminals can take immediate advantage of the most up-to-date and advanced means of communication, while the authorities are weighed down by bureaucratic, cumbersome rules, which slows down the work involved in tracking down the criminals and uses up far too many of the administration’s resources. The Commission, however, could have gone still further to speed up cooperation and increase flexibility. I support the Commission’s proposal for sending communications in electronic form wherever possible. I would also propose that, to speed up the flow of information, electronic communication should be made the rule, and traditional correspondence on paper the exception. For the same reason, to speed up the exchange of information, that is, more room for manoeuvre should be given to the local authorities with regard to language policy. The obligation to translate requests for assistance between authorities must be made more flexible. Why should it be a requirement to translate a request for assistance into the official language of the second country if, for example, a Finn and a Greek come to an understanding that they will deal with one another in French? There is one point, however, where the Commission proposal goes too far. The Commission is proposing that the Member States would be under an obligation to restrict many of the rights contained in the Data Protection directive if they thought this necessary in order to safeguard important economic or financial interests. It should be noted that there is no such obligation contained in the said directive but that it is simply a possibility that Member States can resort to. This aspect of the matter would therefore be better addressed by an amendment to the Data Protection directive and at this stage it should be left to the Member States to consider whether or not to pursue this line of action. Finally, something should be said about the legal basis. The Commission bases its proposal on Article 95 of the Treaty, which means the co-decision procedure for Parliament. I agree with the Commission’s view that this proposal should concern administrative cooperation only and must be dealt with according to the procedure laid down in Article 95. The Council has always rejected this view, formerly, and changed the legal basis to Article 93 or 94, which only require Parliament to be consulted. Now, however, the Commission has decided to take the Council to the European Court of Justice over another proposal for a directive concerning the recovery of claims. The legal situation will thus be cleared up soon. I would also like to hear comments from the Commissioner in connection with this choice of legal basis and any new information he might have for Parliament regarding how the case regarding the legal basis for the proposal for a directive on the recovery of claims is proceeding in the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

Political group: PPE-DE