A disappointment, not a disaster: Call for Committee of Inquiry into Luxleaks scandal gets thumbs-down

There will not be a Committee of Inquiry into the LuxLeaks scandal after all – but the matter will still be investigated by MEPs. At today’s (5 February) Conference of Presidents, those pushing hardest for an Inquiry Committee were told that it would go against the advice of the Parliament’s Legal Services, something the campaigners strongly refute.

Instead, it’s being proposed to set up a Special Temporary Committee, like the one that met over the United States’ Echelon spying and surveillance network in 2000 to 2001. One of the campaigners, German Green MEP Sven Giegold (pictured), said he and his colleagues will, nevertheless, make the most of it.  “We will use it as an opportunity to show to the public this scandal of years of accepting very low corporation tax rates for the largest multinationals while SMEs and ordinary people are obliged to pay all their taxes,” he said.

A Special Committee sits for longer than a Committee of Inquiry – a year, which can be further extended, as opposed to six months – but it has fewer powers to hold anyone to account. A Committee of Inquiry is recognized in legal inter-institutional agreements, conferring on it the power to demand access to documents. A Special Committee, on the other hand, is unable to do that and in tax matters, Mr. Giegold pointed out, the Parliament has no co-decision rights and is therefore relatively weak.   And, in this case, weak by choice. Parliament President Martin Schulz denies that the decision will make it harder to get at the truth. He told journalists that a Special Committee would have at least as much strength as a Committee of Inquiry.

Co-campaigner Philippe Lamberts, a Belgian Green MEP, suspects the hand of big group bosses in killing the original proposal, which might have left some of their senior figures back at home dangerously exposed, despite getting almost two hundred signatures of members in favour. “We got the technical notes for the Conference of Presidents on the 30^th. January,” he told the media, “and even then it mentioned a Special Committee, which was not a proposal.”   With a wry smile he added: “Some of the staff of this Parliament are possessed of unusual skills!” Apart from suspicious clairvoyance by foctionaires, he also fears that the legal opinion given at the meeting would make any future Committees of Inquiry impossible. “It became clear today,” he said, “that we are not part of the group who take the decisions here.”

The moves for a Committee of Inquiry were led by the Greens, the GUE/NGL and the EFDD, all of whose representatives abstained in the vote to propose a Special Committee instead. But Mr. Lamberts again stressed that he’s not after political scalps: “You may say you want a witch hunt,” he said, “but there are so many witches! Luxembourg is not alone. We want to go after all those who played the tax war game.” Mr. Lamberts, Mr. Giegold, and GUE leader Gabi Zimmer all share a belief that only constant pressure will bring out the truth and end corporate tax competition. Now they say they hope the Special Committee will be pursued with vigour and enthusiasm.   But if the Plenary votes against it, Mr. Giegold warns, they will challenge the legal opinion given to the President at the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

© Jim Gibbons, 5 February 2015

Share this article: