Interview: Solutions for a fraud-free EU

Is the fight against EU budget fraud sufficient? While the 27 are preparing to negotiate the EU budgetary framework 2014-2020, 404 million euros were apparently used fraudulently in 2011, although that figure is falling. So what should be done? We asked French MEP Jean-Pierre Audy and British MEP Marta Andreasen. Billions of euros have yet to be recovered. What can be done to recover the money? The problem is that the fraudsters are very clever. People used to think that fraud could be detected by the accumulation of errors. I told the Commission it was wrong because fraudsters don't make errors. So the fraudsters make themselves insolvent and it's then very difficult to recover the money. So it has to be done with the accomplices. For example, in the cigarette industry we do manage to make recoveries or to impose penalties on companies, but it's extremely difficult. The easiest way is to withhold funding from future programmes. Generally speaking, the funds go to certain intermediary bodies. Even if it's not the intermediary bodies that commit the fraud, if you withhold further money from these intermediary bodies, I can assure you they will make every effort to find out who has actually committed the fraud. To counter it, the Commission is proposing to restructure OLAF and to strengthen Eurojust. Is that a good thing? We must give more resources to the Anti-Fraud Office, while respecting its independence. We must have much stronger police cooperation with procedures imposed on national police services. And of course magistrates must exchange information in order to have prompt judgments so they can be executed rapidly in the case of judicial cooperation within Eurojust. No. I think what we should reform is the European Commission, because OLAF and Eurojust come after the fraud has been committed, the irregularity has been committed. That's too late. We need to reform the Commission. The Commission should assume the responsibility, as it's laid out in the treaties, for properly controlling the funds that European taxpayers put into the EU budget. Is a special European public prosecutor's office a good idea? If we want an area of freedom and of security for the people of Europe with freedom of movement, Schengen, then we need this prosecutor who will be able to take action in connection with national prosecutors and in cooperation with national police. I'm not sure about this. If it was a totally independent organisation from the Commission, from OLAF, from the Parliament, from the Council. Totally independent. This is a dream. This will never happen. What do you think of the EP's special committee that works on the fight against fraud and organised crime? I salute the courage and the competence of the MEPs who sit on this committee. It's very useful that MEPs should be both a spur and at the same time make sure that our fundamental freedoms are properly respected in all these cases. It's not useful because this committee works in a political environment. In it there are different nationalities, different political parties, and they all have a different agenda. All this committee will do, as many others have done in the past, is to have consultancy reports and debates, but no real definition of what action should be taken is going to come out from there.

EuroparlTV video ID: 7cc69628-3533-403a-b1fa-a0d9009aa94c