WRITTEN QUESTION E-1635/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission. VAT proposals.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European tax cooperation, United Kingdom, VAT rate, derogation from EU law

C 72 E/92

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

In view of the answer to questions 1 and 2, the Commission feels that the arrangements
3. and 4.
described are not contrary to the principles of the internal market and does not intend to propose that
they be modified.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, last amended by Directive 96/99/EC of 30 December 1996 (OJ L 8, 11.1.1997).

(2001/C 72 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1635/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: VAT proposals

In the light of the Commission(cid:146)s presentation on VAT to the Ecofin meeting of Monday, 8 May, would the
Commission please answer the following questions:

1. Will the Commission clarify the status of its 1996 proposal, brought forward by Mario Monti, to

move to a common system of VAT with full harmonisation of VAT rules and rates?

2.

3.

In the light of the Commission(cid:146)s admission that this plan is not politically or practically possible, will
it formally abandon all plans for a common system of VAT based on the 1996 Monti paper?

If the Commission is not prepared to distance itself from the 1996 proposals, will it please clarify the
following points arising from them:

(a) Will the full implementation of the common system of VAT require all countries to apply a

uniform system of exemptions?

(b) Will it be possible for the UK to retain its system of zero-rating for certain products?

(c) Might there be any circumstances where the proposed new rules of a common system of VAT

would require VAT to be levied in the UK on books, food or children(cid:146)s clothes?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2000)

It should be pointed out from the outset that it is still the Commission(cid:146)s opinion that the internal market
could and would function better with a VAT system based on taxation in the Member State of origin as
this would be easier to administer (and consequently less costly for business) and less susceptible to fraud
(providing a better guarantee for stable tax revenue). When it adopted the current transitional arrange-
ments, the Council also confirmed its commitment to such a system.

Therefore, it is not in any way the Commission(cid:146)s intention to abandon the idea of a definitive system of
taxation along the lines described in its 1996 programme for a common system of VAT (1). However, it
must also be recognised that in the current climate the conditions are not propitious for rapid progress
towards the necessary closer harmonisation of VAT rates and legislation, nor is it likely that significant
progress will be made in the immediate future. This is the reason why, in the interest of improving the
functioning of the internal market in the short term, the Commission considers it necessary to reappraise
the programme it put forward in 1996 and to define a viable strategy based on four main objectives:
simplification and modernisation of current rules, more uniform application of current rules and closer
administrative co-operation.

The objective of such an exercise is to create fresh impetus within the Council to achieve the necessary
improvements to the present system as quickly as possible. This will of course only be possible if all
Member States are prepared to consider changes to their national VAT systems and, if necessary, agree to a
reduction of the large number of special schemes or options and derogations, which exist at present.

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/93

The Commission will need to reconsider, at the appropriate time, what conditions will be necessary to
move to the definitive system. It is clearly too early to say what these will be, but it should be stressed that
the zero-rating system applied in the United Kingdom is a transitional measure pending the adoption of
the common VAT system.

(1) COM(96) 328 final.

(2001/C 72 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1645/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Video games and depleted uranium

In the (cid:145)Starcraft(cid:146) video game (marketed in Italy by Blizzard), which (cid:129) like all too many products of this
type (cid:129) is basically a war game, players can use uranium 238 to upgrade their weapons. An entry on page
43 of the Italian manual reads:
(cid:145)U238 ammunition research; this depleted uranium ammunition can
improve the range of Gauss guns.(cid:146) A further entry on page 41 reads: (cid:145)Radiation: an enemy unit hit by one
of these weapons will be bathed in highly radioactive particles capable of inflicting considerable damage
((cid:133)). The radioactive field will create serious problems ((cid:133)). Eventually radioactivity levels will decrease(cid:146).

Does the Commission believe that it is right for young people and little children to become

1.
accustomed to the idea of using nuclear weapons?

Does the Commission agree that it should take steps to prevent the concept of nuclear weapon use

2.
becoming commonplace in Europe(cid:146)s youth culture?

Does the Commission agree that it it would be appropriate to stem the flood of violence to which

3.
young children are being exposed by video games?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

At Community level the main legislative instrument specific to toys is Directive 88/378/EEC on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys (1). However, the prime
purpose of this directive is to is to protect toy users from the risk of physical injury, by establishing safety
requirements in terms of the physical, mechanical, chemical, electrical and other properties of toys.

The psychological development of the child, and the influence which certain games currently on the
market may have on this development (games which trivialise and encourage the imaginary use of nuclear
weapons or violence), or on morality in general, is primarily a matter for the Member States.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member(cid:146)s concerns and would point out that the national
authorities do, in principle, have at their disposal the necessary powers and instruments for the protection
of children. At Community level, Article 30 (ex Article 36) of the EC Treaty leaves it open to Member
States, in the absence of Community harmonisation measures, to adopt national measures to restrict the
marketing of this type of product on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security, or of the
protection of the health and life of humans, provided that the measures that they adopt are commensurate
with the objectives of protection.

So far, the idea of harmonising the provisions governing the protection of the psychological development
or morality of children with regard to video games has not been considered.

(1) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.