WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1455/98 by Anne McINTOSH to the Council. VAT rates
C 323/132 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 10. 98 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1396/98 and E-1397/98 (6 July 1998) The issues the Honourable Member raises in Written Question No 1396/98 and in points 4 and 5 of her Written Question No 1397/98 do not fall within the Councilís sphere of competence. The matters referred to in points 1, 2 and 3 of Written Question No 1397/98 have never been discussed by the Council. (98/C 323/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1455/98 by Anne McIntosh (PPE) to the Council (11 May 1998) Subject: VAT rates Does the Presidency-in-Office support, and would it be prepared to use, the discretion granted by the Commission in its Communication SEC(97)2089 final on reduced VAT rates for selected labour-intensive services? Is the Presidency-in-Office prepared to accept that this discretion applies to the maintenance and repair of churches and historic listed buildings? Would the Presidency-in-Office consider this as part of the Commissionís review of the harmonization of VAT throughout the European Union? Answer (6 July 1998) The Commission communication to which the Honourable Member refers in her question is currently being examined within the Councilís subsidiary bodies. Until these proceedings are completed, the Council cannot reply to the Honourable Memberís question. (98/C 323/205) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1464/98 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (7 May 1998) Subject: Inclusion by Netherlands Central Planning Office of reduced EU budget contribution by the Netherlands in calculation of estimated costs of implementing partiesí election manifestoes Is the Commission aware of the report Keuzes in kaart › economische effecten van vijf verkiezingsprogram- maísí (Reviewing the options › economic impact of five election manifestoes) by the Netherlands Central Planning Office, particularly the section Reduction of contributions to the EU budgetí in Annex 6? If no agreement were to be reached within the Council concerning the new Financial Perspective › for example on account of a veto by the Netherlands › would an extension of the current Financial Perspective be áconditional on unanimityí, as the Central Planning Office claims? Does the view expressed by the Central Planning Office accord with the decision-making procedure described in Paragraph 25 of the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) of 29 October 1993 on the Financial Perspective? Is it true that áas far as the Council is concerned, the IIA lays down that it may reject an extension by a qualified majority. However, the Member States have agreed that in practice there should be a qualified majority in favour of an extension. í (1)?