Proposition 50K2058

Projet de loi portant création d'une Banque-Carrefour des Entreprises, modernisation du registre de commerce création de guichets-entreprises agréés et portant diverses dispositions.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 9, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative formalities trade regulations computer systems type of business public administration registration of a company information technology applications

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 16, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, both the Minister of Telecommunications, Public Companies and Participations, in charge of the Middle State, and the Minister of Economy and Scientific Research have emphasized that the bill that is currently under discussion and voting is important for the global modernization of public services and especially for the realization of the goal of the famous simplification.

The implementation of the structural administrative simplification for enterprises will take place by applying the principle of single data collection and increasing the efficiency of public services.

An essential point in this regard is the establishment of corporate lockets. The corporate lockets will also be responsible for a large part of the tasks still performed by the Chambers of Ambachten and Neringen. This issue occupied a large part of the discussion in the committee.

The draft law distinguishes three key elements, namely the establishment of the Cross Point Bank of Enterprises, the integration of the Commercial Register and the establishment of the approved business locks.

It is important to note that a broad definition is given of the undertaking, in particular all economic actors, and that no less than ten existing databases and registers will be fully integrated into the Cross Point Bank of Enterprises.

Equally important is the fact that part of the data will be public and part not. A supervisory committee will be established for this purpose. That is a kind of specialized subcommittee in the Committee on the Protection of Privacy, which will have to watch over what is made public or not.

Several members asked for the word in the discussion.

Ms. Pieters briefly explained the bill to simplify the administrative formalities imposed on companies. This was included in the further discussion.

Another point where there has been a long standstill relates to the cost of the administrative burden. It is about the revenue and expenditure of those corporate lockets. This was linked to the discussion of a study by the Planning Bureau, from which we recall that the total costs of the administrative burden on enterprises and self-employed would amount to more than eight billion euros today. I think what we are discussing here today is important, not only for administrative simplification, but also for the cost sheet. It also referred to a survey conducted by the European Commission in the autumn of 2001 and to the 2001 annual report of Nacebo, which follows. In the general discussion, clarification was also asked about who will have access to the data of the Crosspoint Bank. It also highlighted the importance of cooperation between the federal government and local authorities. Initiatives between federal, regional and community authorities were pointed out. We also have the agreements of cooperation that have been concluded for this purpose. They determine how this will happen in practice.

It also discussed the importance of the introduction of the unique company number and how that will go into its work. Hearing was organised with representatives of the Chamber of Employees and Neringen, UNIZO and UCM. They are involved in this matter. The Minister has clarified that the order cannot be entrusted to the KANs because the concept of the unit lock forms a sort of black box with one input point and one output point, capable of centralizing everything. The Can’s are not able to do this.

Today the KANs are organized provincially, the griffies are arrondisementally. Therefore, it is opted for the valorisation of the added value and expertise that the interprofessional organizations have today.

In the financing of the enterprise lock, the problem raised by the accountants and the tax consultants was also addressed. Mrs. Pieters, Mr. Vanvelthoven and Mrs. Gerkens have been significantly involved in the discussion.

In the context of the abolition of the CANs, it is also important to mention that it is necessary to transfer personnel, as the expertise of this staff should be able to be deployed as far as possible. There is a resource commitment possible to, as mentioned, not let the experience of these people be lost.

After discussing the articles and a whole series of amendments to them, the thus amended draft was approved with 9 votes in favour and 3 abstentions. I will not go into detail on what the various members have brought into the discussion, because I assume that this will be the subject of the discussion that is now following.

Mrs Trees Pieters has the word. I suggest that you also defend your amendments.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this proposal for the establishment of a Cross-point Bank of Enterprises, for the modernisation of the Commercial Register and for the establishment of recognised business locks consists in fact of two chapters, which have little or nothing to do with each other.

The first loop is the unique identification number for the companies. The second issue concerns the introduction of entrepreneurial locks. That the draft consists of two parts, shows from the discussion in the committee for business. The provisions relating to the powers of Minister Picqué and Daems were treated completely separately. I regret that Mr. Picqué is not present at this discussion because the two loops, that of Mr. Picqué and that of Mr. Daems, are two important components.

My discussion is divided into two large parts. The High Council for Self-employed and SMEs and the Central Council for Business point out the risky impact on the normal economic life. In the implementation of this law, it is indispensable that legal certainty is absolutely guaranteed at all times. The Council fears that the continuity of public service will be compromised by a hasty implementation. Therefore, the High Council for Self-employed Persons and SMEs, as well as the CRB, call for a prompt but thoughtful realization of this project. They demand a global step plan and a careful elaboration of all subprocesses according to a realistic timing. The High Council for Self-Employed Persons and SMEs also rightly asks that the cross-point bank of the companies and the integration of other public services such as the Commercial Register must be operational in order for the corporate lockets to fulfill their role. This means that first the luke of Minister Picqué must be realized and then that of Minister Daems. The Government has accepted this proposal and forwarded as starting dates 1 January 2003 and 1 July 2003 respectively.

One may wonder why the government has linked the two loops together.

And above all, has the government thus served the progress in administrative simplification? It cannot be denied that the linking of these two components into one draft has as an important consequence that the Government has therefore suffered a considerable delay in its programme for administrative simplification. In particular, in terms of administrative simplification, in the last four years there has been very little achievement. But well, it was, of course, politically unthinkable that a socialist minister could have gotten out with the Crosspoint Bank of Enterprises a year or two ago, while a liberal minister was still full-blown with his enterprise lock.

Mr. Minister, the first part is indeed about the Cross Point Bank of Enterprises. I would have liked that Minister Picqué was present here, because there are still a few questions about this.

Let us make it clear that the first preliminary draft law on the unique identification number still dates from the Dehaene government. At the end of the previous legislature, almost four years ago, the Dehaene government submitted another bill to Parliament. At the beginning of this legislature, we converted that bill into a bill. That is now three and a half years. Today is a text that, in terms of principles and philosophy, closely aligns with our bill and the bill of the Dehaene government. The only difference lies in the legal-technical improvements made to the text. We know that these technical improvements have been done for two years. Since then they are in the chest of the Minister of Economy, because they were blocked there by liberal excellences.

According to the explanatory note, one of the objectives of the draft is to ⁇ structural simplification for companies by applying the principle of single data collection. In other words, it prevents the same information from being requested repeatedly by different government agencies.

The second is about increasing the efficiency of public services. With the draft, the Cross Point Bank of Companies is charged with recording, storing, managing and making available data relating to the identification of the companies, no more and no less. The associated introduction of a unique enterprise number aims, by implementing the principle of unique data collection, to simplify the administrative obligations imposed on enterprises and to organize the functioning of public services more efficiently. The centralization of identification data and the associated assignment of a unique identification number should ensure that known identity data may not be requested more than once.

The implementation of the legal framework presented here is not an easy task. One of the crucial factors for the success of the project is the availability of a performance, integrated information system for all stakeholders. In this regard, I would like to make a few comments.

First, this is only about the identification data of companies. The draft regulates the centralization of those identification data, but not more than that. Public and semi-governmental agencies such as the RSZ, the National Bank of Belgium, the Fiscal Service and the NIS will remain independent of each other and will request substantial data from the companies. Providing information on turnover, employment and other business data continues to follow the old ways. With regard to that data, companies must repeatedly provide the same information to all public authorities that request the information. The domain of the cross-point bank is very limited in this start-up phase and for the following years. This is a first step in the right direction, but no more than that.

I have a second point of view. In this context, we wonder what happens to those other numbers, such as the VAT number, the RSZ number and the trade register number. Will these numbers be removed? When will these numbers be removed? That question is already a little harder to answer. Is the information technology for this already present, for example, in the RSZ administration?

We discussed the multifunctional declaration in the Social Affairs Committee last week. In that declaration is still the INSZ number. That number is therefore not linked to the unique identification number.

What you do in a Cross Point Bank is, from a unique number based on the old VAT number, supplemented with one position to make the capabilities of the entire data file, counting out the old numbers to link that unique number. Thus, you get through that old number to the data that is in the separate database. In fact, you do not shake them as such physically. Virtually, you can do it. They are linked to one unique number.

That is right. I knew that. I would like to hear it again from your mouth.

It was not obvious that in the committee to get an answer to all these questions. We have then been informed by other committees following other drafts by other ministers. However, let us say that on 1 January 2003 a path is indeed set in place that may last until 2005. It will then be completed.

What will change on January 1, 2003 will not be so strange a lot. There is no mention of the locks at all. I will return to that later. As of 1 January 2003, the trade register number and the VAT number should in principle be the same. We will see.

On the other hand, companies will still need to apply for a separate number for the RSZ, for example. What happens later, we will see. The government also continues to ask all companies to continue using their old numbers, at least until the end of next year.

Therefore, Mr. Minister, it seems that in the short term a number will be added rather than numbers will disappear. But well, we can bring understanding to that in this difficult task.

This brings us to the second conclusion. The road to a single number is still long. As a result, the draft on the single identification number is a draft of the previous government that will be implemented by the next government. A third important point of view is that it does not always make sense from the business perspective to be able to distinguish between the federal government and the governments at other levels. How the cooperation with the regional authorities will proceed is unclear to us to this day. We also did not get a clear answer to this in our questions. These were mainly addressed to Minister Picqué. The only thing we have learned is that there are ongoing talks with Communities and Regions. In any case, there is no elaborate agreement scenario on the table. However, this will not surprise anyone. The door for cooperation with the Regions has not yet been fully opened, but it is ⁇ not closed as the principle possibility is inscribed in the design.

This brings us to a third conclusion, namely that the federal and regional governments have missed a unique opportunity here today with this project of unique identification with joined forces to go to companies. For companies, it is all the same. The federal government or the regional government is for them the government.

Then we come to the dimension of the virtual lock. Article 9 of the draft provides for the possibility for the King to determine the modalities and nature of the tenders and the amendments so that the undertakings can communicate all data directly by electronic means to the Cross Point Bank.

To what extent the government really takes into account the development of a virtual lock is and remains unclear. It has all the appearance of a devout declaration of intent. On the question of what concrete measures the government has already taken to build this electronic box, we received no answer except the answer through an amendment which we could absolutely not satisfy. One can ask, by the way, whether there is really political will to build that electronic lock. Will this electronic lock not affect the viability of the physical locks while even without the electronic lock there are already many questions about the financial feasibility of the physical locks?

One of the first major challenges of the Crosspoint Bank is the registration of all existing companies. Apparently, the conversion will happen automatically and free of charge. It is unclear how the accuracy of the data will be verified. What will now be done if it turns out that the data from the different government records differ from each other? Will a letter be sent to the companies for verification? How will the correct answer be given? What if they do not answer? So we are afraid to start with a Cross Point Bank with a lot of false data that no one knows if they are and how they will ever be corrected. This again raises the demand for a concrete and realistic step plan, a step plan that the industry has requested. We have made it clear whether it would not have been better to first include all existing companies in the Cross Point Bank than to verify these data, to verify according to clear procedures and thus leave with a clean lei while we might now start with an incorrect database.

The second section, the business locks. The second section of the draft law concerns the introduction of corporate lockets. These locks become private VZWs that form the interface between the federal government and the companies.

The Chambers of Ambachten and Neringen, the current front office of the Ministry of Medium State, will be abolished. Anyone who meets the legal conditions can take advantage of a corporate lock. It is not an assignment that is outsourced to the most bidder. That, along with the idea of bundling the interface between companies and government, are therefore about the only two lightpoints in this loop of design.

During the hearings of the Chamber of Employees and Neringen it was raised that a significant part of the political environment and the business world are very skeptical of the financial and functional basis of this project. Even the initiators would have sowed here and the doubt about it. It refers to hesitation within the government to approve the preliminary draft and to the delayed submission of this draft to the Chamber. Whether some of the provisions of this luke of the design will come into the house, remains unclear for us as well.

The Government has, in principle, opted to have a number of assignments, which have so far belonged to the exclusive competence of the government, fulfilled in the future by private VZWs. From now on, therefore, the private sector will take on controlling government tasks. The High Council for Self-Employed Persons and the SMEs simply take note of this. The initiative apparently does not strike enthusiasm in the entrepreneurial world. This has also been demonstrated during the hearings and from the various opinions delivered on the design.

If the entrepreneurial world is not overly enthusiastic about this parade horse of the VLD, what is it about? The answer is simple: everyone knows that the VLD with the enterprise lockets plays a power game in order to seize a position on the chessboard of the enterprise organisations. When discussing this draft, we must not forget that everything began with the attempts of Minister Gabriëls to liquidate the Chambers of Employees and Neringen, a semi-governmental institution, in favor of private organizations in which Gabriëls apparently felt well.

With the draft, the Government removes the Chambers of Employees and Nering. Five years ago, there were investments in the rooms. Today they are abolished for VLD political purposes. It is Kafkaian to hear the Minister of Middle-Earth on a verbal question from me on 2 July 2002 answer that the Chambers of Employees and Nering are still the best working element of all. A few months later, the same minister proposes to abolish the chambers. Beautiful country in which we live! Find out what is good, the model state Belgium gets shape.

While the federal legislature today launches the enterprise lockets, the Flemish decree-maker launches the houses of the economy, yet — which may be the fate cruel — on the initiative of Minister Jaak Gabriëls. This is the response of the Flemish government to the administrative simplification for entrepreneurs. In each Flemish province, a house for the Flemish economy is established. With the installation of the houses, there is only one physical address per province for the companies in the Flemish provinces. In essence, the house of the Flemish economy is a unique lock, a wide and low-threshold point of contact for entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs in spe. They should be considered as front offices for the Flemish administration, both in terms of economy, employment and tourism, as well as in terms of Flanders Investment and Trade. These elements are incorporated in the Flemish Houses for Economy. The decision in this regard implies a pooling of Flemish services in the provinces, in particular the provincial representation of Export Flanders and Vizo, and a repositioning of the regional development companies. It is planned that in the first months of 2003 a number of houses may be opened. Of course, we are not talking about the concrete modalities of that reform.

The Flemish government is taking a very different path than the federal government. It is about the Flemish government setting up a front office per province, while the federal government abolishes its front office that now exists in each province, namely the Chamber of Employees and Neringen. The federal government advocates, under the impulse of the liberals, for a privatization of public duties, the Flemish government does not privatize.

Everyone sees that this was a unique opportunity for cooperation. Unfortunately, the draft radically opposes any cooperation between federal and regional governments. What is good must be abolished. What does not exist must be built. This is purple green, no consistent vision, no coordination between the Regions and the federal government, only breaking down and creating from nothing.

As regards legal certainty, both the State Council and the High Council for Self-Employed Persons and SMEs are of the opinion that the hierarchy of legal standards is not respected as the King is given the possibility to repeal, supplement, amend or replace the existing legal provisions in the context of the operationalization of the enterprise locks. This threatens the risk of a legal vacuum with harmful consequences for companies. Indeed, in the absence of the necessary legal ratification of the decisions amending various legal provisions, the question of the reversibility of the procedures and the damage suffered arises. This risk is even greater because we are at the end of a legislature and because the decisions taken will most likely not have to be ratified until after the elections, and therefore by a newly formed Parliament.

Legal uncertainty is detrimental not only for companies whose legitimate interests are threatened to be compromised, but also for the legally established public services, such as the Chambers of Ambachten and Neringen and the Commercial Register and their respective staff members who have a number of statutory rights inherent in their assignment.

Finally, there is a lack of clear provisions in the legislation regarding the lockets. The High Council for Self-Employed Persons and SMEs is of the opinion that the establishment of cabinets is only possible if a number of very strict conditions are met in advance. For example, the High Council for Self-Employed Persons and SMEs considers that the provisions concerning corporate lockets are characterized by a far too large vagueness. However, for the proper functioning, it is important that both the tasks, the conditions of recognition, the obligations, the fees as well as the supervision and control are defined unambiguously and as accurately as possible. The descriptions used in Article 43 are very vague. For example, the provision “have the necessary equipment” is not defined. Also "and/or have sufficient own financial capacity" is stated without specification.

The Council considers that the provisions are too vague to allow for an objective assessment, for example, of the recognition dossiers for the establishment of a business unit. During the discussion in the committee, it was revealed why those provisions must be so vague. Minister Daems wants to have the hands free to decide who can set up a lock and who will not get it. The Minister stated at one point that he would ensure that those locks would function sufficiently spread across the territory, even though there is no legal provision giving him that power. In any case, the ministry’s statements have made it clear that what those concerned fear is the truth. The vague nature of the legal provisions serves only to enable political interference. All actors will be more careful in the coming weeks if they want to safeguard their rights!

As for the means of action for the locks, there are incredibly many questions. The tasks that the enterprise locks should perform are very extensive. They must not only carry out the administrative formalities in respect of all federal administrations, they must also ensure the right of access to data from the trade register, as well as the mandatory archiving and the additional obligations — such as the provision of information free of charge, the right of access, and the provision of copies or extracts to the government. Many of these tasks must be performed free of charge. The High Council for Self-Employed Persons and SMEs therefore points out that it is necessary that the remuneration granted by the government to the business lockets is sufficiently large and, in addition, does not have a detrimental financial impact on the companies themselves. It is of course important that those resources will be known in a timely manner, so that the application for recognition by those who wish to start a lock can be done with knowledge of things.

To the question of how the government sees the revenue and expenditure flow of those cabinets, there was no answer. The minister did not know at that time. Maybe he knows it now?

Article 55 of the draft stipulates a percentage that the locks should be allowed to hold for themselves. The Minister was able to tell us that the locks will start on July 1, but was unable to say how high that percentage will be. Curiously, Minister Daems knew that it would not cost the companies more than today, which means that tariffs between 50 and 100 euros are considered. Meanwhile, the notification of the Council of Ministers of 19 July 2002 arrived at me. It is stated in point 2 — concerning the modernization of public administrations with the cross-point bank and the enterprise lockets as the agenda point — that "the preliminary draft may be submitted to the Head of State for submission to the Chamber of People's Representatives, with the understanding however that it will be ensured that the receipts from the registration rights for entries and amendments in the Commercial Register and the Trade Register will be compensated".

Therefore, I would like to ask you a few additional questions, Mr. Minister. This notification came to my ear only after our discussion in the committee.

Can you explain this? Does this mean that the percentage that the corporate lockets are allowed to retain can be zero? So you said it, but then you will not meet the question identified by the Council of Ministers, unless other means are opposed. Does this mean that the rights are increasing?

I would like to answer these questions following the notification.

Mrs. Pieters, please repeat your questions about the notification, because I was just calling.

Mr. Minister, this is the notification of the meeting of 19 July 2002, concerning the preliminary draft law establishing a Crosspoint Bank of Enterprises, and so on. That was the point A.

Point B is the establishment of the services for the management and control of the business loquets within the framework of the Cross Point Bank of Enterprises.

It is the notification, where in point two it is clearly stipulated that this may be submitted to the King for signature, if it is ensured, by you, that the receipts of office fees for entries and changes in the Commercial Register and the Employment Register are compensated.

My question is how this will go in his work. You said that it could also turn out at a zero rate and my question is whether you can guarantee this, or whether that means that other resources need to be bordered.

The responses you provided in the commission give me the strong impression that the profitability of the locks is not related to the predetermined percentage, but that the locks will perform additional services for which the pricing will be free.

The High Council for Self-Employed Persons and SMEs insisted that there should be a clear distinction between the legal tasks as set out in the draft and the additional services, without allowing any form of mandatory linking. Furthermore, the High Council for Self-employed Persons and SMEs asks whether there should be no clear limits for these additional services. The latter happens partially and at some point accountants, accountants, and fiscalists have reacted because they feared they would lose some of the cake.

From the Minister, those interest groups were allowed to bring their story not to the Committee for Business, but to the Cabinet. What happened there, we do not know. We only know that an agreement was reached between the Minister and the professional groups, the finality of which escapes us.

In any case, the agreement led to an amendment that does not change de facto and de jure for the relevant professional groups. But well, an agreement is an agreement and we wisely assume that their problem has indeed been solved. For all certainty, however, we have added another amendment, to clearly inscribe this guarantee. However, it has not yet said anything about the principle problem posed by the complementary services. In principle, we can agree that public duties will be privatized. More public duties have been privatized. In this context, I think of the car inspection.

However, it becomes problematic, Mr. Minister, when the members of the private VZW who will exploit the enterprise lock offer other services to the enterprises at the same time. Will they not tend to be more tolerant to their own members than to non-members?

If we go through the analogy for a moment, we might ask whether it would be appropriate to have a car clearing company — a private service — also perform repairs or have car maintenance. That seems unthinkable to me. The same must be guaranteed for the enterprise lockets.

I come to my decision. The proposal to establish enterprise lockets fits in the construction of the model state Belgium. The Flemish government builds the front office in its own region, the federal government decomposes it. According to Minister Daems, the Chambers of Ambachten and Neringen function well, so he removes them. The government no longer controls. The private sector must do that. To make it all a little easier, the controller checks his own work.

The bill comprises two parts. We fully support the establishment of the Cross Point Bank of Enterprises. We support the idea of a unique lock, but we advocate cooperation between the regional and federal levels for the benefit of companies. We have objections to the concrete design of the enterprise lockets.

So we support the part of Minister Picqué, but we do not support the part of Minister Daems.

We will discuss the amendments later. This allows us to have a strong dialogue.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Dear Colleagues, it is true that this project, which combines the creation of Banque-Carrefour and the creation of corporate checkpoints, meets an expectation existing for many years, in terms of administrative simplification, on the one hand, and relay between companies and authorities of approval, registration, registration of companies, on the other.

For several years, we have tried to respond to this desire for administrative simplification by trying to implement various measures. I do not know exactly which ones. Ms. Greet Van Gool, in particular, acted in this case but this proved ineffective without the use of the unique identification number, which has been requested by companies for a very long time. The option chosen ultimately was to organize in this regard, both a place of data collection, the Bank-Carrefour, and a decentralized relay via the corporate boxes. We can only support the creation of these organizations. The disturbing aspect of the project we are discussing is that while we are working on it and during its implementation, a whole series of questions will arise. I think corrective measures will probably need to be taken. This organization will require a continuous evaluation in administrative and political terms. Therefore, I would like to make the request — you will tell me that we will only have to take the initiative — that, on a regular basis, for example quarterly, we can monitor the establishment of this central database — which must of course coordinate with all the other databases set up during this legislature — and that of the corporate offices.

Nevertheless, I have some information supplements to ask you; indeed, as a committee, we had to work relatively quickly not only by facing the change of minister but also by being associated, at the same time, with discussions about the law-program and other projects.

Some of my questions join with those of Ms. Pieters, including those concerning the tasks that will be incumbent on the business offices. Some of these tasks are specified in the project. Furthermore, it is indicated that the business offices will be able to render other services, an additional payment to the one that will be planned for the primary functions that may be requested. At that point the issue arises of joint offers or preferred services to certain customers if these customers also resort to the complementary services.

Mr. Minister, you answered on this subject that the Federal Control Service will check. This does not seem so obvious to me. Therefore, I would tend to say that it would be interesting that the business offices perform the tasks that are those of a business offices and that the complementary services are rendered by the associations and organizations that will be able to create these offices, within their original and differentiated entity.

Another question concerns the cost. In this case, I wanted to check whether my understanding was correct. Companies will use the business boxes and will register with Banque-Carrefour. Currently, they already pay registration fees and stamps.

It is said that it will not cost an extra franc to companies. Echoes report to us that the registration right would not be enough to cover these missions costs. In relation to this, you said that you are conducting simulations, evaluations and that if it turns out that the cost of the tasks to be completed by the corporate checkpoints was higher than the registration fee paid by them, it would be possible to consider additional financing through the state. I would like to make sure I understood this information.

By consulting the specification of charges on your website, I have seen that business offices will fulfill public service tasks and that as such they will have to comply with the language use legislation. What will be the situation in Brussels at this level? Will staff be required to respond to both Dutch-speaking and French-speaking entrepreneurs? Will each engaged person be attached to a single linguistic role? Will there be French-speaking and Dutch-speaking boxes? by

I have a question about the report. You were not present when we approved it in the committee. On page 40, we talk about the disappearance of the Chambres des Métiers et Négoces. In 2004, they would therefore no longer be present in the Upper Council of the Middle Class and SMEs. The report specifies that it is the Upper Council of the Middle Class and SMEs that disappears in 2004. I assume that this is a mistake and that it will survive the disappearance of the Chambers of Trades and Negotiations. We will probably need to correct page 40 of the report on our discussions.

I am also pleased that we have been able, in commission, to postpone the translation into legislative terms of the various resolutions that will have to be taken. In the initial project, the planned deadline was one year, we extended it to two years. I think that the realisation of these projects will require passing through the stage of trials and errors, from confrontations to reality and transpositions, when things will be clear between the different stakeholders.

Nevertheless, I will allow myself to make a comment on the private character of these business booklets. I have no a priori positive or negative in relation to this. I have no a priori regarding the chambers of trade and business as they exist now. However, there is a reasoning that escapes me. Private structures will be used to enable competition between them, which should lead to an improvement in the quality of services rendered. While sound competition can actually produce positive effects, it is not less that this approach falls within the framework of well-defined public service tasks. Therefore, I believe that competition will not systematically lead to an improvement in the quality of services and that the control function will be ⁇ important in ensuring that services are rendered correctly.

Overall, this project meets the expectations of the field actors. I obviously agree with Ms. Pieters’ concern regarding the necessary coordination of the federal and regional offices. Of course, I would like to know how we will proceed to ⁇ this. This joins my request for a quarterly evaluation in the implementation of this project.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, colleague Arnold Van Aperen has asked me to interpret the position of the VLD in his place. I would like to do this because I know the minister is in a hurry. Therefore, it is important to approve the bill and not talk about it too long. This is indeed a milestone in the history of administrative simplification and egovernment. The administrative burden, which has so far been estimated to be between 5 and 8 billion euros, possibly up to 5,000 euros per employee in SMEs or self-employed persons. We need to simplify this administration in an accelerated way so that SMEs and self-employed can take advantage of it. That is, by the way, one of the priorities of this government, which is being realized today. It may not happen at the pace that some would like, but the reduction of those burdens will still give much breathing space to the companies and provide an incentive for entrepreneurship.

There are three objectives.

First is the efficiency. From tomorrow, the administrative simplification should become a fact. Different registers are merged into a business register.

Second, there is a one-time data collection. It has been done with the fact that each time the same data must be collected from several administrations, new documents requested and kept, and so on. The most recent data is bundled in the Cross Point Bank.

Third, there will be a unique identification number, based on the VAT number. Thanks to this unique number, companies will not have to go through the same public services every time to compile a file.

The design is good, especially for the beginners. It comes up to 1 declaration, which can still be handled electronically. Thanks to the new enterprise lockets — which form one point of contact and whose task is outsourced — the matter becomes faster, more dynamic, more user-friendly, more accessible. All of these elements will give rise to a new process, which will cost less to the community and enterprises. This is also the purpose of the bill.

Of course, some unpleasant decisions have been made. Thus, the tasks of the chambers of crafts and crafts are taken over as a whole. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. I think the know-how will be preserved. All know-how is brought together in one organization to prevent fragmentation and overlap.

The corporate closet will create added value for the business. Of course, the necessary safeguards in terms of neutrality, speed, efficiency and legal certainty must be incorporated. However, I think that will not be a problem. It may be a little late, but we are going back to a 1997 European Union recommendation. I see you shake your head, Mrs. Peters. But I tell you, better late than never. Mrs. Peterson wants to interrupt me. In fact, they should not question me, but the government.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say the following. Mr. Lano is so enthusiastic about the principle of the locks. I am also excited about this, I have said this clearly. I am not enthusiastic about the completion. When you follow the debates, you can see that there are incredibly many troubles.

It is very easy to answer such a question. When one begins with something, one knows in advance that one will be confronted with what you call clutter points, with things that possibly still need to be completed. However, I have no doubt that this will be brought to a good end. Every day we wait, I think one is too much, Mrs. Pieters. It may have been before, but it is better late than never. I told you that. In addition to the less good side, there are better sides. For example, software may be able to use the most modern language. I think and hope it will be a success. I would like to congratulate the ministers and their employees. The VLD will of course support the project with pleasure and great enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to welcome the initiative of the authors of the bill that is submitted to us today and affirm to them our support for the creation of the Banque-Carrefour des entreprises. Every independent will measure without any problem the scope of this project that could be called capital. In fact, in our time, all sectors of activity are becoming extremely complex. The entrepreneurial environment ⁇ does not escape the rule. by

Nowadays, becoming a merchant actually resembles a true journey of the fighter. Before you can apply for registration in the Commercial Register, several steps are indispensable. First of all, you need to open a bank or postal account. Then, you must be in possession of a professional card if you are a foreigner residing in Belgium; have the necessary permits and attestations according to the types of activities that you want to exercise and / or the nature of the products that you will produce, distribute, sell or use. Then, you need to apply for an ambulance card if you want to sell on markets or do door-to-door, provide proof that you actually benefit from access to the profession if you want to exercise one of the 42 regulated professions. Finally, it is necessary to provide proof of basic management knowledge that should be requested from the Chamber of Trades and Trades.

Only after these procedures have been carried out can the registration in the trade register be requested. Then it will also be about requesting the registration of VAT, with the durations known to all, to fulfill accounting obligations, to join a social insurance fund as well as a mutual. All these steps aim to create a business. I save you the mandatory steps to start as a principal or complementary independent.

Once this company is established, then it must be managed. In this regard, too, the amount of administrative actions to be carried out is important. I will only mention the quarterly VAT declarations. However, many small details are still to be settled every day with the administration.

Therefore, Mr. Minister, I look forward to the completion of this bill, which is part of the process of modernization of the administration, in the policy of administrative simplification and in the establishment of the "e-government".

These are the main objectives of the government statements of this legislature. I am therefore pleased that this project will result in a real simplification of the administrative procedure and above all, for all people who work, a valuable saving of time for all companies, both when they start and as part of their regular activity. Indeed, the principle of single data collection, through the integration of the local trade registers and the central trade register will, you will all agree, save no negligible time for companies; likewise, the creation of single checkpoints will allow to be able to address a single contact in the context of relations with the administration.

In addition, the efficiency of public services will also be increased by the creation of the Bank-Carrefour as they will now have all up-to-date information at hand. I would also like to highlight another point that I think is essential, it is the protection of privacy whose backup is organized in this project. In this regard, I am referring to the provisions relating to the role of the supervisory committee established within the Commission for the Protection of Privacy and to the system of authorization of access to data contained in Banque-Carrefour.

For all these reasons, you will have understood, Mr. Minister, I reiterate, not only to you here present but to all the ministers who participated, in my personal name and that of the MR, my support and I announce, you will not doubt for a single moment, that the vote of our group will be unanimously positive. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to briefly intervene in the general discussion in order to clarify some aspects without, however, going into those aspects that have already been extensively discussed in the committee. Mrs. Peters, you have cited some new aspects. I will also use the general discussion to briefly outline the submitted amendments. However, this will not prevent you from enlightening them.

What is it about? It is a very separate, unique approach to obtaining administrative simplification, expressed as administrative burdens that weigh on business. Until the time when I became competent in this matter, the perspective was aimed at shortening or simplifying formalities. This was not my point of view. My point of view is aimed at bringing the business industry to the same point in order from there to allow third parties, in this case the administration, to carry out the administrative obligations themselves. The business life is a customer who pays for services provided by the government through tax money and other such as registration and registration rights and who may request a quality service from that same government.

On what is the principle based? The principle is based on one number, one place where one goes to be physical or virtual. One number means that to the old VAT number, supplemented with one position if applicable, all data at that time will be attached. In principle, the law stipulates that once a company has entered a certain data in the Cross Point Bank for Enterprises it can never be obliged to deliver the same data again. Those who are somewhat ignorant of administrative formalities — in the Cabinet Buchmann I was at the time concerned with administrative simplification — will bear with me that this problem can only be solved by a different approach and not by seeking some solace in the old logic. I repeat that there will be one number to which all data is linked in a central place. All different administrations must enter or extract the data at the same unique point. Business moves to one and the same unique physical or virtual point to enter data or get information back.

I don’t want to remind you of a small thing, my colleagues. With the Crosspoint Bank of Enterprises, we have already made a pilot start. What was one of our first findings? Using the cross-check of all companies, we have determined that 150,000 companies that are subject to VAT do not even have a VAT number. It is unimaginable! By the diversity of the databases, by the uncontrollability of the different databases, by the timing that is different for the input of data, one comes to the enormous aberration which causes the government to waste a lot of revenue. In 150,000 cases, we have been able to demonstrate that a VAT number must exist — in the future it will be the unique number to which the rest is attached — but that it was not even requested or not yet existed. It can go from one day too late to never. It’s not that there are 150,000 entities that would just have been okay with nothing.

It is also important that on an internal level the cost pattern will decrease sharply.

Mr. Minister, you declare that during the test rotation of the Crosspoint Bank many incorrect data were identified. In what way did you do that?

We found, among other things, that economic entities such as a SME, a BVBA or a cooperative were registered with social security because they are employers but not with the VAT administration.

When one simply combines the entity’s address data with the name, one comes to the conclusion that certain data are missing. This is one example, but it can be given different ways. That is aberrant. Again, that could go from a submission one day late, because one had to move physically to do so, to no declaration at all. That was not bad faith, but we established it.

Within the administration, it means a huge savings. After all, we remove a number of double acts. Today, for example, in many administrations there is a control of whether there is a VAT number, which number it is about and whether it is the correct one. This is done by hundreds of officials in the administrations of Employment, Social Security and Finance. That all goes away. Does this mean that it costs less for the government because it is a fixed cost? No, because it’s about staff costs. However, a large number of personnel will be discharged that can at that time carry out other priority activities of the administration, ranging from a more diligent handling of procedures to a better control. Thus, certain fraud — such as tax and social fraud — can be better addressed. In other words, a huge package of resources is released by no longer duplicating a number of activities, to then shape certain priorities in the administration.

Companies today must go to as many places and physically complete as many different formalities, on paper or via the Internet as possible. Now you only go to one place. One data must be stated only once. In other words, the company immediately returns to a minimum level of activity. The administrative simplification is carried out in advance and at one time. According to the old logic, one would go from a three-page form to a two-page or one-page form. However, a lot of data should be doubled.

The principle is as follows: the administrative simplification is achieved by looking at where the burden is located. Business has the burden of having to do so many things twice, three times, or four times. This is immediately eliminated by the principle of one number and one lock. Inside – that’s called the back-office – a lot of activities fall away. The potential remains those retaining in personnel and materials. These can then be used for other activities, such as the control of the unit lockets.

You have also asked how it is with the regions. Agreements with the regions have been concluded. I just informed myself. The Cooperation Agreement with the Communities and the Regions has been signed and notified. In other words, the consultation now takes place directly. Not immediately, but in the future the databases can be connected and the unique number can be used across the country. If desired, the same number can thus be promoted in the future at regional, provincial and local levels.

The Cross Point Bank of Enterprises is, of course, based on all the data that exists today in various databases. Now they are mixed, which is a classic fusion process. When two companies are merged, they do the same. Actually, the data is being updated. Such shortcomings often appear.

You also spoke about the compensation of revenue, the famous note of the Council of Ministers of 19 July 2002. If the government no longer receives certain registrations, graffiti fees and other, because the unit lock retains them, the government naturally has less income. This must be compensated internally within the government. In other words, we are now looking at which budgets—Middle, Economic or other budgets—are provided with pure compensation.

It can be that men come to a zero-tariff. What do I mean with it? Registration rights must be requested ten belope van honderd. Het zou kunnen dat een eenheidsloket niet eens die hundred vraagt, but toch het stuk dat de overheid vraagt, doorstort. Regarding Ms. Gerkens’ remarks, it is clear that a permanent evaluation must be established. We are entering a completely new system. We know that in the beginning there will be so-called ‘childhood diseases’ and that in the first few months it will not work perfectly. This is how we will begin first with the administrative formalities related to the registration of a new activity. We start with this, namely the Deus project and the Starter project. In the following months, if this works well, we will add new administrative formalities necessary at the federal level. At the same time, if the regions and communities already want – when we have the contract or the cooperation agreement – to join with us in the Bank-Carrefour and enjoy the single deposit while we can take advantage of their in the corporate houses, we could start adding all the formalities that are not of federal jurisdiction but that are regional, even local or provincial.

Yes, a continuous evaluation will be necessary because legislation can also be changed at any time, which is logical. Thus, the functioning system of the single checkpoint and of the Bank-Carrefour within the State will be ‘monitored’, which I think falls within a normal management. In the beginning, more checks and evaluations will be needed. As we mentioned, the stores will be able to offer additional services to their customers, without linked sales, as you called it, without 'koppelverkoop'. It is clear that this cannot be done and that additional control must take place in this regard. On the other hand, there are consulting and other tasks that can be carried out by these boxes if the company so desires, tasks for which they may estimate asking for a certain payment. Companies cannot be compelled to accept the services offered, but it is clear that billboards must fulfill their legal duties as defined in this law and at a fixed price, a part of which will be paid to the billboards. It is the addition of the services offered by the shop that will make competition useful, necessary and even fruitful in this context. As for the Supreme Council, page 40 of the report contains an error. And, as you mentioned, it is obvious that the Council will not be abolished. The idea was simply to say that the members of the Council from the chambers remain there until the expiration of their mandate; afterwards, we will see what is done with it. That was what I had answered. The error could be corrected directly.

With regard to the use of languages, any business should be able to serve in both languages in Brussels, which does not mean that legal bilingualism should be established. But it is obvious that if I go, as a company, to a desk, I must be able to be served in both languages — especially Brussels XIX as you asked me. This answer therefore demonstrates some flexibility from a legal point of view but, on the other hand, I consider it necessary that all companies are served in the same way.

I try to work a little forward by talking about some of the amendments I have received at the moment.

Mr Peterson, your amendments are based on a number of principles. First, you say that the implementing decisions are not ready. However, they are ready. Of course, they will not all be introduced at the same time. Therefore, of course, I do not agree to delete the title that enters the unit lock.

In your amendment to Article 26, you say that not the Prime Minister, but the Minister of Economic Affairs must take over the coordination. That goes beyond the fact that the Prime Minister, in a government like ours, has the power to shape the administrative simplification. He as such has that coordinating task, with the Service for Administrative Simplification appointed by him, under his explicit competence. Therefore, the coordination must be with him.

You claim that the corporate locks can only provide services prescribed by law and no other counselling or advisory tasks. We differ in opinions. You are of the opinion that it is only the legal tasks, but I believe that they should also be able to have accompanying and other advisory tasks, for which they therefore, in free pricing, where appropriate, ask for a price for. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendments in which you wish to delete it. This applies to your amendments to Articles 43 and 57, where you refer to that logic.

You are right—only that doesn’t have to be an amendment, I’ve checked that with the services—with regard to the amendment of the articles. There is a new numbering. From the services, one new numbering has not been taken over. I am glad that you saw it, because I had not seen it myself. I had not yet undergone it. This means that in Article 57 the number 41 to 43 must be amended, as has happened in all other articles, but not there. This is a matter of coordination of services. It was about Article 41. I would like to accept such a technical adjustment. In this regard, I do not think that there is a...

Mr. Minister, that can happen to anyone, because an amendment by Mrs. Pieters also hits a new numbering. This can happen both to a member and to the services as well as to us.

This is why I just wanted to come.

Mrs. Pieters, I do not have to say that now, but, indeed, in a certain amendment you also refer to the old numbering. This number is taken from the services. This is also a huge task. I do not criticize this. Sometimes it happens. I therefore agree — quite obviously — that this technical adjustment is being made.

With Article 67, I think your employees have overlooked a number of aspects. You say that, in comparison with that VZW legislation, there is a problem here. This is not entirely correct, because there is a new article 32, in which the King decides for each article of the VZW law when it comes into force. Article 32 thus actually includes the problem you raise. You say that we are in the new VZW legislation, but that the King will determine which parts will come into effect when. The problem you cite would indeed be a problem if the new Article 32 did not exist. But we have indeed introduced it.

Article 26 octies, §4, to which you refer, is included, but that is in the current draft section 69, i.e. two articles further.

Finally, the move, as you refer to it, is internally regulated by the entry into force of the VZW Act, which we can ⁇ enter into force in Article 32 by royal decree.

My last comment is about your amendment to Article 86. We discussed this in the committee. It was stated that the royal decrees and the execution decrees had to be ratified within 12 months. I told you why I thought it would be good to make it 24 months. Next year we are in an election year. The implementation decisions will be followed in several months. We can then get into a situation where one of the implementing decisions is taken in May. At that moment we are going to the elections. Parliament will be installed in October. Before a law is then brought forward from the new government, it would be possible that those 12 months will no longer be achieved, starting now, with the entry into force of the law.

So 24 months does not affect the principle. It just seems to me that it is legally safe to deal with it in this way.

These are my general comments and it is also my immediate response to all the amendments that I am currently aware of. These amendments are from Ms. Peters. Therefore, I no longer need to give my answer on this subject when she explains the amendments. I welcome her explanation. However, I cannot accept those amendments, except for the technical note. I am pleased that Ms. Peters made this comment. Otherwise, there would indeed be a forgetfulness still existing in the design.

I will soon begin the article discussion. Mrs. Peters, you can eventually replicate the statement of the Minister at this occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to have a confirmation on two points, which, in my opinion, Mr. The Minister did not respond. I know you are doing simulations and you are analyzing the subject. But in the event that the operating costs incurred by a corporate headquarters to meet the expectations of public services would be higher than the registration fees currently paid by companies, I suppose that it will be up to the State to intervene and that a higher registration fee will not be demanded from companies.

In the event that the State would decide to take over the additional cost, your answer is correct. This does not mean that the state will actually decide to cover all costs; these are two different things. But the law actually allows to go beyond 100%.

I would also like you to confirm the following. Business and business rooms will disappear. The staff who worked there and who had acquired experience and specific skills in the field will be returned to the circuit by another route. There will be candidates for the boxes and, at some point, you will say "X boxes have submitted their application; they are approved; they enter office." It is therefore only from that moment that there will be transfer or removal of personnel and means from the Chamber of Commerce to the offices. If I ask this question, it is to avoid removing the resources from the rooms before the boxes do not work.

Your observation is correct since if we proceeded differently, we would have a period of time during which we could no longer register or go to the Chamber of Commerce to obtain information on "vestiging" as it is said in Dutch. Obviously this will happen simultaneously.

Mr. Speaker, I have a short response to the Minister’s response. In the meantime, Minister Picqué also entered.

I suspect that the Cross Point Bank of Enterprises will start next week or the week following on 2 January 2003. I also suspect that for another month she will be given a chance to test. Thus, by 1 February 2003 the project can be completely eroded. I suspect that the project will work properly. From the response of Minister Daems I think I have understood that any errors by bringing together all these data will come to light and can also be removed. Let’s hope that we then leave with a clean database. Let’s hope it’s not that we have to start with a database that is incorrect due to the input of all those data, some of which are incorrect. In this regard, think only of Euro-DB. This database contains a lot of incorrect data. However, I have heard that the project should be eroded by February 2, 2003.

Therefore, the Minister for the Middle Agreement has also explained that there is a cooperation agreement between the Communities and the Regions. In this case, it is an agreement between the regions. In fact, I would have wanted to see that agreement to know what is specifically mentioned in it.

Then another problem has been raised. They have the houses of the companies in Flanders. I do not know if they exist in Wallonia and Brussels. Is the creation of a front office in all Flemish provinces or not part of this cooperation agreement? Therefore, it is taken into account...

It is obvious that each level of competence organizes itself as he or she wishes. We organize ourselves at the federal level with the unity lockets. The important thing is that the link or connection is made between, on the one hand, the unit lockets and the Crosspoint Bank of Enterprises and, on the other hand, the activity that can be expanded in this regard by the regions. Now, for example, if they conclude from this that their corporate houses — you give a Flemish example — can serve as a kind of unit lockets for the Flemish formalities, after which they make a link with the Cross Point Bank of Enterprises, then this belongs to the possibilities of the cooperation agreement.

However, I have no problem — I suppose my colleague Picqué has no problem — to provide you with a copy of the cooperation agreement in the coming days.

Finally, I talked about the notification of the Council of Ministers. I thought that it was very clear that this could be submitted to Parliament when it is ensured that the compensation is provided. Now you tell me that they are working on compensation. This issue will be voted in half an hour.

It is in principle true that we have provided for a number of compensatory measures in the nuclear cabinet, but it is therefore not yet formalized. I think we had a conversation about that last week. It is true that we must complete its practical outline — independently of the principle — in the coming weeks and months.

You have submitted this bill without regulating the practical development.

[...] how to implement them in administration and in practice.

This will be discussed more closely. I come to the point that Mrs. Gerkens cited and which I also made very clear in my general explanation, namely the financial implications and the percentage. You simply do not get into this. It will then be completed by royal decrees. Mrs. Gerkens, your question is correct. If the corporate lockets do not have sufficient resources to function properly, will this be adjusted by the government? Mr. Minister, you answered with your back to this side so that I did not understand the answer.

This means that at some point the government will have to consider the opportunity of participating in the costs. If necessary, it must cover the full cost or possibly not the full cost. I can perfectly imagine that different unit locks have a different cost price. What are you going to do? Will you take the most expensive as value or will you take the cheapest as value? I’ve told you that there are candidate boxes who say they’re doing that for nothing. In the hearings there have been those who say they need 200%. Let the practice show this. We will do this properly within the government.

I remain with my position in the committee. I hope, Mr. Minister, that you will find interested VZWs who want to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I did not follow the file so carefully and ⁇ not in the committee, but it seems to me that in the text of the draft as it is submitted to the plenary session, Article 32 modifies the entry into force of the VZW law. Mr. Speaker, the VZW law has a very special history in connection with the publication of a bad text, the publication of an updated text with errata and recently again the publication of a text.

If I understand it correctly, Article 32 is intended to amend the implicit entry into force arrangement of the VZW Act — the Act of 2 May. I thought that in the VZW Act the entry into force would take place after all implementing decisions that had yet to be taken had been issued. This is also communicated. We have communicated this to the entire VZW at information meetings. If I read article 32 in fine as it has been amended — because in the draft originally submitted to the committee this is not stated, but this is amended by amendment, I suppose, amended, and I apologize again for not attending the committee discussion — then I find that the King determines the entry into force for each article separately. This is actually an implicit change of the law on the VZWs.

Rik Daems: One law can change another law, you know that too. What we define here is intended to capture the problem posed by Ms. Pieters. We say that by royal decree we will indeed determine the entry into force according to the needs. That is right. You call this an amendment to the law. It is a change of the law.

I must say that with this law we have already had some accidents. She appeared in the Belgian Staatsblad in the wrong version. There was then an erratum appearing with the modified version in the Belgian Staatsblad. We had no luck with this law. If I can express it so simply.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that one wants to quickly pass a certain law through the Parliament and that one itself has lost a lot of time. However, imagine the concrete situation of those thousands and thousands of VZWs who already have a lot of questions about the content of that law on the VZWs. I have personally chaired a few information meetings from football clubs, bird pic clubs, and so on who have questions about it. We tell them that one has not been shown to be able to publish the right law but that they still need some patience. The following explains the entry into force on the basis of the text of 2 May 2001. As for the entry into force, they are told that it will take place once all implementing decisions have been issued. There are very important implementing decisions relating to the VZW law. Now I find that, through Article 32 of another law, one again introduces an element of uncertainty in that much plagued law — but through that, too, the whole field of the VZWs. I find that unimaginable and unacceptable from the perspective of careful legislation.

Well, at least we know that.

Mr. Speaker, it is not possible, we have approved the VZW Act — I look in the direction of the Chairman of the Justice Committee — and it has now been published in the correct version. There, the court of first instance is competent with regard to this legislation. Now here, in this law, the files concerning the VZWs are to be lodged at the Court of Commerce. Imagine yourself . If you have disputes, you must go to the court of first instance. To date, the files are in the court of first instance, at the office. They are going to take them out there now and they are going to place them in the trade court. Let the Minister explain how he explains it. It is simply complicating rather than simplifying. Those who are dealing with a dispute must consult the file at another court, which is often located in another place. It is so. Most seats of commercial courts are not located on the seats of the court of first instance. I expect a relevant response from the Minister. Why not keep this at the court of first instance as it is planned today, according to the VZWwet that was published last week, Mr. Minister, last week. Now you are going to bring that to the Commercial Court. It has nothing to do with trade. It has nothing to do with it.

For the very simple reason that many VZWs today, although they have a non-profit activity as their purpose, do indeed function on an economic basis, and that it is better to organize all data in one hand rather than let it spread. That is the reason, and I think that is also a very good reason. If, of course, you want to maintain long-term non-transparency, then you must follow the direction you are following.

If it is correct what the minister says, that some VZWs are based on commercial grounds, well, then one should also entrust the jurisdiction over the disputes to the Court of Commerce. It is one or the other. This is so crazy, what you say. Or it is exactly what you say and then the court of first instance...

I will give you a few examples.

Mr. Van Parys and then the Minister. Come, finish your thinking.

... ... have no profitable purpose at certain moments, when they get a control of the fiscality, which is reviewed and it is said that this is not actually an economic activity and that they even have to pay taxes. You know that too, right?

But, Mr. Minister, what do you all say here? So you are going here to simply publicly suspect most of those VZWs, as if they were indeed presenting false documents or the actual reality of the association would not be in accordance with the goals of the association? We have approved the VZW law. Competent is the Court of First Instance. Now you are going to place the files at the Court of Commerce. This is the administrative simplification of the VLD. Imagine yourself .

It is unimaginable! Those people need to consult their files elsewhere.