Proposition 51K1967

Projet de loi relatif à la simplification administrative II.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

July 20, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative formalities administrative reform alcoholic beverage public administration

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

FN VB

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 ¶

Nov. 17, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

( ... ) The VLD group attaches particular importance to administrative simplification. We support our Secretary of State. He has already done great work in the field. He has, as I read yesterday in the newspapers, many good ideas about the municipalities and provinces. I don’t know if we really need to eliminate 85% of all cities and municipalities now. This may be a too extensive simplification.

With regard to the present draft, our group is ⁇ pleased with two points.

First, there is the abolition of the military certificate. The duty of service was abolished in 1993. The issuance of a military certificate is thus pure waste of time for the citizen and for the municipal officials.

Second, much more important is the simplifying measure for the hospitality industry, an important economic sector. We welcome the drastic reduction of the administrative burden for opening a cafe, at events where beer and wine are donated, and for providing strong drinks.

Our group is ⁇ pleased with the design, which we will therefore fully and for the full 100% approve.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the MR group will vote on this bill aimed at lightening the administrative burden that is still too heavy on the proper functioning of our economy and on the daily life of citizens.

This is the second text of its kind that is submitted to our assembly and it is far less anecdotal than the first. At the time, it was simply about removing some outdated texts from our legislation. Today, we are targeting a set of issues visibly inspired by the examination of the difficulties encountered on the ground. This pragmatism satisfies us. Administrative simplification only makes sense if it provides a concrete answer to a specific problem. There is no use in abolishing a law that, anyway, was no longer used. It is better, and this is the case here, to inquire from all the first recipients of the legislation in question about the difficulties it raises, to analyze these difficulties and to address them.

I would like to remind myself that this view is also that of a proposal submitted by my group and voted in the House to create a Parliamentary Committee responsible for the legislative follow-up. The purpose of this text, blocked in the Senate for more than eighteen months, is to seize requests from citizens or companies denouncing any administrative burden or difficulty generated by the texts that we vote every week in the House. These difficulties, we cannot grasp them in the course of the current course of proposals and bills of laws within Parliament. There are, of course, a priori checks: the State Council, the Kafka test, or even the opinions of the legal services of the assemblies. But in our sense, nothing is worth confronting the law with the concrete situations it is called to rule. These confrontations are filled with lessons that we have, at the moment, wrongly neglected. The bill we are discussing shows that the government can, from time to time, undertake to settle a series of topics.

So, like you, we think that, given the abolition of the militia laws in early 1993 and the fact that the militia certificate no longer offers any added value regarding the capacity or behavior of a candidate official, this certificate no longer has any reason for existence. The certificate of militia will therefore no longer need to be presented to supplement the pension file. The pension funds will address directly to the Army notary to claim and demonstrate the period that is taken into account for the pension. by

We also welcome the various measures aimed at simplifying the filing of constituent acts of companies. We know that in this area, our lag is huge compared to the most performing countries. We are committed to the path of electronics that is becoming more and more efficient and relevant with this project. The bank certificate will no longer have to be attached to the authentic constituent act and the procurations will no longer have to be deposited separately.

This is a good illustration of listening to field problems. Shouldn’t this practice be systematized? Why not start a more regular dialogue with citizens and ⁇ ? We vote the laws; they use them daily. It is therefore important that an effective exchange enables us to improve the proper functioning of our legal arsenal.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the MR proposal to create the Legislative Monitoring Committee was voted in this assembly in April 2004. I think it is now permissible to doubt the good cooperation of the Senate in this matter.

This project has now become a project. Is it still in your intention to see it accomplish before the end of this legislature? I remind you that it concretizes word by word the points of the government agreement as well as one of the twelve works you promised to accomplish by 2007. We trust in your determination.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, before us is the bill on administrative simplification, part 2, with a number of concrete proposals for simplification for both the citizen and the entrepreneur in this country. It is the successor to Part 1 — you know, the symbolic bill that has abolished some outdated and unused legal provisions such as the law on the two-fighting, pigeons that no longer perform a military role, and the like. A thin beast, a nonsense, given the flood of unnecessary legislation, forms and paper bags! Not even a drop on a hot plate!

The Flemish Belang, on the other hand, wants an effective reduction and at the same time a qualitative improvement of the regulation. The question that arises is: Do you do better in the second round?

What do we find in the proposal?

First, the simplification of the registration of marriage offices. It is aimed at a small target group. That is good for them, but is that now one of the big goals of relieving entrepreneurial Flanders? Mr. Secretary of State: Where is the abolition of the social balance? This is a heavy administrative tax for companies every year, although the government itself already has most of the data. That abolition is, by the way, a promise you already made in the policy note of November 2003.

How far are you going with the reduction of the archiving obligation? What about the legislative work on electronic archiving? Practice teaches us that the preparation and storage of paper documents is overwhelming and inefficient. In addition, several studies show that 5% to 15% of the business revenue is spent on it.

Mr. Secretary of State, you should give priority to the proper functioning of the Crosspoint Bank for Enterprises and of the corporate locks. Those lockets can then help beginners through the KBO system to obtain an registration number. However, its launch went all but flawless. There are still a lot of practical problems. Enterprise lockets can still not make official prints from the KBO. Consequently, they must request the necessary extracts through the help desk of the KBO, which can take a week or longer with the result: a slower service to the entrepreneurs. These are not only my words, Mr. Secretary of State, but also those of Unizo. In a January 2005 press release...

by Vincent Van Quickenborne: (...)

Yes, Mr. Secretary of State, but also recently, as evidenced by newspaper reports, the same problem continued to exist.

An examination of the locks shows that approximately half...

by Vincent Van Quickenborne: (...)

It is your responsibility, Mr. Secretary of State. Very easily spoken!

An inspection of the locks still shows that half of the locks do not meet their obligations. Often the connection between the corporate lockets and the KBO is still missing.

by Vincent Van Quickenborne: (...)

You confirm that? It is your responsibility!

by Vincent Van Quickenborne: (...)

and ah.

Vincent Van Quickenborne: The audit has shown that. Look at Mrs. If we outsource some tasks to the private sector — and you know we are very happy to do so with the government, because we believe in the power of the private sector — it is of course the intention that the private sector adheres to the rules of procurement. Therefore, we, together with the Government, conducted an audit on the functioning of the corporate lockets and that we indeed concluded that the private sector has remained in default on certain points. We have therefore kindly requested, together with Minister Laruelle for Medium, to improve the functioning of the locks.

I hope you are able to carry out what is ultimately your competence, Mr. Secretary of State. You should not refer to private initiatives or know a lot.

So, to date, there is still no connection between the enterprise lockets and the KBO, which makes it impossible to immediately register new companies. In addition, the financial transparency also leaves to be desired, Mr. Secretary of State. Your intentions may be good, but their implementation leaves much to be desired.

The draft also deals with the abolition of bank certificates and powers attached to the authentic acts. That may be a good thing, Mr. Secretary of State, but given your reputation, as well as that of the government, regarding the implementation of measures, I ask the following questions. Is there enough infrastructure? Is the necessary equipment up-to-date? Are we going the same path as Tax-on-web or the KBO, which showed many childhood diseases at the time of commissioning, but also afterwards?

We also find the simplification regarding the transfer of debt claims. The Government intends to introduce for this transfer the possibility to notify them by registered letter. Practice has long demanded this relief. Mr. Secretary of State, your motivation that a sensitive surplus cost is removed for this does not hold hold. In a newsletter from the Flemish court enforcement officers it says literally: "... a sensitive surplus cost, approximately 150 euros, on a budget of at least tens of thousands of euros or much more. "Mr. Secretary of State, why do you always try to knock on a realization, or one of the few realizations?

There is also a lack of communication, Mr. Secretary of State. Federal and regional governments need to better communicate and cooperate. At the federal level, for example, the tariff structure for the registration of a company was simplified and cheaper, but in the meantime, at the Flemish level it was decided that from next year the start-up check will be abolished.

Vincent Van Quickenborne: I should say from the federal government, in relation to your group, what the Flemish government is doing? That is putting the matter on his head. If the Flemish government decides to abolish the starterscheque, then that is its full competence and then it also executes it, but we should ⁇ not criticize it. This should not be done by the federal government in relation to the Flemish government, because what Flanders do always does better.

You are responsible for administrative simplification. You always have consultations with the Communities and the Regions. It is also your responsibility, otherwise you should not talk about consultation with the Communities and the Regions. Either you are doing your job well, or you are not, but you are a full-time Secretary of State for Administrative Simplification.

No starter gets better from this measure, on the contrary.

Vincent Van Quickenborne: Mr. Speaker, if we and the Government have decided to reduce the registration fee for a startup for the company from 130 euros to 70 euros, then that is a significant decrease in the cost of starting. I have been in Asia. You should know that both in Singapore and in Hong Kong, two countries that, by the way, do not do bad in terms of administrative simplification for beginners, the registration fee is higher than in our country. As for the Flemish government, it is its full responsibility. You know that the Flemish government claims to deliver good work. We will see what she will do.

Mr. Secretary of State, you should consult with the Regions and the Communities. This is the second handbag operation. It is a widely used tactic of the VLD. There is sand in the eyes. One gives something, and conducts a good news show around it, while on the other side, through a back door, in all silence, one takes back the given.

Mr. Secretary of State, an additional seat was created in this government: that of Secretary of State for Administrative Simplification. In 2003 you actually fell in the prizes: you became State Secretary for Administrative Simplification. We are now at the end of 2005 and what are we going to do? You are rushing in the margin, while a real simplification for the benefit of companies is waiting. Entrepreneurial Flanders are not only suffering from the huge financial burden, the administrative burden is also a factor that cannot be underestimated, which is detrimental for creating a favorable business climate.

Mr. Secretary of State, you have only one authority and you did not put the bar too high. Your priorities were listed in the "12 works" and some additional loose flooders. That while you have the key in your hands to actually build a modern and efficient relationship between the government, the business and – not to mention – the citizen. You tell in smells and colours that you have realised almost 9 of the 12 works, while on the Kafka website we find more than 5,000 reports of administrative trouble.

On the one hand, there were indeed some simplifications, but on the other hand, I see that your policy note gets thinner every year. Where are the new initiatives? You would better put your teeth in tax and social legislation. This would save a lot of burden and money for the citizen, the entrepreneur and the state, and for this we need a State Secretary for Administrative Simplification.

We will abstain from voting on this bill because you are globally built. You are busy recording a video clip and travelling to China. Then follow the municipal elections and then the federal elections. So I am afraid that in this legislature we should not expect much more from you, Mr. Secretary of State.

Now followed by Mrs. Van der Auwera and Mrs. De Meyer.

I will keep my intervention on my couch, ⁇ since I am intervening on this section for the third time. However, from the speech chair, it made little impression on the Secretary of State, so I try it here.

You know that we will vote for the draft for administrative simplification. It is indeed a set of measures that can simplify something. We are pleased that the important contribution of a number of colleagues from my group was included in the draft. I think, for example, of my colleague Van den Bergh and the tap permits in the catering sectors. What strikes and disturbs me in the attitude of the Secretary of State is the following. When we were discussing the simplification of marriage formalities in the Committee for Justice, we from our group have taken a number of legislative proposals that we have been preparing and which would save the citizen a lot of body weight on a daily basis.

I think of the declarations of death, birth, the transportation of corpses, the improvement of material defects in acts of civil status.

In the Committee on Justice, the Secretary of State promised to support the priority treatment of these bills. I tried to get my body out of it. This has not succeeded. When the point came to the pile, I couldn’t really count on the secretary of state. Therefore, we have used the discussion of the present draft to submit those proposals in the form of amendments. I was greatly surprised to hear that the Secretary of State did not wish to address these amendments, despite the fact that he was in principle not opposed to them and found the right proposals.

The VLD group — I look at Mr. Anthuenis — believed that the distinction between government work and parliamentary work should no longer be made. The Parliament is still the body that contributes to legislation. If the VLD group really liked our proposals as well as it still claims — I see them, yes, knocking — it could have perfectly supported our amendments. That has not happened. I was suggested that I could submit them by means of a bill and that the VLD would co-sign them. I wonder what it is about. Is it possible to write a particular initiative on a particular name?

The CD&V amendments were rejected in the committee. I hear from my colleagues that yesterday in a committee in the framework of his policy note, the Secretary of State again referred to the proposals of CD&V with the express words that they were proposals that he could substantially support. For some time now I have a vague suspicion that the Secretary of State is beating the CD&V faction on the one hand, but on the other hand is very lubricating to the outside world. The result is that there is no result.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, with the present draft you make me very happy. A colleague of you will make me very unhappy later in the evening. I am happy for the present project.

Why Why ? I am happy because of small parts of the global design that takes an idea from a bill I first submitted in 2001. Sometimes you need to be patient in this Parliament. But it comes out of it.

What is it about? It is about the famous reference address for travelling people. This is a small group, but a group that deserves attention and care. It is about the residents of residential cars without a permanent place of residence, Gypsies, traveling people who do not have a fixed address.

Until now, people without a fixed address could take a reference address from natural persons. Thro ⁇ Belgium, only a handful of people were found willing to serve as a reference address for this group. As a result, in some people, up to 200 — in some cases even up to 400 — addresses were registered on a natural person. Of course, this brought with it a lot of problems. Think of the many exchanges. Also the municipalities began to have long-term problems and refused to register additional people in the population register with all related consequences.

As a result, some newborns from this target group fell out of the boat for child allowance, birth premiums, child and family guidance and the like. There was a lot of human misery.

However, there are a number of specialized organizations that deal specifically with this target group. Due to our current legislation, they did not actually have the opportunity to act as a reference address themselves. Hence the wording in my bill to allow as reference address not only natural persons but also legal persons. That is a simple and simple question since 2001, but we have had to wait for a State Secretary for Administrative Simplification with a vivid mind to get a response to it. Their

Hopefully, this change will ensure that the inconvenience of natural persons is finally put to an end and that there will be a better framework and guidance for this yet difficult and often disadvantaged group, something that they are absolutely right to. Thank you, Mr Secretary of State.

Vincent Van Quickenborne: Mr. President, colleagues, first of all honour who deserves honour. It is indeed the merit of Ms. De Meyer that she has contributed to that part of the bill. On the other hand, during the discussion in the committee, we have ensured, through an amendment by its group, that we have further eased and simplified things in order to provide a solution for that important group of people. It may also be a lesson for my colleagues in the government to listen to parliamentarians a little more from time to time. After all, many of the proposals they submit are ⁇ worth considering and even possibly voting in favour.

The same applies to the remarks made by Ms. Van der Auwera, who says that she has a double feeling when acting as the Secretary of State. She claims that on the one hand I act anointing and that on the other hand I would throw away her faction. Mrs. Van der Auwera, I do not consider myself capable of dismissing your group, the CD&V group here in the Chamber. You give me too many rights or powers. Their

However, I remain with my position, I find the proposals interesting and good. I have already asked the chairman of the Family Law Subcommittee to schedule them and I have also asked the members of my group, including Ms. Taelman, to take the necessary steps there. I hope that in the course of this autumn and the spring of 2006 I will be able to discuss these proposals and, of course, with the consent of the colleague of Justice, to have them approved in such a way that these problems can also be solved.

I would also like to comment on the requests of Mrs De Permentier, of the group MR. by

Madam, it is true that the proposal made by your Group Leader concerning this Reflection Group, set up in the House, in order to evaluate the legislation and regulations, leaves the Senate. I have repeatedly urged my colleagues in the Senate to vote on this bill. Apparently, there are still some hesitations that I do not understand; maybe there are some friction between the Senate and the House. I therefore propose that the House Group Heads meet with their Senate colleagues to find a solution to this problem.

You also requested a permanent contact point so that all citizens and ⁇ can provide me with information and suggestions, in order to move forward on the path of administrative simplification. In this regard, I refer you to our website www.kafka.be, which is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a day. Through this, we receive many suggestions every day. If any of your colleagues or friends have proposals to make, I invite them to visit this contact point and communicate them to us. Mevrouw Caslo, ik kom dan aan uw opmerkingen. I must say that i u u tot op heden have geapprecieerd in your bijdrage in de commission. U volgt dat subject well op. De manier waarop u yesterday today hebt afgesloten vind ik echter triestig. I have no other word for. by

First, you will abstain from voting. Apparently, the Flemish Belang has not been won for administrative simplification. This is something that we naturally note with great enthusiasm. Their

I also remember, by the way, that at the time we abolished those advertisements in the newspapers with a simplification, your party did not approve either. In the meantime, I know what you stand for. You are obviously for more complexity and against simplification. It is good that your voters know that too. Their

You refer to the enterprise lock and the possible difficulty of its functioning. You get a press release from January 2005. Meanwhile, these problems have been solved. My colleague Laruelle is on my side. We have found the solution for the financing of the locks. We have reduced the registration right to start in Belgium. That Flanders that starter cheque then abolish! Well, I want to engage in consultation, but it is fully, for 100% the authority of the Regions and Communities to undertake the things they want to undertake. Who am I to teach the Flemish government at the federal level? Given the political party you are in, you should know that this is not appropriate unless you may be in the wrong political party. Their

You then ask what I have done so far, what I have already accomplished. Should I read the information from the VBO report that was published today? "This secretary of state makes clear progress in terms of administrative simplification."This is a quote from the VBO, the Association of Belgian Enterprises. If they already say that, they are not always very kind to our government, who am I then to doubt it? Their

We have effectively realized nine of the twelve works envisaged in the government agreement after two years and a few months. In addition, we have achieved 106 effective things for companies and our citizens. The Federal Planning Bureau says that for the first time our administrative burden on companies has decreased by 25%, to 1.7 billion euros. Their

With all my sympathy for you, but if you say we haven’t done anything, then I don’t know who people will believe in the meantime. Their

Honestly, I think there is still a lot of work to be done. It is obvious that one cannot overcome 175 years of Belgian bureaucracy in two years. Everyone knows that. Thanks to the support of my colleagues in the government, we are delivering good work. It is our ambition and intention to prove without much promise and especially through many achievements that this government is capable of further administrative simplification.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, you say you have done almost nine of the twelve works. However, there are more than 5,000 notifications on the Kafka site, and so I come to the conclusion that what you have achieved twice is nothing. This is not only the case in my eyes. You are a full-time Secretary of State. We can expect you to realize something more. Otherwise, a full-time employee of your cabinet or anyone else can also perform your job.

Second, in connection with the January 2005 UNIZO news release, you say that the problems with the Crosspoint Bank Enterprises have been resolved. Recently, however, the newspaper confirmed that this still does not work properly and that there is still no connection to the corporate locks.

You’re selling a good show here, but that’s what it shows. You are selling a good news show, but you are nothing.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, you end your replica by thanking your colleagues in the government for their cooperation. You are now a few seats away from Minister Onkelinx. I would like to ask you to come to her stante pede and ask her for her support with regard to the bills submitted by our group.

You must have concluded with me that these proposals are not supported by Minister Onkelinx. You even stated that literally in a meeting of the Justice Committee. At a meeting of the Committee on Internal Affairs you and I must have concluded that this lack of support cannot be justified on the basis of legal or technical arguments.

So I suggest that you make it clear to our group that you agree with these proposals and go for a cup of coffee with Minister Onkelinx. Then we will also immediately know to what extent you are being supported in the government with regard to your plans.