Proposition 53K2223

Projet de loi relatif à la création et à l'organisation d'un intégrateur de services fédéral.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

May 31, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

protection of privacy electronic government database computer systems civil service information technology applications

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR 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 ¶

June 28, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the present bill on the establishment and organization of a federal service integrator was discussed at the committee meeting of 20 June 2012. With the present bill, Fedict will formally become a cross-point bank. This will encourage the single collection of data and the reuse of that data within a strict privacy framework. The Privacy Commission has been calling for this since 2007.

Fedict is responsible for the electronic exchange between federal government agencies, but each FOD remains autonomously responsible for its own ICT policy.

The Secretary of State, Mr. Hendrik Bogaert, highlighted the benefits of service integration. First, the single collection of data leads to administrative simplification.

Second, the collection of data creates the possibility to pre-fill forms and to personalize services.

Third, rights can be assigned automatically.

Fourth, we obtained better data quality and scale benefits.

Fifth, this is an efficient means of combating fraud, which is one of the priorities of the federal government agreement. The service integrator Fedict will oversee the information security and the correct application of the regulations on the protection of privacy. Without prejudice to the powers of the parties concerned, a service integrator should encourage cooperation and play a coordinating role.

The basic principles of the legal framework are the obligation to provide data if they are necessary for a public interest contract, the introduction in law of a conceptual framework on service integrators and authentic data, and the establishment of a user coordination committee and a consultative committee of service integrators.

Finally, the Commission’s sectoral committees on privacy will be given a control role.

Mr Madrane pointed to the fact that there was no budget for the implementation and wondered if there is sufficient staff.

Mr. Dedecker was in favour of a single framework law for all current and future service integrators. He also asked what impact this will have on the regulation on the municipalities.

Mr Ducarme supported the draft as a step in the administrative simplification and asked whether each FOD could also have its own service integrator.

I myself emphasized that each new data flow also involves a link of new data at the same time and information security is of great importance. What guarantees are there to ensure that the safety adviser can perform his work sufficiently independently?

Ms. Fonck stressed that it is not the intention of eHealth to use this data for other than medical purposes and wondered how to adequately protect patient data.

Mr Valkeniers asked whether and how the alignment goes with the Flemish service integrator who is in the steigers.

Ms. Temmerman argued that the system is indispensable in the context of anti-fraud.

Finally, Mr Jadot referred to a letter from the Privacy Commission threatening to no longer grant authorisations.

The Secretary of State responded to the various questions and comments. He indicated that no additional budgetary resources are needed to implement the present bill, that he is in favour of a step-by-step approach and not to work through a single major framework law.

The Secretary of State stated that it is true that there are significant differences between the services and that the level differences between the departments will need to be eliminated in the future. For this purpose, administrative cooperation between the different levels of authority will be essential.

The Secretary of State stressed that it is not intended to establish a single database, but rather to interconnect the already existing systems to enable a smooth flow of data. It is also intended that the various departments retain their autonomy. A KB will soon be adopted for the FOD safety advisors to ensure that they can exercise their functions independently.

The State Secretary also pointed out that eHealth does not fall within the scope of this bill. The purely medical data shall not be confused with the administrative data.

The draft law was unanimously adopted on 12 June 2012 by the Committee on Internal Affairs, General Affairs and Public Service.

Mr. Speaker, it has already been said during the discussion in the committee: we can only express our support for this. This is ⁇ a step forward. It will promote efficiency.

It is only a little shame that it comes so late, ⁇ given the many screams and the flamboyant communication of your predecessor, Minister of Quickenborne, who always had his mouth full of this. This, of course, is not a criticism of your address, Mr. Minister.

I would like to make another side-by-side comment. This law is similar to the KSZ Act. The Privacy Commission issued a positive opinion. I am therefore very surprised that when other authorities in this country, in this case the Flemish government, submit a similar proposal of decree, a proposal that is almost literally the same as the Fedict Act, to the Privacy Commission, a negative opinion is given on this.

This is a signal to me that the functioning of the Privacy Commission needs urgently to be evaluated. You also know how the Privacy Commission is composed. She is designated by the House of Representatives, but is elected from a list, compiled by the government on a strictly party-politically balanced scale. This is not the way it should go.

The European Commission has already won a case before the European Court of Justice against Germany because the link between the Privacy Commission and the executive power was far too wide.

Following this law, I can only call for the final work of a flawed reform of the Privacy Commission. Games where it is possible to take a step toward greater efficiency, but at the same time to prevent a step toward greater efficiency from other states, can really not.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if everyone has understood the title of the bill, namely what an integrator is. This project is important because it aims at an administrative simplification, sought by all. Its implementation reveals the need for financial and human resources and raises issues related to privacy protection to which we, environmentalists, are ⁇ attentive.

The aim of this bill is to enable better data flow between federal administrations. To do this, a service integrator is created: Fedict will receive and respond to requests for consultation and communication of data located in one or more databases.

The objectives to be achieved are defined in terms of efficiency, economy, quality and anti-fraud. In this context, we can only subscribe. This does not mean that there should be no questions about this bill. In addition, some were asked in commission: what are the financial resources allocated to Fedict, in order to realize the project? What human resources may be needed for Fedict to do so? What is the timing for the implementation of the integrator? What is the possible integration with existing systems at the level of federated entities?

For a whole series of questions, the answers were not very clear. No budget is allocated at the federal level. This is the Fedict budget. We work in difficult conditions. by Mr. The Secretary of State explained this, in a very honest way in commission. It is act!

It was replied that Fedict’s human resources were potentially sufficient and that at the timing level, Fedict had already begun integration work. There had also been rebounds from the Privacy Protection Commission, because it was acting outside of any legal and legislative framework.

This bill has the merit of allowing us to enter into a legal and legislative framework. This does not mean that all questions have been answered. On the other hand, I recognize that the Secretary of State has given clear answers to some questions. Are eHealth data, which are health data, a sensitive domain, still health data? Can the citizen be assured that these data will not circulate in the services or departments foreign to the main subject? The Secretary of State responded positively to this question. Should we consider the delegation of some Fedict missions, which might be moved to the Smals? He also said that this was not the goal.

In relation to the goal of re-entering the legal framework and allowing Fedict to operate in accordance with the Privacy Protection Commission, we will support this bill, but there are still many questions regarding its implementation.

In any case, we will be very attentive at every step of the realisation of this integrator that everyone wants.