Proposition 53K2343

Projet de loi portant des dispositions relatives aux traitements de données à caractère personnel réalisés par le Service public fédéral Finances dans le cadre de ses missions.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

July 6, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax authorities protection of privacy tax system data processing personal data

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

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 ¶

July 18, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, this bill addresses a ⁇ sensitive issue, that of the data processing carried out by SPF Finances in the framework of its legal missions which are, for the most part, the processing of personal data, which fall within the scope of the law of 8 December 1992 on the protection of privacy with regard to the processing of personal data (the law on the protection of privacy). The provisions of the project under consideration bring the current practice of the SPF Finance with regard to data exchanges, both internal and external, in line with this law.

As the Minister said in his introductory explanation, the draft applies only to data processing carried out exclusively in the context of the legal missions of SPF Finances. It therefore does not apply to data processed for a purpose of managing staff or managing relationships with suppliers, for example.

In order to implement this project, two specific services will be created within the SPF Finance: on the one hand, the Information Security and Privacy Protection Service, which is directly under the responsibility of the Chairman of the Management Committee of the SPF Finance and which will ensure strict compliance with the bill under consideration and, on the other hand, the Surveillance Service, which will oversee the technical execution of data exchanges.

Several members participated in the general discussion. Our colleague Peter Dedecker was concerned that the choice to create the Information Security and Privacy Protection Service within the SPF Finance itself carries risks: quality control can only be guaranteed if an external control is provided, which will raise more trust of the taxpayer.

Our colleague Dirk Van der Maelen was concerned about the fact that, although he has an enormous respect for privacy issues, he finds that labor income is known to employers and therefore to the tax, and that it is necessary to establish possibilities to control income other than that of work, in order to avoid incorrect situations.

Our colleague Gwendolyn Rutten, on the other hand, is advocating greater integration and harmonisation of taxation at European level as part of a European debate. However, it is of the opinion that we should not do cherry picking and introduce only the particular measures that interest us without taking into account the specific characteristics of the whole tax system in a country.

As for our colleague Georges Gilkinet, he refers to the French system which he believes works well and respects the right to privacy. It believes that any adjustments will be necessary to avoid the taxpayer having to enter the same data in different places.

The Minister confirms that the bill only targets natural persons.

After the Minister’s answers to various questions, we proceed to the vote. It obtains the following result: the bill is adopted by 11 votes against 3.

Mrs. Vienne, thank you for your ⁇ good report.

Colleagues, here is a very important draft to be discussed, of which we support the spirit and philosophy. Fighting fraud should be a priority. We would very much like to return the resources resulting from it to citizens and ⁇ in the form of burden reductions. We can only go for it. By committing fraud, one steals from someone else and that cannot be done.

It is logical that for this purpose data is linked to the FOD Finance. All this seems to me very good, only we have two problems with the design.

The first problem is the following. As long as an investigation is ongoing, one cannot obtain access to his or her own personal data. You cannot check whether they are correct. They cannot be improved either. This may be logical during the control, but it can happen.

Meanwhile, controls in our country can take a long time. A certain liberal European Commissioner can testify to this. This, however, is an unworthy rule of law, especially if it takes years.

Therefore, our group has submitted two amendments. The amendment limits the denial of access to personal data to one year. In a well-functioning rule of law, it is logical that legal checks are handled quickly and efficiently. No one can be held on the line for years. It would be logical to have access to your data again after a year.

One can invoke an exceptional measure on the privacy law and deny someone access to his data. You will not be notified when this happens, but when that exceptional measure is lifted. The fact that one does not know that an investigation has been started and that one can no longer access his data is a problem for us.

I think a survey begins with a question to the citizen: “Here are your data. “Do they knock, yes or no?”

In France, it is normal to be informed. It works well in France. France is not a underdeveloped country when it comes to taxation. I think that provision works very well.

This also has its advantages. A citizen can correct his data quite quickly. As a taxable person, one can not only avoid a lot of burden and burden from the control, but also the control itself will be done more efficiently.

Officials should spend less time investigating false data. These are all advantages.

Therefore, in my speech, I would like to advise very briefly to support our two amendments. Given their statements in the committee meetings and their repeated pleasures on the subject, the liberal colleagues will surely have ears to do so.

I therefore strongly call on you to support our two amendments.

Our first amendment regulates the limitation in time of access to personal data. It seems to me logical that this term should be increased to a maximum of one year. Everything should be completed within a year.

Our second amendment is about the constructive story. The citizen should at least be informed of the fact that he can no longer correct his data.

I think that can make things more efficient and accelerate. In this way, we also respect the rights of taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, as I have already been able to express it in the committee, we welcome this text and its philosophy that aims to facilitate the exchange of information within the SPF Finances itself.

Other countries than ours go further than these principles. As a commission, I referred to France and the FICOBA system that gives French tax services access to the bank accounts of citizens with a strict regime of sanctions against officials who would misuse this possibility that is given to them. This works quite well in this country that is at the origin of human rights.

These provisions are able to advance us on three levels. I think first of all about the fight against fraud that must be a priority. We have said enough in this parliament since the commission of inquiry on large tax fraud. We must also move forward in tax statistics because there is a real shortage in our arsenal and in our operations. Similarly, too many tax decisions are made without actual knowledge of their impact and without a posteriori evaluation. This type of exchange can also contribute to this in terms of administrative simplification, in such a way that our fellow citizens do not have to send the same data repeatedly once they will be stored and available at the level of the SPF Finance.

There is indeed a principle of restricting access to citizens if an investigation is underway. This seems to me to be a common sense principle that should improve the effectiveness of SPF Finance services in case of suspicion of fraud. This seems to me to be a fairly normal principle, which is why we will not support the amendments submitted by the N-VA.

As soon as these principles will be integrated into our legislative arsenal, the question is how this will work on the ground. Much depends on the men and women who will be brought to implement them, including through internal control mechanisms. Otherwise, all doors will be closed and access to data will be systematically denied. Therefore, nothing will have changed compared to the current situation. All doors will be open and questions will be raised regarding respect for privacy. I think, therefore, that our Parliament will have to be very attentive to how this will be implemented on the ground. I am convinced of the usefulness of hearings quite quickly after the implementation of this provision, as we hear other services of the SPF Finance, the Service of Early Decisions for example.

In the long run, once this works, it may be necessary to think about an external audit, for example by the Court of Auditors. We are not yet there and we promise that these provisions will constitute a progress in the functioning of the SPF Finance. It is with this hope that we will support this government project.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct something for the report.

Again, an investigation does not necessarily start with a question to a taxpayer. I think this is a misunderstanding. An investigation can be initiated in this way, but it can also be that an investigation is initiated because you obtain data from a court file or because you obtain data from abroad. There are numerous ways in which the start of an investigation can be determined and this does not always coincide with asking a taxpayer of certain data. I think it is important to make this right.

I would like to welcome the discussion we have held in the committee. We would like to commit ourselves to ensure that the Administration would under no circumstances arbitrarily suspend, by way of speech, the rights of access and correction. I think we have made enough commitments in this area.

Mr. Dedecker, I find it important to clarify once again that initiating an investigation does not always coincide with asking for information from a taxable person.