Proposition 53K2922

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses concernant la simplification administrative.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

June 28, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative formalities civil register accounting accounting system civil status service industry doctor sustainable development protection of privacy gender equality identity document impact study Internet development aid social security dentist tariff agreement self-employed person health insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Logghe (VB) abstained from voting.

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. 14, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, both my colleague Bruno Van Grootenbrulle and I would like to refer to the written report.

Mrs Warzée-Caverenne joins your decision.

Madame Gerkens, you have the word in the general discussion.

The aim of this bill is to incorporate a whole series of provisions enabling the simplification of administrative procedures. Certainly, in different chapters relating to electronic signature, electronic cards, horeca (cash), etc., there are provisions that we have adopted in committee. But there is an important chapter in this bill: the one concerning the impact analysis of government policies and decisions.

For a long time, some ministers have told us to stop worrying about the lack of environmental or sustainable development impact analysis of bills or bills. This lack of analysis is regularly highlighted by the State Council. Now, they will present a project of integrated impact analysis that will combine the analyses related to both development and gender equality and the administrative burden on small and medium-sized enterprises in particular.

Then came the day when this bill was presented to us. Our disappointment and disappointment were obviously total when we got to know its content. First of all, because it strongly delimits the field that can or must be submitted to opinion. These limitations include exemptions and exceptions. The first limitation is the projects or resolutions that will pass into the Council of Ministers. That is the criterion. Anything that does not happen in the Council of Ministers should not be subject to this impact analysis.

Furthermore, everything concerning “state self-regulation” is dispensed. Thus, the status of civil servants will be dispensed, while respecting or not respecting the principles of gender equality in the public administration is part of our concerns. It is enough to consult the texts submitted by all the parties in this parliament.

There will be no obligation to analyze the type of policies relating to the public service. Budgetary provisions are also excluded. An old gender mainstreaming system has now been abolished. It would normally allow for an analysis of the impact of budgetary measures on gender equality. There will also be no impact analysis on small and medium-sized enterprises, the environment and sustainable development.

In view of this, we cannot support this chapter of the bill.

To conclude my speech, I would like to point out one concern. What will happen in the coming weeks and months will confirm this concern. I hope, in any case, that my intervention will help to avoid too flagrant mistakes.

The objective of grouping and systematizing impact analyses by combining development, administrative burden, economic impact, gender impact is good, provided that this covers all arrangements (which is not the case) and provided that this is done at the right time, i.e. when the projects are in preparation and not when they are back adopted in first or second reading. Therefore, one cannot accept an exception provided for in this bill, according to which, when there is an urgent request, there is necessarily exemption from this impact analysis.

In addition, an impact assessment committee has been established. It is intended to charge it to harmonise and establish lists of criteria or indicators in such a way as to enable timely follow-up of assessments and impact analyses. But when we look through the text and especially in view of the lack of answers to the questions that have been asked in the committee, we realize that it may be a matter of bringing together, in this committee, officials from the various departments concerned by the provisions, who will, in a way, serve as a mother-in-law to those who will be responsible for this analysis.

We will therefore abstain from the whole proposal, considering the provisions contained therein which are truly disappointing, and which are far from the promises made at the time by Mr. Magnet and the current government.

We will, of course, monitor the appearance of the various arrests charged with implementing these measures. Be sure that we will ensure that these analyses are as present as possible.

I really doubt that the promised device meets our expectations and corrects the process. Let me give you an example of what is happening now. Yesterday and before yesterday, we discussed a draft law on the exit from nuclear power. The State Council, whose opinion was sought on the preliminary bill in 2012, then in August 2013, and again in September-October 2013 on an amendment, said every time that there was a lack of the sustainable development impact assessment.

A report has finally been submitted to us and we realize that it was dated 23 September 2013. So there was more than a year of work within the government from the texts that were on the table and the government felt exempt from having to do this analysis which, in this case, is obviously not anodine. This requires being even more vigilant.