Annual Report 2007 and Programme of Work 2008

Annual Report 2007 and Programme of Work 2008

Graphic signs in the Dutch landscape

The government protects, guides and regulates. It addresses us, its citizens, in words and images to inform us, to advise us, to question us, and to impose bans and obligations on us. It reaches us through newspapers, radio and TV, it writes us letters and advertises in magazines. It comes into our homes, and addresses us outside as well, to regulate traffic, to tell us where we can and cannot go, that we should take care and take note, etc.

The communications from the government that we encounter on the road are sometimes more than just a sign of life from the responsible agency. Occasionally they create – unwittingly – a kind of graphic aesthetics, through its contrast or through its very coalescence with the surrounding landscape.

In this Annual Report 2007 and Programme of Work 2008 we show a number of examples. Contents

Foreword 5

Annual Report 2007 1 Actal in new waters 9 2 National reduction of regulatory pressure 11 3 Advisory opinions on proposed legislation 19 4 Strategic advice 27 4.1 Types of strategic advice 27 4.2 Culture transformation 27 4.3 Expansion from administrative burden to regulatory pressure 28 4.4 ICT 31 4.5 Practice of less regulatory pressure 33 5 Local level 37 6 International level 39

Annexes 1 Advisory opinions 2007 44 2 Studies 46 3 Definitions 47 4 Actal 48 5 Notes 51

Programme of Work 2008 52 Foreword

The Hague, March 2008

This publication kills two birds with one stone: it contains both our Annual Report 2007 and our Programme of Work 2008. In this review and preview we present our vision of the reduction of regulatory pressure in the Netherlands and in Europe.

Actal relentlessly addresses lawmakers and regulatory authorities in the Netherlands, who are to bring about a noticeable reduction in the regulatory pressure at national and at local level. It is a question of good governance at every level: from government ministers and members of Parliament to mayors and municipal executives, councillors, their civil servants and the implementing agencies. The international dimension too remains of undiminished importance. Hence our aim to inform our contacts and other interested parties outside the Netherlands about the situation in practice in our country through this publication. The reduction in regulatory pressure at the European level is also addressed.

The vacancy that arose in November 2006 when Brigitte van der Burg became a member of the Dutch Lower House has been filled. We are delighted that the Cabinet has appointed Francine Giskes as a member of the Board of Actal with effect from April 2008.

Robin L.O. Linschoten Chairman of the Board

5

1 Actal in new waters

Extension and expansion In 2007 Actal was evaluated for the second time in its existence. The period reviewed was from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2006. During this period Actal’s sphere of operations was expanded to include not only the administrative burden on businesses, but also that on citizens.

The evaluation report’s ultimate conclusion was that Actal was an effective, efficient organization that could not be disbanded before 2009. The reviewers further recommended that Actal should expand its activities in the next few years. The Cabinet adopted this conclusion and recommendation.1 It is the opinion of the Cabinet that the focus on regulatory pressure is not yet sufficiently a matter of course. For this reason the Cabinet decided to extend Actal’s mandate until 1 June 2011 and to expand its responsibilities.

actal’s advisory task until 1 june 2011

1 It is the Board’s task to advise the c regulatory pressure, including government and Parliament on: furnishing advice on the a the administrative burden on development and application of businesses and citizens as a result of the integral assessment framework legislative proposals, orders in council in the preparation of policy and and ministerial decrees; legislation. b programmes and measures designed 2 A further task of the Board is to to reduce the administrative burden furnish municipal administrations, on businesses and citizens as a result at their written request, with advice of existing regulations; on regulatory pressure.

It remains our mission to bring about a culture transformation among lawmakers, to achieve that they reduce the pressure of regulations on businesses, citizens and institutions automatically and on a permanent basis. This is a matter of good governance. It is important that prior to political decision-making the various interests, including the impact on regulatory pressure, are carefully considered.

The Cabinet and Parliament have decided that our activities are to be conducted on a basis of independence and confidentiality. Actal furnishes advice on all planned legislation that has an impact on regulatory pressure both formally and informally before a dossier is discussed by the Cabinet. We also strive to put the Dutch method, which has proved successful at national level, on the agenda both in Europe and elsewhere. Influencing political decision-making remains the aim of our recommendations on government policy to limit regulatory pressure and of our efforts to put the reduction of regulatory pressure

9 annual report 2007 | Actal in new waters

on the agenda in Europe and among municipal administrations. The approach has won international acclaim.

Normally, Actal publishes its Programme of Work before 1 September. However, it proved impossible to publish the 2008 Programme of Work by 1 September 2007. The full Cabinet position on the reduction of the administrative burden and regulatory pressure was not yet available and there was still uncertainty about the Board’s mandate and manpower. In September 2007 the coordinating ministers, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, agreed to us publishing our Programme of Work 2008 as soon as the full Cabinet position on tackling the administrative burden and regulatory pressure was known.

We can now report on our findings for 2007 and add to these our plans for 2008. Obviously, 2008 will be a year of change for the Actal organization. We welcome Francine Giskes as a new member of the Board. We also need to fill the vacancy of Actal secretary created by the departure of Peter Bont. From Actal’s establishment on 1 May 2000, Peter Bont headed the secretariat. On 18 February 2008 he started working as senior advisor with the policy research organization Regioplan in Amsterdam. Finally, in 2008 the secretariat will leave its independent accommodation at Lange Voorhout in The Hague. From the point of view of cost savings and efficiency gains it was decided to house the secretariat in the renovated premises of the Ministry of Finance at Korte Voorhout in The Hague. We have reached agreements with the Ministry of Finance guaranteeing our independence.

10 2 National reduction of regulatory pressure

The Cabinet The fourth Balkenende Cabinet acknowledges the importance of reducing regulatory pressure. Billions of public and private money will become available if regulatory pressure is reduced. In February 2007 the Christian Democrats (CDA), the Labour Party (PvdA), and the Christian Union concluded the coalition agreement ‘Working Together, Living Together’. They undertook to reduce regulatory pressure by inter alia setting a new target of reducing the administrative burden on businesses by 25%, by combining permits and through a broader application of the lex silencio positivo.

lex silencio positivo

Lex silencio means that if an authority The report was presented to the fails to reach a decision on a permit Minister for Foreign Trade in March application within the statutory period, 2005. the application is deemed to have been On 18 December 2007 the Minister granted. In 2005, together with the for Foreign Trade informed the Lower Ministry of Economic Affairs, we drew House of the introduction of the lex up the report ‘The lex silencio, a study of silencio.2 We are delighted with this the effect of the Spanish model of Cabinet initiative and look forward to deadlines and fictitious decisions and seeing the list of permits for which the the applicability of this model in the lex silencio will indeed be introduced. Netherlands’. The Cabinet will publish this list around the summer of 2008.

The Cabinet is sensitive to the local administrative burden. In this context the administrative burden on citizens will also be reduced.3 Following the formation of the coalition agreement the fourth Balkenende Cabinet first conducted a ‘100 day dialogue’ and on 14 June 2007 presented its 2007-2011 Policy Programme, which contained the ‘top 10’ problem areas among the administrative burdens on citizens.

11 annual report 2007 | National reduction of regulatory pressure

impact of the coalition agreement on regulatory pressure

Actal examined the impact of the measures in the coalition agreement coalition agreement on regulatory will definitely have an impact on pressure. On 24 May 2007 we presented regulatory pressure, most of them the final report ‘Inventory of regulatory producing a heavier burden. About 14% pressure from fourth Balkenende of the measures might affect regulatory coalition agreement’ to the Prime pressure, depending on how they are Minister and the two Deputy Prime implemented. The coalition agreement Ministers. will probably result in an increase in The coalition agreement contains regulatory pressure. This is at odds with 238 policy proposals. Our examination the Cabinet’s intention of reducing revealed that about half of these regulatory pressure at central and local proposals could have an impact on level. regulatory pressure. About 36% of the

The Cabinet set out its ambition to reduce regulatory pressure in two introductory memorandums. On 19 July 2007 the State Secretary for Finance and the Minister for Foreign Trade published the Action plan for reducing the regulatory pressure on businesses: ‘Noticeably less regulatory pressure on entrepreneurs’.4 On 21 September 2007 the State Secretary for the Interior and Kingdom Relations presented the policy paper ‘Better service to citizens and a lighter administrative burden’ to the Lower House.5

On 6 September and 22 November 2007 we issued advisory opinions for tightening up the Cabinet’s approach to reducing regulatory pressure.

Actal’s view ‘A noticeable drop in burdens by expanding and deepening the approach’ is the recurring theme of Actal advisory opinions in our sphere of operations.6 In short, our concern is to coordinate, measure and advise.

The fourth Balkenende Cabinet has expanded the approach from reducing the administrative burden to reducing regulatory pressure. We appreciate this broader focus of government policy but are disappointed in the way the Cabinet implements its plans, as a broader approach requires the Cabinet to deploy the tested infrastructure in full, unequivocally and across the board to reduce regulatory pressure on citizens, businesses, institutions and professionals. By infrastructure we mean all the procedural and intrinsic factors that allow a reduction in regulatory pressure. Unfortunately, the Cabinet did not fully maintain the infrastructure of coordination, measurement and advice in spite of the praise and encouragement of the OECD and World Bank in 2006.7 Thus the Cabinet has jeopardized the success of its policy to bring about a noticeable reduction in regulatory pressure.

We also think that Parliament failed to intervene with sufficient force. On 12 September 2007 a general debate was held on the reduction of regulatory pressure on businesses, Actal’s evaluation and the government’s response to it. On 11 October 2007 the Lower House debated further and on 16 October 2007 it passed a series of motions.8 Also, that same day a motion was adopted on business information centres.9 Three months later, on 17 January 2008, the Cabinet sent a written response to the motions to the Lower House.

12 National reduction of regulatory pressure | annual report 2007

It considers the motions as support for its policy. In its view two motions can only be implemented ‘in spirit’. Since the Cabinet is not implementing in full the motions on a baseline measurement of the substantive costs of compliance and on the expansion of Actal’s assignment, it is cutting the ground away from under its own feet.

We are disappointed that the Lower House did not hold a general debate on the policy paper ‘Better service to citizens and a lighter administrative burden’. However, in the context of the debate on the Policy Document on Renewal of the Civil Service a motion on a baseline measurement of the interagency burden was passed.10

If we compare our advisory opinions on coordination, measurement and furnishing advice to the situation in early 2008, the following picture emerges.

Coordination The first building block of the infrastructure is a strong, coordinating minister supported by a project directorate. Unfortunately, the fourth Balkenende Cabinet has still not created visible and strong coordination. Previous governments already had two ministers responsible for coordinating the administrative burden on businesses and citizens. The Minister of Finance forcefully directed reduction of the administrative burden on businesses. The Minister for Government Reform and Kingdom Relations was responsible for reducing the administrative burden on citizens. The expansion of the approach is one of the reasons for the sharp increase in the number of coordinating ministers. The State Secretary for Finance, the Minister for Foreign Trade and the State Secretary for the Interior and Kingdom Relations are the direct coordinators of the reduction in regulatory pressure. The ministers of these three departments and the Minister of Justice also have a role. The coordinating ministers also meet in the Ministerial Steering Committee on Regulatory Pressure, which is chaired by the Prime Minister. The impact of this steering committee is not yet as good as it should be, given the differences in timing and scope of the programmes for reducing regulatory pressure on businesses and citizens, institutions and professionals. Our ‘Supplementary opinion on tightening up the Cabinet approach to reducing regulatory pressure’ therefore also recommends clarifying what the Ministerial Steering Committee on Regulatory Pressure has achieved.11

A new development is the establishment of the Steering Group Regulatory Pressure for the period from 15 October 2007 to 31 December 2011.12 The Steering Group Regulatory Pressure supports the State Secretary for Finance and the Minister for Foreign Trade in achieving the government’s ambitions as stated in its programme for reducing regulatory pressure on businesses. As a project directorate the Steering Group Regulatory Pressure comes under the responsibility of the Director-General of the Budget of the Ministry of Finance. We hope the Steering Group Regulatory Pressure is able to improve on the success of its predecessor, the Interdepartmental Project Directorate for the Administrative Burden (IPAL). The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations has also decided to merge the programmes to reduce the administrative burden and the regulatory pressure. It will have a single programme directorate ‘Service, Regulatory Pressure and Information Policy’. This programme directorate will come under the responsibility of the Director-General for Kingdom Relations and Governance. We hope this programme directorate will get a firm grip on cutting the administrative burden on citizens and professionals and reducing the interagency burden.

13 annual report 2007 | National reduction of regulatory pressure

Our advisory opinion on strong coordination is also addressed to Parliament. In Actal’s view, coordination within Parliament also needs improving so that the Cabinet can be effectively held to account regarding its plans to reduce regulatory pressure. This can be achieved, for example, by setting up a standing committee or theme-based committee on the reduction of regulatory pressure.

Although in our advisory opinion on ‘Internalization of the Administrative Burden’ of 15 March 2007 we recommended establishing a sustainable infrastructure in ministries, some ministries are or have been making cutbacks. We are particularly concerned about developments in the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport and the Ministry for Youth and Families. Together with the coordinating departments we need to pull out all the stops to keep these departments focused.

14 National reduction of regulatory pressure | annual report 2007

Measuring The infrastructure further requires a full baseline measurement to be carried out, and hence the establishment and use of an objective measuring instrument based on the euro denominator. Another requirement is the establishment of a net reduction target and, subsequently, a burden cap.

The Cabinet has decided to carry out a new baseline measurement for the administrative burden on businesses. The administrative burden will be mapped for each ministry, the reference date being 1 March 2007. The work will be completed by 1 April 2008. We also consider it important that the Cabinet should implement in 2007 all the measures the previous one was unable to implement due to the early elections. However, the Cabinet has also fixed a new reference date: 1 March 2007, which signifies that the fourth Balkenende Cabinet is holding itself accountable for all reduction measures introduced after 1 March 2007. As a result, the measures and expected increases realized after that point in time, or which are still under development, will come under the new approach. In this way the Cabinet collects a 5% drop in the administrative burden without expending any effort. We also feel that a reference date in the course of – so not at the start of – a calendar year distorts the presentation of results achieved.

We have found that during the term of the previous government businesses experienced no noticeable drop in the administrative burden. The net reduction of 25% in the administrative burden was not achieved. The fourth Balkenende Cabinet states in its July 2007 action plan that the previous Cabinet achieved a reduction in the administrative burden on balance of 3,232 million euro, a net reduction percentage of almost 20%. It attributes a large part of this reduction percentage to the introduction of XBRL. On 16 July 2007 we issued an advisory opinion to the Minister of Justice on XBRL- NTP.13 The main conclusion of that advisory opinion is that we consider both XBRL and NTP to be a very good development, but that their positive impacts on the administrative burden on businesses was certainly not yet noticeable in 2007.

The new baseline measurement is intended to result in an improved Standard Costs Model based on a new handbook ‘To Measure is To Know 2’. The Cabinet has thus accepted our advisory opinion ‘Towards a visible reduction in the administrative burden: advice on expansion and measuring methodology’ of December 2005. In the last quarter of 2007 we examined a draft version of the new handbook ‘To Measure is To Know 2’. We remain in contact with the Steering Group Regulatory Pressure to ensure that all aspects for noticeably reducing regulatory pressure are fully taken into account in the method for conducting the new baseline measurement and quantification of the administrative burden of proposed regulations and legislation in the next few years. The rules for reducing regulatory pressure can also contribute to this. These rules were laid down by the Cabinet in Annex 7 to the 2008 Budget.14

We wish to avoid that the concept of administrative burden is defined more narrowly, as this would mean that we can achieve less. For example, we understand that obligations to furnish information to third parties will be categorized as other compliance costs.

We may issue a strategic opinion on the scope of the new definition of administrative burden in 2008.

15 annual report 2007 | National reduction of regulatory pressure

The national government will further provide for a new baseline measurement to give an overview of the total administrative burden on citizens and businesses caused by municipal administrations.

However, the Cabinet has decided not to implement in full the motion introduced by Van der Burg, Smeets and Blanksma on measuring other compliance costs. There will be no integral measurement of these costs. Only the compliance costs of a number of ‘selected’ laws will be mapped. The Cabinet refers to the performance of the business impact assessment for mapping the consequences of legislative proposals on compliance costs, but without making clear what the quality of the business impact assessment is. We also wish to underline that calculating reduction proposals is not the same as finding reduction proposals with the aid of a full baseline measurement. We remain convinced that an integral measurement is a necessary instrument for the Cabinet. You cannot follow a steady course using a faulty compass.

The Cabinet has also decided not to carry out a new measurement of the administrative burden on citizens. This means that past faults will still not be remedied. After all, the old measurement was not a complete one, but a measurement based on the Pareto principle: it was limited to the legislation responsible for the biggest share of the administrative burden on citizens. Another objection to the old data is that a distinction is drawn between costs and time. In our view, all measurements and targets for reducing regulatory pressure should be expressed in a single unit: the euro. Furthermore, we are disappointed that the Cabinet has not fixed a new target of a 25% reduction in the administrative burden on citizens as a result of national legislation. The ‘10-point plan’ is mainly a continuation of policy already set in motion to reduce the administrative burden on citizens. Neither does the Cabinet go any further than maintaining the departmental burden cap fixed in May 2006.

The fourth Balkenende Cabinet also wants to reduce bureaucracy within the government through a reduction of at least 25% in the interagency burden on municipal and provincial authorities.15 The Cabinet will halve the number of specific benefits and reduce the flow of financial information. The question, though, is how it can be established whether the reduction target has been reached if no full baseline measurement has been made. We call for the performance of a baseline measurement of the interagency burden. This will give an idea of the potential for reduction and allow a calculation of each reduction proposal.

Finally, the Cabinet wants to reduce the obligations on professionals working in the public/semi- public sector to keep records, e.g. police officers and teachers. The Cabinet has opted to conduct a quantitative time-use and perception survey. In this way it aims to arrive for each professional at a ‘top 5’ of obligations that take the most time and cause the most irritations. We have yet to be informed of the precise nature and scope of this measurement. For us the performance of a full baseline measurement and the establishment of a net reduction target continue to be the matter of prime importance.

16 National reduction of regulatory pressure | annual report 2007

Advising The last component of the infrastructure is engaging the services of an independent advisory board. The 2006 Decree amending the Decree establishing the Advisory Board on Administrative Burden with a view to extending its mandate, the increase in the number of the Board’s staff and the expansion of its assignment will be published in the Bulletin of Acts and Decrees in the spring of 2008.

Our advisory duty in the sphere of the administrative burden on businesses and citizens definitely gives us sufficient scope.

Our advisory task in the sphere of the other compliance costs, the interagency burden and obligations on professionals to keep records will need to be fleshed out further in 2008 in conferral with the Cabinet and Parliament, especially in relation to our possibilities for intervening in planned legislation in these areas at the preparatory stage. We will attempt to remove any obstacles by issuing strategic opinions.

17

3 Advisory opinions on proposed legislation

Compared with previous years the number of dossiers on proposed legislation dealt with in 2007 fell.16 This means that we have had less opportunities to work on the culture transformation, as we deliver our opinion before a proposal is discussed by the Council of Ministers or published in the Government Gazette. In order to encourage the culture transformation among lawmakers, we put much effort into the design stage of the legislation. This also applies to the dossiers on which we do not deliver a formal opinion. Even though these dossiers may be of less relevance to the reduction of the administrative burden, we still grasp the opportunity at official level to call for the reduction of regulatory pressure. The number of advisory opinions relating solely to the administrative burden on businesses or the administrative burden on citizens has gone down by half.

Overview of dossiers 2006 2007

Dossiers with formal advice 58 41 Dossiers without formal advice 194 160 Total number of dossiers processed 252 201

Dossiers with formal advice 2006 2007

Administrative burden on businesses and citizens 12 17 Administrative burden on businesses 37 18 Administrative burden on citizens 85 Administrative burden on institutions 11

When we decide to deliver an advisory opinion on a dossier, we employ the following review framework: 1 Has the expected administrative burden been quantified and is the calculation sufficiently substantiated? 2 Has sufficient consideration been given to alternatives that may produce a lesser administrative burden on businesses and citizens? 3 Within the object of the legislation has the least burdensome alternative been selected? 4 Has an implementation offering a minimum administrative burden been selected? This review results in a final judgement. We have four categories of formal advice: ‘introduce’, ‘introduce, but only after’, ‘do not introduce unless’, do not introduce’.17 In the period 2003-2006 we observed a continuous improvement in the consideration of the administrative burden. In 2007 the number of negative opinions delivered increased. This is a worrying trend breach. Added to this, the impact of the planned legislation on which we delivered opinions in 2007 is insufficient to achieve the Cabinet’s objectives.

19 annual report 2007 | Advisory opinions on proposed legislation

Dossiers with formal advice 2006 2007

Yes 25 12 Yes, but only after 29 20 No, unless 17 No 32 Total number of opinions 58 41

Actal advisory opinions 2003 – 2007

100% Do not introduce Do not introduce, unless Introduce, but only after Introduce 80%

60%

40%

20%

0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

The overview gives a complete picture of the impact on the administrative burden of all dossiers processed by Actal from 1 March 2007 to 29 February 2008. This impact may turn out to be different once the relevant legislation or regulations actually come into force due to decisions made by the Council of Ministers or in parliamentary debate, or both. The subsidy dossiers are not mentioned because the Cabinet has yet to fix a reduction target for subsidy regulations. It has announced a government-wide binding, uniform implementation framework for subsidies in order to reduce the implementation and administrative burdens, both on subsidy recipients and on the implementing bodies. The key factor is the proportionality between subsidy amount and burden.18

The overview shows the structural and incidental impact on the administrative burden per ministry and overall for the dossiers we processed in the period under review. The dossiers with an administrative burden for institutions that we processed from 1 March 2007 only had a structural impact, which is why there is no one-off impact column for the administrative burden on institutions.

20 Advisory opinions on proposed legislation | annual report 2007

Administrative burden on citizens Administrative burden Administrative burden on businesses on institutions

AB in euro AB in hours AB in euro AB in euro Ministry One-off Structural One-off Structural One-off Structural Structural

Interior and Kingdom – 160,000 16,500 Relations Economic Affairs 80,000 37,200 1,273,698,250 38,028,100 Finance – 25,696,000 – 947,000 – 249,000 54,02,000 45,436,400 Justice 500 12,000 302,000 – 411,958,884 Agriculture, Nature – 519,526 – 648,240 and Food Quality Education, Culture 9,180 – 20,000 – 10,000 4,450 39,000 – 8,052 – 1,453,425 and Science Social Affairs 49,800 54,313 7,800,000 – 900,000 and Employment Transport, Public Works – 44,745,000 5,000,000 – 1,197,000 22,319,825 – 14,509,675 and Water Management Housing, Spatial 75,000 – 2,600,000 13,000 3,501,300 – 39,386,132 Planning and Environment Health, Welfare and 502,640 1,685,825 451,000 63,954,250 52,849,000 Sport Total – 25,109,180 – 48,261,700 6,780,825 – 1,059,037 1,425,115,099 – 331,080,983 – 1,453,425

The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality has for some time been one of the frontrunners in the ‘internalization’ process. It scored well in the two internalization studies. The findings at civil servant level also show that the reduction of the administrative burden is generally well ingrained in the staff of this ministry. The obvious thing to do therefore seems to designate this particular government department as ‘pilot department’ for the next year and not to adhere strictly to our selection criteria. The aim of the pilot is to assess whether the focus on the administrative burden in the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality has been sufficiently internalized to allow this department to proceed further under its own steam. This could be the overture to a phased dismantling of the review activities in every ministry, in such a way that sufficient focus on reducing the administrative burden remains guaranteed if Actal is disbanded in 2011.

In 2008 we will decide on the participation of a ministry in the pilot with extended selection criteria.

Parliament We also continue to focus on Parliament for the reduction of regulatory pressure, and not just when there are debates on legislative proposals from the Cabinet. We are also concerned about the introduction of legislative initiatives, amendments and motions that have an impact on regulatory pressure. We continually call upon the Lower House to show the same discipline as the ministers and their departments in reducing the administrative burden. For Parliament this means that it should map the impact of its proposals on the administrative burden and have this impact calculated, that it should think about alternatives and implementation involving a lesser administrative burden, and that it should seek the advice of Actal. Unfortunately, this is still not the case. In 2007 we did not deliver a single advisory opinion on planned legislation to the Lower House, whereas in that same year 9 legislative initiatives were introduced and 141 amendments and 601 motions were passed.19 21 annual report 2007 | Advisory opinions on proposed legislation

We also found in 2007 that following the delivery of our advisory opinion, a drop in the administrative burden was reversed. One example is the Building Use Decree. The Decree sets general rules for fire safety. The number of businesses that have to apply for a permit to use a building has been substantially reduced. For most of these businesses there will be a notification requirement. The Building Use Decree simplifies the procedure for businesses for which no additional safety requirements are needed. In our advisory opinion providing ‘yes, but only after’ we were moderately positive about the decree. The points raised in the opinion concerned the inspection frequency of mobile fire extinguishers, the logbook requirement that was not scrapped, the impact on the administrative burden on citizens that had not been mapped , and the policy freedom of municipal administrations. Following conferral with the Lower House the Minister for Housing, Communities and Integration reconsidered her intention to reduce the inspection frequency for mobile fire extinguishers. And so a substantial saving on the administrative burden of 6 million euro evaporated.20

Alternatives Whenever we can, we call on lawmakers to examine on a structural and consistent basis alternatives that are less burdensome. To this end, in February 2006 we launched the website www.minderadministratievelasten.nl. The website links up with the policy process and helps policy advisors to involve various policy alternatives at the different stages of the policy process and at the same time to note the impact on the administrative burden. From the start in February 2006 until the end of December 2006 this website was visited by 1,880 unique visitors. In 2007 this rose to 3,033 unique visitors.

We think it important for lawmakers to show that they do consider alternatives. However, it does not mean that as a result of our recommendations the least burdensome alternative is always implemented. An example of this is the periodic motor vehicle inspection dossier, the APK dossier. On 26 June 2007 the Council for Economics (one of the subcouncils of the Council of Ministers), Knowledge and Innovation asked us to deliver an opinion on the impact on the administrative burden of the Cabinet’s plan to reduce the frequency of the periodic motor vehicle inspection.21 The draft letter from the Minister of Transport, Public Works and Water Management shed insufficient light on less burdensome alternatives. One example of this was the European minimum alternative in which the vehicle’s combustion engine makes no difference for the frequency of inspections.22 On 28 June 2007 we recommended implementing the European legislation without national add-ons. This recommendation was not adopted. Actal’s advisory opinion and further conferral with Actal did lead to a detailed calculation of the reductions of the administrative burden and to an explicit underpinning of the choice made by the Cabinet.

For that reason we also check whether a proposal contains additional rules that go beyond the requirements of European legislation. This played a role in late 2007 in the Reporting requirement on biomass for energy purposes bill. The aim of the bill is to create transparency in the production of and trade in biomass. We came to the conclusion that contrary to the Cabinet’s policy this bill resulted in a national add-on being created, and the ultimate administrative burden had not been fully mapped.23 The reporting requirement is not at present a European requirement. The two applicable European directives do not contain this requirement.24 So the bill contains a national add-on over and above European legislation and hence conflicts with Cabinet policy.25

22 Advisory opinions on proposed legislation | annual report 2007

Differences within a single government department Differences occur within departments. For example, the Ministry of Finance’s Financial Markets section always involves us in the legislative process from an early stage, such as in the implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID), in the area of supervision of the conduct of financial enterprises, and the implementation of the third money laundering directive. Financial Markets is always open to suggestions and takes the administrative burden and other compliance costs into account at an early stage. In the sphere of taxes, the Ministry of Finance did not do so well in 2007. Tax legislation is frequently not presented to us until the very last minute. That restricts our ability to contribute ideas on how the law’s objective can be achieved in a less burdensome manner. It is disappointing that the Tax Administration has so far failed to turn the Precompleted Tax Return (PTR) into a success. We see the PTR as a best practice of service and of the principle of single data return to the government and multiple use within this government. We are arguing for the PTR to get off the ground in 2008. Although Fiscal Finance takes the administrative burden on citizens and businesses seriously, 2007 was not a successful year, also given the double request for wage data made by the Tax Administration. We are assuming that with the embedding of XBRL within the Tax Administration and the completion of the infrastructure for the PTR, Fiscal Finance will turn 2008 into a year with a noticeably lighter administrative burden on citizens and businesses.

23 annual report 2007 | Advisory opinions on proposed legislation

Supervisory rules Since 2006 we also review the proposed supervisory rules of De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB – the central bank of the Netherlands) and the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM). Officially the dossiers of the two supervisory authorities are presented to the Finance Minister. So in first instance we advise the Minister of Finance on the supervisory rules of both DNB and the AFM. Last year we worked together with these supervisory authorities on a total of 8 dossiers. Both authorities show an awareness of the administrative burden they create. They always involve the business community in the drafting of the supervisory rules, and when answering queries from Actal they always show that they consider alternatives. In our view this second year of working together with DNB and AFM on presenting dossiers was again a constructive experience.

Subsidy dossiers In spite of the drop in the total number of dossiers processed, 2007 was marked by a substantial increase in the number of subsidy dossiers. A total of 48 dossiers were presented, most of them from the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Government-wide there are various initiatives for directly or indirectly reducing the administrative burden on subsidy schemes. For example, the Steering Group Regulatory Pressure is including this administrative burden in the new baseline measurement, even if this burden is not included in the new 25% target. Also, the Ministry of Economic Affairs is developing the ‘subsidy omnibus’, a common framework containing requirements for all this Ministry’s subsidy schemes in the field of innovation, which will in due course cover virtually all the subsidies provided by Economic Affairs. The Ministry of Finance is developing a more general framework for all central government subsidy schemes with conditions applying to each type of subsidy. The aim of these projects is to make these schemes more uniform and less burdensome. In addition, the various ministries have undertaken to place the implementation of their subsidies with a single organization. We look forward to seeing the uniform implementation framework for subsidies and the reduction of the administrative burden that will result.

Panel of experts and teamwork When preparing our advisory opinions we often seek contact with third parties. By conferring with a panel of experts or seeking to work together with other organizations we attempt to raise the quality and effectiveness of our opinions.

We used a panel of experts for our opinion on the Soil Quality Decree and Soil Quality Regulation, which impose environmental conditions on the use of building materials, earth and dredging spoil for purposes of protecting the soil and surface waters, and also regarding the re-use of waste as building material or earth. On 24 April 2007 we organized a meeting of experts, which was attended by representatives of the business community and the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM Inspectorate). Our findings from this meeting were incorporated in our advisory opinion. Our advice covered inter alia the not entirely correct quantification of the administrative burden and the reconsideration of the notification requirement for clean soil. The operative part of the opinion was ‘yes, but only after’. In January 2008 the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment published the Soil Quality Decree Handbook, which is designed to facilitate the implementation of soil policy by local and regional authorities.

24 Advisory opinions on proposed legislation | annual report 2007

The desire to reduce the administrative burden and continue to guarantee privacy could be at odds with each other. In spite of this potential area of tension, Actal worked harmoniously together with the Data Protection Authority (DPA) in 2007. For example, in January 2007 we dealt with the bill on Implementation of the European Data Retention Directive. This bill signified an increase in the structural administrative burden of 30-35 million euro a year. The bill requires telecommunication companies to retain customer traffic data for 18 months. In a negative opinion delivered on 18 January 2007 we pointed out that the quantification of the administrative burden on businesses was not complete and that alternatives with a shorter retention period had been too easily pushed aside. We also recommended compensating telecommunication companies if need be for all the additional expense they will incur in this respect. But the Cabinet stuck to the bill. Given the importance of the subject and the fact that the DPA shares some of these objections, Actal and DPA sent a joint position paper to the standing committee for Justice of the Lower House on 12 October 2007 in which we once again elucidated our main objections.

In June 2007 we organized a meeting of experts together with DPA entitled ‘BSN in business’, attended both by individual businesses and branch organizations.26 At this meeting of experts an inventory was drawn up of the need for use of the BSN by businesses; various types of exchange of personal data and numbers, or both, were discussed, varying from the exchange of data within a company and between companies to exchanges with a client and the government. The meeting concluded that a number of sectors (for example, the financial sector) did have a need to use the BSN. In a joint letter to the meeting participants we expressed our opinion in favour of use of the BSN by businesses. DPA’s view is that the BSN can be used, provided similar guarantees are given and transparency observed as the government currently does.27 We expect a Cabinet position paper on the possibilities for use of the BSN by businesses in 2008.

Actal and DPA will respond to it, possibly in the form of a joint letter or advisory opinion.

On 14 December 2007 we issued an advisory opinion on the bill amending the Personal Data Protection Act in connection with the reduction of the administrative burden. The conclusion of our critical opinion was that the Minister of Justice should not introduce the bill unless he took into account the points made in our advisory opinion. This means that the calculation of the impact of the proposal on the administrative burden needs to be improved. The calculation made by the Ministry of Justice was too general; for example, no distinction was drawn between structural and incidental administrative burdens. Furthermore, the calculation was based on dated and faulty figures. Moreover, we are of the opinion that the Minister should provide systematic insight into alternatives involving a lesser administrative burden. The level of ambition of the proposal is limited. In 2006 we submitted various proposals together with DPA. The organized business community too made several proposals for improvements. The Cabinet, however, is putting structural improvements on the back burner.

25

4 Strategic advice

4.1 Types of strategic advice Besides advisory opinions on the impact of planned legislation on the administrative burden, we also deliver strategic opinions. In the first place there are the strategic opinions relating to the Cabinet approach and the infrastructure. Examples include the strategic opinions based on the Cabinet’s progress reports and strategic opinions on expansion to include other compliance costs and interagency burdens.

We also issue theme-based strategic opinions on matters like the use of ICT to reduce administrative burdens and regulatory pressure. A strategic opinion may also relate to specific legislation. We also issue strategic opinions on request. In 2007 we issued an opinion on the income in/income for payroll return system at the request of the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment.28

In this section we elucidate a number of our strategic advisory opinions delivered in 2007. Our plans for 2008 are also considered, by which we are complying with the Cabinet’s wish that we intensify our strategic advisory function.

4.2 Culture transformation Since our establishment on 1 May 2000 lawmakers have increasingly devoted attention to the impact of new laws and regulations on the administrative burden. In the late nineties it was still an exception for the impact on the administrative burden to be mentioned in an explanatory note. Now it is customary. Even if a proposal has no impact on the administrative burden, more and more often this is explicitly stated.

In short, it has become more a matter of course to devote attention explicitly to the specific social impacts of new legislation. Progress has been made on our central objective: to bring about a culture transformation among lawmakers. The graph shows the increase in the number of hits for ‘administratieve lasten’ (‘administrative burden’) in the Bulletin of Acts and Decrees and in the Government Gazette.

600 Hits

500

400

300

200

100

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Source: www.overheid.nl. 27 annual report 2007 | Strategic advice

In late 2006 we started on the follow-up measurement of the internalization of the attention for the administrative burden. This measurement is the sequel to the first internalization study we carried out in mid-2005. As in the first study we measured three aspects: knowledge, attitude and behaviour. The follow-up measurement was broader in nature, though. Besides internalization of the approach to tackling the administrative burden on businesses, the burden on citizens was also studied. Furthermore, the study was not just conducted in ministries, it also included implementing bodies.29 Finally, the follow-up measurement differentiated the internalization of Dutch civil servants who are or have been involved in European policy making and provides insight into the role of the administrative burden at that level.

The follow-up internalization measurement revealed that the more dossiers policy advisors have presented to Actal, the greater their awareness of the administrative burden, the more positive their attitude towards tackling it, and the more they actually do to ensure that the administrative burden is reduced. The same study revealed that many senior civil servants fear that the approach to tackling the administrative burden will only continue to be a success if the infrastructure remains in place. This second internalization study shows how important a good infrastructure is for achieving a successful reduction of the administrative burden.

Following the study we issued several advisory opinions. First of all, we delivered an opinion to the Cabinet based on the umbrella research report. The main points of our advice to the Cabinet of March 2007 are: establish a sustainable infrastructure, encourage further internalization in ministries and broaden the approach to include implementing bodies and Europe.

Secondly, we issued specific advice to all the participating government departments based on the report drawn up for the department in question. We had meetings with the various ministers as well as with a number of the participating implementing bodies, at which, on the basis of the internalization study, we stressed the importance of a good infrastructure. We noticed that a number of ministers in the fourth Balkenende Cabinet still needed convincing. We found that in 2007 the infrastructure had not been kept up to full strength everywhere.

In 2008 we are preparing the third internalization study covering the whole area of regulatory pressure reduction, in which we will also include municipalities. We are examining whether the internalization study can be simplified.

4.3 Expansion from administrative burden to regulatory pressure Other compliance costs in existing laws and regulations In the first few months of 2007 we completed a pilot measurement of the other compliance costs resulting from existing laws and regulations. The aim of this study was to demonstrate that a baseline measurement of these compliance costs was feasible and made sense. Various methods were tried out in two substudies. On the basis of the research reports, we issued an advisory opinion to the Cabinet on 19 April 2007. Our conclusion was that a baseline measurement similar to that for the administrative burden was quite feasible. We therefore recommended to the Cabinet that a baseline measurement and infrastructure be created similar to that for the administrative burden. We further recommended fixing a reduction target in advance, starting with a baseline measurement for the most burdensome statutes and applying a measuring method that combined the strong points of the two methods examined in the pilot measurement.

28 Strategic advice | annual report 2007

Finally, we advised compiling a handbook for this in 2007 and, if they so wished, to carry out a follow-up measurement to map even the most complex legislation with abstract standards by way of a trial and to try out a cost-efficient observation for legislation with a relatively low compliance burden.

Due to the Cabinet’s tardy response to this advice we were ourselves forced to start the follow-up pilot measurement at the end of 2007. It has since emerged that the Cabinet does intend to tackle the other compliance costs and that its approach corresponds on more and more points to the Actal advice. In 2008 we will expand our knowledge and experience in the sphere of the other compliance costs and advise the government on this subject through strategic advisory opinions or opinions on specific laws and regulations, or both.

Integral assessment framework reduction in regulatory pressure In the action plan ‘Noticeable reduction in regulatory pressure on entrepreneurs’, the ‘Introductory letter reduction of regulatory pressure on citizens and improvement of service from government’ and the response to Actal’s evaluation which the Cabinet sent to the Lower House in 2007 it is stated that an integral assessment framework will be created and that Actal will most definitely be given a role in the development and introduction of this tool. On 19 February 2008 the Minister of Justice requested an advisory opinion from Actal.

He requests our view on the issue of whether quality requirements are sufficiently tested by the existing studies, or whether these (or some of them) need further elaboration. The Minister expects this further elaboration or operationalization to be advisable on the aspect of feasibility, for example. The burdens, administrative and other, that accompany rules for the target group are not always the direct consequence of those rules themselves, but often of more or less conscious choices made in their implementation. The Minister has requested us to examine whether more general criteria can be formulated for a ‘low burden’ implementation of rules, which can then be incorporated in the feasibility study of the integral assessment framework.

The second question is whether, on the basis of inter alia the dossiers we have processed in recent years, we consider a step-by-step plan or a hierarchy desirable to create a better understanding of the effects of new policy and new legislation further ‘upstream’ in the policy and legislation process and to encourage thinking in terms of alternatives to legislation or less burdensome forms of legislation. If we do, he has requested Actal to formulate an initial proposal for this which can be used in the development of the instruments advocated.

The third question is whether, on the basis of our experience with reviewing dossiers and advising on them and the manner in which this is applied in the further decision-making process, we can make recommendations on an organization of this accounting and control procedure within central government which makes an optimum contribution to the desired goal and with which the next step can indeed be taken.

With this request in mind we started a practical study of regulatory pressure assessments in January 2008. The aim of the project is to gain more insight into how the effects of legislation are assessed ex ante and how they are evaluated.

29 annual report 2007 | Strategic advice

Interagency burden The first quarter of 2007 saw completion of the measurement of the impact on the administrative burden of the introduction of the Electronic Child Dossier (ECD). The object of this study was not just to obtain a picture of the administrative burden, but also to gain experience in the area of the interagency administrative burden and to ascertain whether the approach taken with businesses could also be directly applied to government agencies. On the basis of this study, we issued an advisory opinion to the Minister for Youth and Families on 23 March 2007. The conclusion drawn in this opinion was that the introduction of the ECD would result in a reduction in the administrative burden for agencies involved in youth healthcare. We advised the Minister to introduce the ECD as quickly as possible and at the same time to take into account a number of aspects that could reduce the administrative burden further or, on the contrary, could undo the reduction. The Minister responded positively to the Actal opinion in a letter dated 25 May 2007. For us the study was a confirmation of our conviction that the present method used with regard to the administrative burden on businesses can be easily transposed to the interagency administrative burden.

We are therefore very much looking forward to seeing how the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations will flesh out the Cabinet’s objective of reducing the interagency burden by 25% and to the Cabinet’s position on the report presented by the Oosting Committee on interagency supervision. It looks as though the motion submitted by Van der Burg on measurement of the interagency burden will be implemented. We endorse the importance of this measurement and think it is a necessary condition for successfully reducing the interagency burden by 25%.

Economic effects of regulatory pressure According to a study carried out by the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) in April 2004 a 25% drop in the administrative burden only on businesses would result in economic growth worth 1.5% of the GDP and an increase in labour productivity of 1.7%. It follows from an study conducted by SEO in 2006 that a 25% drop in the administrative burden on citizens corresponds to a prosperity gain of at least 500 million euro a year.

Since then our horizon has broadened. Besides the administrative burden, the other compliance costs, supervisory burdens and interagency burdens have also been included in the operation. It is important to gain an idea of how many billions of public and private money would become available if regulatory pressure fell.

For this reason, in 2008 we are compiling an inventory of the significance of the reduction in regulatory pressure on the economy (e.g. growth, labour productivity). We are studying the possibility of mapping out the economic consequences of the broad approach to tackling regulatory pressure. For this purpose we are holding exploratory talks with the Ministry of Finance and CPB. By the broad approach to tackling regulatory pressure we mean: 1 the new target of reducing the administrative burden on businesses by 25%; 2 a 25% reduction in the administrative burden on citizens; 3 a 25% reduction in all other compliance costs; 4 a 25% reduction in all supervisory burdens; 5 a 25% reduction in all interagency burdens.

30 Strategic advice | annual report 2007

4.4 ICT The Cabinet has for years had big ambitions for reducing the administrative burden through the clever use of ICT. It still has to realize this ambition, however, considering the results achieved in the area of electronic government in 2007. We refer to the great problems experienced in the introduction of the most important basic record, the municipal personal records database GBA, for example. Furthermore it became clear in early 2007 on the introduction of the vehicle registration plate database as basic record database that despite the Cabinet’s good intentions, the public administration is still allowed to ask citizens and businesses for information that is already entered in these basic record databases. Creating high expectations without delivering satisfactory results for citizens and businesses does not increase confidence in the public administration. We therefore hope that 2008 will be the year in which the government shows that it is reliable and in which citizens and businesses can reap the promised benefits of e-government. One of the first steps in this is a ban on requesting abstracts and information in general from basic record databases like the GBA, the vehicle registration plate database or the basic record database of businesses. The Cabinet will need to beef up the steering and management of e-government considerably in 2008. Fellow authorities and implementing bodies need to receive financial incentives and support from central government for the introduction and use of the basic record databases and for the embedding of data standards like XBRL

In 2007 we again delivered an opinion to the Cabinet on XBRL. One of the key points of our advice was that we wished to see a further substantiation of the calculated lightening of the administrative burden on businesses. The third Balkenende Cabinet did register XBRL as a drop in the administrative burden by 350 million euro a year. This was reason for us to organize a meeting of experts on XBRL-NTP. The meeting, held on 25 May 2007, was attended by representatives of the Tax Administration, the organized business community, accountants, software companies and independent experts, among others. The principal conclusion of this meeting was that XBRL and NTP were considered to be a very good development, but that the positive impact on the administrative burden on businesses had in 2007 not yet become noticeable.

Given the above, we feel that in the case of ICT projects it is important that its impacts on the administrative burden be mapped accurately and realistically ex ante and communicated to the business community and citizens. We find it is too readily assumed that through the utilization of ICT the administrative burden will ‘automatically’ be reduced. Proposals for reducing regulatory pressure with the aid of ICT need to be quantitatively substantiated as well, as is the case with proposals to scrap or simplify rules.

For this reason, in the first half of 2008 we are conducting the study ‘ICT and administrative burden’ together with Delft University of Technology and Amsterdam municipal administration. The study will look at whether and how the method of tackling the administrative burden as employed for planned laws and regulations is suitable for mapping the effects on the administrative burden as a result of using ICT. Amsterdam’s Horeca1 project is being used as a case study for trialling the method.

We are assuming that in 2008 the Cabinet will show it is making serious work of electronic service provision to citizens and businesses.

31

Strategic advice | annual report 2007

In 2008 we will organize an ICT symposium together with the Task Force Regulatory Pressure Municipalities and, based on our experience, will support the Cabinet’s ICT policy with strategic advice.

4.5 Practice of less regulatory pressure Implementation In 2006 we had a study conducted of the effect of the manner of implementation of laws and regulations on the administrative burden. The study was occasioned by signals received from businesses and citizens that in practice they still noticed very little of an actual lowering of the administrative burden. One explanation for this was the way in which laws and regulations were implemented. The principal conclusion of the study was that the way in which laws and regulations were implemented had a direct impact on the size of the administrative burden.

Besides devoting more attention, at an early stage, to the implementation aspect when reviewing planned laws and regulations, we also aim to focus more on qualitative aspects of implementation (of laws and regulations) such as service provision and freedom of policy among implementers. Better service provision does not just result in less irritation and shorter waiting times etc., but also in a noticeable reduction in administrative burdens and regulatory pressure. We are therefore conducting an exploratory study of the degree to which implementing bodies in the public sector systematically compile an inventory of their service provision to target groups and use this information.

Supervision Since 2002 we have been devoting attention to the administrative burden that is a result of supervision. The Cabinet’s 2007-2011 policy programme of 14 June 2007 shows that sectors and areas of legislation are also being screened and tackled in respect of supervisory burdens and irritations. In spite of this level of ambition, we see that the Cabinet’s activities in the area of supervision focus mainly on municipal administrations and that attention for supervision in the policy process at central government level decreases.

Therefore, in 2008 we will call for more attention to the administrative burden resulting from supervision. To this end we will organize a conference entitled ‘Supervision and administrative burdens’. In light of our positive experience with scrutinizing the supervisory rules of the Dutch central bank (DNB) and financial markets authority (AFM) we will endeavour to get this off the ground with other supervisory bodies, too. For example, in 2008 Actal will start to review the supervisory rules of the Dutch Healthcare Authority (NZa) for their impact on the administrative burden on citizens and businesses.

Since 2006 Actal has kept in touch with the NZa concerning the method of tackling regulatory pressure in the field of healthcare. From within its own organization the NZa has commenced the WALZ project (WALZ is an acronym for removal of the administrative burden caused by the healthcare authority) to reduce the bureaucracy of supervising market parties.

In the spring of 2008 the NZa will present a request for a strategic advisory opinion on the abolition of the AO/IC schemes.30 In order to be able to respond adequately to this request, Actal plans inter alia to organize an expert panel with interested parties from the field.

33 annual report 2007 | Strategic advice

Comprehensible forms In 2007 we actively participated in the project group headed by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations that is developing instruments that can help making government forms comprehensible. In February 2007 the third Balkenende Cabinet decided that as from 1 September 2007 all new central government forms and all forms that had been substantively amended would be comprehensible. Because we were convinced that providing instruments alone was not enough to achieve that aim, we delivered an opinion to the State Secretary of the Interior and Kingdom Relations on 19 March 2007. We recommended creating an infrastructure similar to that for administrative burdens. This necessary infrastructure should in our view include a form coordinator in every government department and major implementing body, an inventory of forms and a action plan for each government organization, and sufficient training opportunities from July 2007. The State Secretary adopted almost all of our recommendations post-summer 2007. However, in a letter dated 4 October 2007 we expressed our concern about the progress of the project and recommended improving as many government forms as possible by 1 January 2008. At a meeting with the State Secretary on 21 November 2007 an important instrument, the standard for comprehensibility, was discussed.

We will continue to keep a close eye on developments and the progress of the project following completion of the instruments in early 2008.

Model companies In 2004 the Cabinet started mapping the information obligations perceived by entrepreneurs to be heavy. These were ‘mainly the perceived administrative burden or the irritation of entrepreneurs about statutory obligations to provide information’.31 In late 2006 we commenced a study of the administrative burden on two of the seven sectors that were involved in this first part of the Model Companies project. The study was occasioned by signals from the Temporary Employment and Chemical Industry sectors that in general they noticed very little as yet of a reduction in their administrative burden or results of the Model Companies project on which they had collaborated.

The study produced an integrated baseline measurement, which provided insight into the scale and structure of the administrative burden of the two sectors. This insight turns out to be essential both for putting specific questions to companies involved about problem areas and for formulating relevant proposals for improvement and reduction. Moreover, it is very important to use or continue to use the Standard Cost Model to report on progress and the net end result of the relevant approach. Our experience shows that insight into the scale and structure of the administrative burden results in a dynamism in the thought process and a structural and effective approach that results in proposals for a noticeable reduction.

We consequently advised the Cabinet on 19 April 2007 to continue and to improve working with so-called model companies. This will enable the Cabinet and the business community to arrive at a noticeable reduction in administrative burdens and regulatory pressure.

The Cabinet opted for the fundamental survey design. Instead of (again) proceeding from the existing situation, the starting point for these committees is the blank, zero situation: what rules would actually be needed if you were to start from scratch? On 27 April 2007 the Minister for Foreign Trade set up the Fundamental Survey Committees for

34 Strategic advice | annual report 2007

Construction Projects and Transport Obstacles. In preparation of their recommendations we spoke to the two chairpersons, Sybilla Dekker and Karel Noordzij. Actal welcomes the fact that a different tack is being taken as well as a fundamentally different approach to tackling problem areas in the search for noticeable improvements for businesses.

Start and growth of 2 small businesses We commissioned the research agency EIM to study the administrative burden on two small businesses at the start and as their businesses grow. The study, which was completed at the end of 2007, focused on a painting business and a sandwich bar. The administrative burden was calculated for various stages of development (starting a one-man business, taking on the first employee, taking on the next four employees and converting the one-man business into a private limited company). Besides comparing the administrative burdens of 2007 and 1998, facilities available to starters and other compliance costs were also considered.

On 17 January 2008 we organized a New Year’s symposium to present the results of this study. At the symposium,‘Good intentions for SME’, the report was presented to the Minister for Foreign Trade, Frank Heemskerk. This was followed by a lecture delivered by Loek Hermans, the chair of MKB-Nederland, the organization representing SME in the Netherlands. Finally, there was a debate among the party spokespersons of the CDA, PvdA, and the liberal party (VVD).

A major outcome of the symposium was the promise by Minister Heemskerk to introduce a levy on the total wage bill for employers with fewer than ten employees. With a levy on the total wage bill employers would only have to deduct one amount per company or per employee and transfer it to the Tax Administration. This could result in a spectacular reduction in administrative burdens and costs. We are delighted with this promise.

Companies’‘own’ regulatory pressure Not all the rules governing business stem from the government. Branch organizations and marketing boards also draw up rules businesses are required to observe; for example, certification rules. If a business fails to comply, this could have a negative impact on its market position. However, businesses are often not clear about which rules originate from the government and which from their ‘own’ organizations.

We will examine the extent to which branch organizations impose additional burdens on businesses.

Obligation to retain information In November 2007 we commenced a study into the retain or discard obligations incumbent on small and medium-sized enterprises. This study will not only produce an inventory of these obligations, but also a picture of the rationale behind it. By also studying whether and how actual use is made of the retained data in control and enforcement we hope to obtain a better picture of the potential for reducing the administrative burden attached to complying with and enforcing retain or discard obligations.

35

5 Local level

In 2007 success was achieved in reducing the administrative burden on fellow authorities, in particular municipal administrations. Municipal administrations create administrative burdens in implementing central government legislation and drawing up autonomous regulations. To achieve a noticeable reduction in administrative burdens, structural focus at the local level is a necessity.

In the coalition agreement ‘Working Together, Living Together’ the coalition partners write that administrative agreements will contain arrangements to reduce the provincial and municipal administrative burden for citizens and businesses by at least 25%. This has resulted in the administrative agreement between the central and municipal administrations of 4 June 2007, ‘Setting to work together’. On 5 October 2007 the Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG), the State Secretaries of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and of Finance, and the Minister for Foreign Trade signed the ‘Municipal service provision and regulatory pressure implementation agenda’.

Municipal administrations will map the administrative burden on citizens and businesses using the Standard Cost Model. Central government will actively support them in this. From June 2007 to 31 March 2008 a temporary regulation to encourage tackling reduction of the municipal administrative burden will be in force.32 The regulation enables municipal administrations to apply for a voucher from SenterNovem. This voucher represents a contribution towards the cost municipal authorities occur in engaging the services of external experts to screen their laws and regulations for administrative burdens and to have a plan for improvement drawn up to achieve a burden reduction.

Also, with the aid of a list of ‘roadblocks’ major problem areas will be removed. The Task Force Wallage plays a very active part in this. In November 2006 the Cabinet set up this Interagency Task Force on Reducing Regulatory Pressure on a temporary basis. Its mandate has now been extended from 1 January 2008 to 1 January 2009. Mr Jacques Wallage, mayor of Groningen, heads this Task Force. The Task Force coordinates the activities of the various government departments and the VNG to reduce local regulatory pressure, which averts central government acting in a fragmented manner to reduce municipal regulatory pressure. The Task Force is required to produce quick results in reducing regulatory pressure and improving service provision among municipal authorities.

We regularly confer with Mr Wallage and, if requested, furnish the Task Force with advice. We also advise central government on its contribution to reducing regulatory pressure at municipal level (for example, the ‘roadblocks’).

In 2008 the Cabinet and municipal authorities need to deliver on a number of interesting ambitions. By 1 July 2008 the central government and municipal administrations will map the costs businesses have to incur for obtaining subsidies (acquisition costs) and the

37 annual report 2007 | Local level

burdens of overseeing businesses. By the end of 2008 there will be proposals for reducing these administrative burdens by 25% as well. Also, we are very curious to see the local business impact assessment tool. The central government and municipalities have agreed to allow local governments, by 2009 at the latest, to use the local business impact assessment tool when amending existing and introducing new regulations. We also look forward to the realization by 1 September 2008 of the objective of making all new municipal forms comprehensible for the target group for which they are intended.

As a result of the Actal opinion on the reduction potential of VNG model regulations, the VNG has decided to quantitatively map the potential burden reduction when revising its regulations. In addition, it will always offer municipal administrations a so-called minimum alternative. In this way they will have insight into the administrative burden of the new model regulations and indicators for implementing them with as few burdens as possible. In the course of 2008 all the VNG regulations are required to have been simplified or scrapped.

We have many contacts with the municipalities. In 2007, for example, we gave a presentation for the Dutch Association of Municipal Secretaries, and we are involved in a meeting of the network of municipal legal officers on regulatory pressure. Also, at the request of MKB-Nederland we will from 2008 sit on the local regulatory pressure working group. This group numbers representatives of many branch organizations.

We keep in touch with individual municipalities, the VNG, the Interagency Task Force on Reducing Regulatory Pressure in order to identify and disseminate best practices, among other things. Through conferral we will shape and flesh out our new advisory task of furnishing fellow authorities on request with advice in the sphere of regulatory pressure. We will furnish advice on themes recognizable to municipalities and for which generic solutions are possible. One example is the theme of ICT. Our aim is, in the process, to bring about the culture transformation in municipal authorities too.

38 6 International level

The Netherlands is seen as a frontrunner in tackling the administrative burden. As in previous years, in 2007 again we received various delegations from different countries, including Cyprus, Russia, Sweden and Brazil. Actal’s attraction to other countries has only been enhanced by the praise expressed by the World Bank (2006) and the OECD (2007).

We also receive invitations to speak about the Netherlands’ approach to tackling the administrative burden. For example, in 2007 we visited Brazil. Together with member of the Lower House Brigitte van der Burg we took part in the conference ‘Citizenship, Competitiveness and Administrative Burden Reduction’ in Brasilia in early October 2007. This conference was organized in connection with the EuroBrazil project. We also have many connections in Belgium, the United Kingdom and Germany. For example, in April 2007 the Dutch embassy in Berlin organized a meeting on account of the start made on tackling the administrative burden in Germany. In December 2007 the Bertelmanns Stiftung organized the ‘International Regulatory Reform Conference – From red tape reduction to a better regulation strategy?’ in Berlin.33

We contributed to several parts of the programme.

The Dutch government organized two international conferences in 2007. In March 2007 the Ministry of Finance hosted the conference ‘Challenges on cutting red tape’. Before a gathering made up of a broad range of politicians, civil servants and representatives of the business community from inside and outside Europe Robin Linschoten, Chairman of Actal, discussed the international/European approach to tackling the administrative burden in a panel meeting. In November 2007 the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations organized the international conference ‘What a Relief’ in Amsterdam. This was the conference on administrative burdens on citizens that was announced in our previous annual report. The conference was on a smaller scale and aimed specifically at civil servants.

Actal’s contribution examined the advantages and disadvantages of a qualitative and quantitative reduction in bureaucracy.

Belgium has offered to organize a similar gathering in 2008.

As almost 50% of the administrative burden on businesses in the Netherlands finds its origin in European legislation we consider it of great importance that an effort be made at the European level as well to reduce regulatory pressure. Much progress was achieved in this respect in 2007. The Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the European Union (COM 2007/23) has been put into practice. The baseline measurement of 13 priority areas within EU legislation has commenced. Proposals for reductions are being formulated even as the measurement is carried out.

39 annual report 2007 | International level

A major milestone in 2007 was the establishment of the High Level Group of Independent Stakehold ers on Administrative Burdens, chaired by Edmund Stoiber. Robin Linschoten is a member of this Group.

We are keeping a close eye on European developments. Together with our sister organizations in Germany (Normenkontrollrat) and in the United Kingdom (Better Regulation Commission) we have adopted a position on the European approach. This position is set out in two position papers, which look mainly at the need to build a European infrastructure to tackle administrative burdens. A delegation from Actal, the Normenkontrollrat and the Better Regulation Commission handed these papers to Eurocommissioner Verheugen (the first on 1 March 2007 in Rotterdam and the second on 19 October 2007 in Brussels).

main points of position paper 1 march 2007

A sound infrastructure is necessary to 4 Share the reduction target among be able to implement the action the various DGs within the European programme ‘Reducing Administrative Commission. Burdens in the European Union’: 5 Involve stakeholders closely in each 1 Control all costs that emanate from step of the programme. laws and regulations. 6 Create an external, independent 2 Fix a net reduction target. advisory body to support the 3 Provide for an effective, sustainable Commission, the European method of assessing ex ante impacts Parliament and the Member States. of all new EU proposals.

main points of position paper 19 march 2007

In 2007 the action programme 2 Make sure that the Commission ‘Reducing Administrative Burdens in the official drafting the EU proposal European Union’ got under way. In order takes the impact on the to reinforce the approach to tackling the administrative burden into account administrative burden the European as early as possible in the process. Commission will need to take the 3 Improve the quality and transparency following steps. of the ex ante calculations. 1 Ensure that each new EU proposal 4 Ensure that an independent advisory contains a calculation of its impact body scrutinizes the ex ante on the administrative burden. calculations.

40 International level | annual report 2007

At the same time it is important to ensure that we in the Netherlands make optimum use of the improvements being achieved by the European Commission at this time. An important instrument in establishing the national position is the BNC file, which focuses attention on the impacts on the administrative burden. Compared with previous years this element was further deepened in 2007 by making systematic, or more systematic, use of the opinions of the European Impact Assessment Board in the administrative burden component.

41

Annex 1 Advisory opinions 2007

Actal opinions on planned laws and regulations

Laws and regulations from Dossiers with Dossiers without ministry or Lower House formal advice formal advice Operative part (ultimate conclusion) Yes Yes, but No, unless No only after

Foreign Affairs 00 Interior and Kingdom Relations 11 1 Defence 00 Economic Affairs 5131 52 Finance 624 8 Youth and Families 01 Justice 4121 17 Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality 11 17 Education, Culture and Science 1121 Social Affairs and Employment 734 4 Transport, Public Works and 5212 17 Water Management Housing, Spatial Planning and 65111 Environment Health, Welfare and Sport 5112110 Lower House 01 Total 41 12 20 7 2 160

44 Advisory opinions 2007 | annexes

Actal opinions on government policy for reducing the administrative burden on businesses and citizens

Clear supervision January 2007

Reducing administrative burden on citizens January 2007

‘Income in/income for’ payroll return system February 2007

Noticeably lighter municipal administrative burden February 2007

Internalization of the administrative burden March 2007

Comprehensible forms March 2007

Administrative burden on introduction of Electronic Child Dossier (ECD) March 2007

Measuring other compliance costs resulting from existing legislation April 2007

Continuation and improvement of the model companies approach April 2007

Presentation of report ‘Inventory of regulatory pressure from coalition agreement of fourth Balkenende government’ May 2007

Impact on administrative burden from lowering APK frequency June 2007

XBRL-NTP July 2007

Tightening up Cabinet’s approach to reducing regulatory pressure September 2007

Supplementary opinion on tightening up Cabinet’s approach to reducing regulatory pressure November 2007

Amendment of the Personal Data Protection Act in connection with the reduction of the administrative burden December 2007

45 Annex 2 Studies

Internalization of the administrative burden IOO

Best Practices in Supervision SEO

Administrative Burden of VNG Model Regulations Reduction of the Administrative Burden of VNG Model Regulations through proposals for simplification and additional reduction potential Sira Consulting

Administrative burden of ‘income in’ and ‘income for’ Report on the structural and one-off administrative burden for the payroll return systems ‘income in’ and ‘income for’ Sira Consulting

Pilot measurement of other compliance costs in existing legislation for the model companies ‘Temporary employment agency’ and ‘Chemical industry’ EIM

Regioplan measurement of other compliance costs of existing legislation Regioplan

Temporary Employment and Chemical Sectors Scale of administrative burden, reduction as a result of Cabinet proposals and reduction through suggestions for improvement from model companies project EIM

Study of the impact of introducing the ECD on the administrative burden of organizations in the area of youth healthcare Cap Gemini

Inventory of regulatory pressure from coalition agreement of fourth Balkenende government Research voor Beleid

Small business, big burden Regulatory pressure on a sandwich bar and a painting business in 1998 and 2007 EIM

Studies that will be completed in the spring of 2008

Obligation to retain or discard Faculty of Law eLaw@Leiden

Practical study on regulatory pressure assessments IOO

Follow-up pilot measurement of other compliance costs Ecorys

46 Annex 3 Definitions

Administrative burden: the costs incurred by businesses and citizens for complying with information obligations stemming from government laws and regulations. They cover gathering, processing, recording, retaining and providing information.

Regulatory pressure: the investment and effort citizens, businesses and institutions are required to make and the restriction on freedom they suffer in order to abide by rules. They include the room allowed by rules for alternative behaviours (freedom of choice), the knowability and transparency of the rules, consistency with other rules, how rules are implemented and observance assured, how rules are enforced and infringements punished, and the administrative burden.

Other or substantive compliance costs: the direct costs to businesses and citizens of observing laws and regulations, with the exception of the administrative burden and financial levies. The costs in question are the ones companies have to incur in order to meet the specific requirements laid down by the government or government-appointed agencies in laws and regulations (e.g. standards, rules, procedures) relating to the conduct of people and condition of buildings, means of production or the production process, the provision of services, organization of accounts, products and services.

Interagency administrative burden: the costs to government/semi-government agencies or private agencies with a public task for performing actions, or causing them to be performed, in order to comply with information obligations arising under laws and regulations of other public-sector agencies. They cover assessing, collecting, processing, recording, retaining and providing information.

Interagency: the relationships between and among organizations in the public sector. The public sector comprises the public administration (state and semi-state) and private organizations with a public task.

47 Annex 4 Actal

Actal has three Board members: Mr R.L.O. Linschoten (Chairman), Mr J.A. Kamps and Mrs F.C. Giskes. The Board is assisted by a secretary and staff of 12. When this text was finalized application procedures had commenced for the vacancy of secretary and two vacancies for senior policy advisers. The secretariat’s composition and tasks are as follows:

Mr J.J.H.W. Hamerlinck Finance Social Affairs and Employment Mrs F.J.G. van Klink Justice Foreign Affairs General Affairs Mr P.B. Lut Transport, Public Works and Water Management Defence Mrs C. Mesman Public Health, Welfare and Sport Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality Mr F.J. Mreijen Spatial Planning and the Environment Housing, Communities and Integration Youth and Families Mr A.A. Moaty Policy support officer Mrs A.S. Premchand Secretary Mr P.H. Sevat Economic Affairs Mr J.A. Sleifer Interior and Kingdom Relations Education, Culture and Science Mrs C.R. Touw Secretary

Actal’s activities are based on the following decrees: - Decree establishing the Advisory Board on Administrative Burden, Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2000, no. 162. - Decree renewing the Advisory Board on Administrative Burden, Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2004, no. 66. - Decree extending the tasks of Actal to the administrative burden on citizens, Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2005, no. 113. - Decree establishing the Advisory Board on Administrative Burden 2006, Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2006, no. 138. - Decree amending the Decree establishing the Advisory Board on Administrative Burden 2006 in connection with the extension of its mandate, the increase in the number of its Board and the expansion of its duties; this decree will be published in the Bulletin of Acts and Decrees in the spring of 2008.

48

Annex 5 Notes

1 Parliamentary Papers II 2006-2007, 29 515 no. 204. 23 The bill has not yet been introduced in the Lower House and for 2 Parliamentary Papers II, 2007-2008, 29 515, no. 224. this reason our opinion is not yet public. 3 Parliamentary Papers II, 2006-2007, 30 891, no. 4. 24 Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 4 Parliamentary Papers II 2006-2007, 29 515, no. 202. of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced 5 Parliamentary Papers II 2007-2008, 29 362, no. 125. from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market 6 Annex 3 contains a number of definitions that demarcate our and Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the sphere of operations. Council of the European Union of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of 7 World Bank Group Review of the Dutch Administrative Burden the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport. Reduction Program, November 2006 and Cutting red tape: 25 See for example Parliamentary Papers II, 2007–2008, 29 515 and administrative simplification in the Netherlands/Flemming Norling 29 826, no. 222. Olsen...[et al.] OECD, 2007. 26 BSN stands for Citizens Service Number, a unique number that 8 Parliamentary Papers II 2007–2008, 29 515, nos. 211-217 on a baseline identifies each citizen. measurement of the compliance costs, expansion of the campaign 27 The letter and the report have been published on www.actal.nl. ‘Clear supervision’ to local authorities, the prevention of national 28 For an explanation we refer the reader to Actal’s Annual Report add-ons or ‘gold plating’ of European regulations, a single 2006, page 38. administrative body for copyright and related rights, the setting up 29 Every ministry took part in the follow-up measurement. The of the Perception Monitor, the dropping of the maximum untaxed implementing agencies that participated are: Netherlands hourly rate in the volunteer regulations and on the expansion of Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM), Tax Administration, Actal’s assignment. De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB – the central bank of the 9 Parliamentary Papers II 2007-2008, 29 362 no. 127, the Van der Netherlands), Statistics Netherlands (CBS), Care Needs Assessment Burg/Gerkens motion on business information centres (Progress Centre (CIZ), Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, Central Report E-government). Finance Institutions (CFI), Information Management Group (IBG), 10 Parliamentary Papers II 2007-2008, 31 201, no. 11, the Van der Burg et Education Inspectorate (IvhO), Immigration and Naturalisation al. motion on a baseline measurement of the interagency burden. Service (IND), Judicial Agency for Scrutiny, Integrity and Screening 11 The Ministerial Steering Committee on Regulatory Pressure acts as Justis, Transport and Water Management Inspectorate (IVW), the commissioning authority of the Interagency Task Force on Department of Road Transport (RDW), the Social Security Bank Reducing Regulatory Pressure. This Task Force was set up in June (SVB), the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) and the National 2007 and is chaired by Mr J. Wallage. See also Section 5 Local level. Implementation of Regulations Service. 12 Decree establishing the Steering Group Regulatory Pressure dated 30 Administrative organization and internal control schemes. The 24 October 2007, Government Gazette 12 November 2007. object of these schemes is to set rules for the administrative 13 XBRL stands for eXtensible Business Reporting Language. It is a organization and internal control of a care provider for purposes of reporting language for exchanging financial data via the Internet. making its administration transparent and accessible. NTP is the Dutch Taxonomy Project. 31 Parliamentary Papers II 2005-2006, 29 515, no. 94. 14 Parliamentary Papers II 2007-2008, 31 200, no. 1, annex 7 Reduction 32 Government Gazette 5 June 2007 and 11 December 2007. of regulatory pressure on businesses. 33 See www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de. ‘Die Bertelsmann Stiftung will 15 Parliamentary Papers II 2007-2008, 29 362, no. 125, page 3. frühzeitig gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen identifizieren sowie 16 In producing our advisory opinions on planned legislation we exemplarische Lösungsmodelle entwickeln und verwirklichen. distinguish four stages: placing on the agenda, selecting, reviewing and delivering an opinion. In the first two stages we filter those proposals relevant to reducing the administrative burden. Our selection criteria can be found on www.actal.nl. 17 In the case of ministerial decrees we say ‘adopt’ instead of ‘introduce’. We publish the Actal advisory opinions on www.actal.nl when they become public, which is when they are put before the Lower House or on publication in the Government Gazette. 18 Parliamentary Papers II, 2007-2008, 31 031 and 29 949, no. 19. 19 In 2007 215 amendments were rejected, 52 withdrawn and 13 passed. In 2007 a total of 1,968 motions were introduced. 20 Parliamentary Papers II 2007–2008, 28 325, no. 68. 21 Parliamentary Papers II 2006-2007, 30 692, no. 8 22 The European minimum alternative is given in EU Directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996.

51 Programme of Work 2008

Advising government and Parliament On the administrative burden on businesses and citizens resulting Continuous (proposes laws and regulations) from proposed laws, orders in council and ministerial decrees

Advising government and Parliament On programmes and measures to reduce the administrative burden Continuous (existing laws and regulations) on businesses and citizens resulting from existing legislation

Advising on Cabinet approach to reducing regulatory pressure 3rd and 4th quarter 2007

In conferral with the Cabinet and Parliament detailing advisory 1st and 2nd quarter 2008 task in the area of other compliance costs, interagency burden and obligation on professionals to keep records

Advising government and Parliament On regulatory pressure, including advice on the development and Continuous (general) use of the integral assessment framework in preparing policy and legislation

Conducting a study of the regulatory pressure on two small businesses 4th quarter 2007 at the start and as they grow

Study of proposals for reducing retain or discard obligations 2nd quarter 2008

Advising on final version of document ‘To Measure is To Know 2’ 1st quarter 2008

Issuing an advisory opinion to Ministry of Justice on integral 2nd quarter 2008 assessment framework

Study of regulatory pressure assessments 2nd quarter 2008

Issuing advisory opinion at the request of the Dutch Healthcare 2nd quarter 2008 Authority (NZa) on the abolition of Administrative Organization and Internal Control (AO/IC) regulations

Study of regulatory pressure caused by the business community itself 3rd quarter 2008

Study of effects of reducing the administrative burden on businesses 3rd quarter 2008 and citizens achieved during the term of the previous Cabinet. Analyzing effects of new targets

Advising fellow authorities On regulatory pressure. We concentrate on themes recognizable to Continuous municipal authorities and for which generic solutions are possible.

Cluster approach Seeking support for cluster approach among authorities Continuous

Other compliance costs Conducting follow-up pilot measurement 2nd quarter 2008

Internalization Preparation of 3rd regulatory pressure internalization study 2008 (including municipal authorities)

Study of whether time required to complete questionnaire can be 2008 reduced

52 programme of work 2008

Actal Preparing budget Before 1 April 2008

Preparing annual report Before 1 April 2008

Preparing programme of work Before 1 September 2008

Updating websites 2nd quarter 2008

Implementation Study of degree to which implementing bodies in the public sector 2nd quarter 2008 systematically compile an inventory of the services they provide to target groups and use this information.

Supervision Organizing conference 3rd quarter 2008

ICT Advising on ICT-related subjects Continuous

Developing AB assessment for ICT projects 2nd quarter 2008

Study of potential for measuring the impact on the administrative 2nd quarter 2008 burden of ICT projects

External contacts Calling for attention through the media to Cabinet approach to Continuous reducing regulatory pressure

Holding consultations with government ministers on the Cabinet’s Continuous policy regarding the reduction of regulatory pressure

Holding consultations with civic organizations and businesses Continuous

Requesting input from branch or civic organizations and individual Continuous businesses and citizens for specific dossiers on proposed and existing laws and regulations

Visiting businesses and citizens and raising the practical problems Continuous and solutions identified during these visits with the ministries

Organizing expert panels with representatives from the businesses Continuous community or from civic organizations concerning planned laws and regulations, etc.

Furnishing information to local authorities and implementing bodies Continuous

Keeping in touch with Parliament Continuous

Keeping in touch with individual municipal authorities, the Association Continuous of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG), the Interagency Task Force on Reduction of Regulatory Pressure to identify and disseminate best practices, etc.

Organizing New Year’s symposium 1st quarter 2008

EU/International Keeping in touch with organizations similar to Actal within the Continuous European Union

Furnishing foreign delegations with information on the Dutch Continuous approach to tackling the administrative burden

Keeping in touch with individual member states and European Continuous agencies

53

Text Actal, The Hague Translation S. Brouwer Vertalingen, Noordeloos Design and photographs Studio Tint, The Hague

Actal Lange Voorhout 58 The Hague P.O. Box 16228 2500 BE The Hague Phone +31 (0) 70 310 86 66 Fax +31 (0) 70 310 86 79 E-mail [email protected] Internet www.actal.nl

© 2008 Actal, The Hague

Actal’s mission Actal is a temporary, independent advisory To promote this culture transformation board whose aim is to bring about a culture Actal advises the government and Parliament transformation among lawmakers, whose on the impact of regulatory pressure from duty it is to reduce the regulatory pressure planned laws and regulations and on on businesses, citizens, institutions and programmes to reduce existing regulatory professionals automatically and on a pressure. Actal also supports lawmakers by permanent basis. carrying out projects that contribute to the mitigation of regulatory pressure.