Parliamentary questions May 26, 2023 by Pieter Omtzigt about the Fraud Signaling Facility (FSV)

AH 2686
2023Z07419
Response from State Secretary Van Rij (Finance) (received 24 May 2023)
Question 1
Do you remember that in the report of the written consultation on the
elaboration of the FSV allowance policy of February 2, 2023 indicated that
at an individual level, it was investigated whether the information received led to
consequences for citizens, based on research by the third parties, not the
appears to be the case? (1)
Answer question 1
Yes.
Question 2
How is it arranged and ensured that information comes from the FSV or
information regarding intention/gross negligence provided by the tax authorities with
municipalities have been shared, removed from the data systems of the municipalities?
Answer question 2
In my letter dated May 16, 2023, I reported that the tax authorities (also
when it comes to municipalities) that, as far as is known, information from the
The tax authorities have received or have been requested from FSV for these
to delete information. The studies that form the basis of this
requests have focused on group mailboxes that, according to the research
of PwC was the biggest risk where the provision of data to others
involved organizations.
Provision of data that is difficult to determine afterwards, such as
telephone services in kind are not included here. In addition, like me, I have
indicated in my letter dated 30 January last, the tax authorities requested
to conduct follow-up research in response to 47 internal e-mails that list
contain to determine for what purpose these (excel) lists within the
Tax authorities have been distributed and whether it can be validated that these (excel-
) lists have remained within the tax authorities.
The organizations that received this information have confirmed this
to delete information. As a result, people who are registered in FSV receive
were and whose information from or about FSV has been provided to other organizations
as much as possible, the certainty that FSV information will not lead to consequences
for them at other organizations.
Question 3
Do you think that people who inquire with a municipality or the tax authorities or
information about that person was shared from the tax authorities in the period that
the FSV data by the tax authorities were shared with the municipalities ten
for the social domain, always and expeditiously, must be done about it
informed?
Answer question 3
If the information requested by the person is known to the tax authorities
and it is possible to share this information, the person will
be informed. The tax authorities also proactively inform people
if research shows that FSV data has been shared with external
organizations. The first people received this letter last April. In May
and June 2023, the other people will be informed.
Question 4
Can you explain what information requests about citizens, by municipalities,
the tax authorities cooperate and under what legislation? Can you
provide an exhaustive overview of this (about the type of information requests)
that or has participated in the past ten years)?
Answer 4
The tax authorities are preparing an overview. Unfortunately, this did not work
within the timeframe. I can already tell you the principles in legal regulations
name on the basis of which the tax authorities must provide information to
municipalities that have emerged from an initial inventory.
- article 2.34, paragraph 1 of the Basic Registration of Persons Act;
Article 27, paragraph 1 of the Basic Registration of Persons Decree;
- Article 64, paragraph 1, point c, Participation Act;
- article 45, paragraph 1, point c, IOAW Act;
- article 5.2.3 Social Support Act 2015;
- Article 64, paragraph 1, Act on the Structure of Implementation Organization, Work and
income (SUWI Act);
- Article 27 of the Integrity Assessments Promotion Act by the
public administration (BIBOB Act);
- Article 43c, paragraph 1, letter j, AWR Implementation Regulation.
With the state of business letter, I said before the Commission debate on the tax authorities that
will take place to your House in September, I will send you a full
provide an overview.
As I say in answering questions 5 and 6, the
structured data sharing to municipalities through the intervention of the
Intelligence Bureau.
Question 5
Can you read the work instructions, which have applied over the past ten years,
when a municipality had a specific question about a citizen about what kind of
any reason (suspect of
benefit fraud, application or provision of benefits, such as assistance,
apply (WMO or any other conceivable reason) to the House
future?
Answer question 5
To carry out their legal tasks, municipalities have the information of
necessary, among other things, the tax authorities. To this end, municipalities receive
confluence signals from the Intelligence Bureau (IB). For more information about the
the way the IB works and these coincidence signals, I refer to the
Parliamentary questions about citizen data at the Intelligence Office dated 15 June 20211.
Because specific questions from a municipality go through the Information Office are
There are no work instructions for this at the tax authorities.
1
Parliamentary Paper 3177, No. 2674
To share incidental data, I can within the specified period:
don't answer the question. I will inform your House further via the stand of
business letter sent to your House prior to the next committee debate
The tax authorities receive.
Question 6
Can you explain whether this information, which is shared with the municipalities, is also
information about
contains debt problems? If so, can you specify what kind of species
information than potential
has been shared?
Answer question 6
In the context of debt counseling, the tax authorities provide data
Intelligence Office Foundation. The Intelligence Office Foundation is the
information hub for municipalities to carry out their legal task
resulting from the Municipal Debt Counseling Act (Wgs), in this case the
drawing up the plan of action as referred to in article 15 Municipal Decree
debt counseling. The basis for this delivery is found in article 8
WGS. For the purpose of this exchange, a specific technical
appointment document available. The structured data set that contains the
The tax authorities provided to municipalities in this regard currently include
no information about the debt problem.
To share incidental data, I can within the specified period:
don't answer the question. I will inform your House further via the stand of
business letter sent to your House prior to the next committee debate
The tax authorities receive.
Question 7
Can this information also include information about intention/gross negligence or suspicion of
contain fraud?
Answer question 7
The structured data sharing as indicated in question 6 includes:
as far as is known, no information about intention/gross negligence or suspicion of fraud.
Question 8
Can you indicate in how many cases the tax authorities provide information about
individual citizens have been provided to a municipality in the past five years -
including by phone - and how is it kept track of?
Answer question 8
An initial inventory showed that there is no overview of how much
case information has been provided. Should it later appear that this is known, I will
inform your Room.
Question 9
Can you describe the processes through which information from the tax authorities
can end up at municipalities, (Youth) Protection Tables or Safety Tables?
Answer question 9
In question 6, I already indicated that the structured deliveries via the
Run the intelligence office. In addition, individual provision is provided to
municipalities take place through partnerships.
Municipalities are themselves responsible for whether and how data then belongs to (youth)
protection tables or safety tables can end up. Here I have myself
no view of it.
Question 10
Can this information also include information from FSV? If so, in
how many cases has that been in the past five years with the authorities in the previous question
ended up?
Answer 10
With regard to the Protection Tables or Safety Tables, see the answer to
question 9. Municipalities are responsible for this themselves and I have no insight into this
on.
With regard to providing information about FSV to municipalities in the
In general, I can say the following. Over the past five years, between
2018 and 2020, as far as we know, a total of 20 emails sent to municipalities
including a reference to FSV. This was determined based on the
studies into the functional group mailboxes as previously presented
to the Chamber. The majority of these emails are replies from the
Tax authorities on requests for information from the municipalities. There is so far after
to go, no substantive information from the FSV shared, but only a
reference in the mail to FSV.
Question 11
Are you familiar with the document “Presentation, alternative maintenance, steering committee”?
dated December 17, 2020 where, under the heading “Administrative investigation ter
preparation of (generating) cases within LSI projects” state
specify which service can provide certain data? (2)
Answer question 11
Yes.
Question 12
How many cases does the tax authorities provide information about debts of
stakeholders within the context of the National Steering Committee on Intervention Teams
(LSI) was provided?
Answer question 12
This cannot be reconstructed.
Question 13
Does the tax authorities also provide information about (alleged) fraud or intention/gross negligence?
debt
made available in an LSI context? Can you give a very precise answer to this?
give?
Answer question 13
This cannot be reconstructed. In general, I can elaborate on the number
emails to municipalities. Over the past five years, between 2018 and 2020, there have been
as far as known, a total of 20 emails sent to municipalities containing a
reference to FSV. This was found on the basis of the studies into the
functional group mailboxes as previously presented to the House. The
majority of these emails are responses from the tax authorities to
requests for information from the municipalities. As far as can be ascertained, there is no
content information from the FSV shared but only a reference in the mail
to FSV.
Question 14
Within which partnerships is information about debts of
stakeholders shared?
Answer question 14
As indicated in the answer to question 6, the structured
dataset that the tax authorities provide in this context to municipalities on this
currently no information about the debt problem.
Question 15
Can you ensure that the tax authorities only have information about people
may provide municipalities for the social domain under
simultaneous copy thereof to the persons concerned, to accommodate
to the requirement for transparency and to give the person concerned the opportunity to
to indicate that the information is incomplete or incorrect?
Answer question 15
Within the time limit, I am unable to answer this question. This will be more detailed
need to be sorted out. I will inform your House further via the stand of
business letter sent to your House prior to the next committee debate
Tax authorities receive..
Question 16
Do you think that municipalities themselves have a responsibility to conduct research?
do if information from the FSV may be in the social domain, right
has come and/or was shared?
Answer question 16
In my letter dated May 16, 2023 about FSV-related topics, I reported that
the tax authorities have asked municipalities, among others, for information
to be removed from or over from the FSV by the tax authorities. It's up to municipalities
to see how the information from the FSV has been further processed.
Question 17
What measures have or have not been taken to promote that the municipalities
provide information about this to the persons involved?
Answer question 17
For what the tax authorities have done to municipalities, see the answer to
question 2.
Question 18
Are you familiar with the document LSI 2004/93, “Interim Report on
elaboration of measures from the letter “Wine/Rutte”, showing that in the beginning
from LSI, the question was raised: how the powers of
participating parties can be applied “crosswise” and the
conclusion that this is not allowed, unless using standard questionnaires
worked? (3)
Answer question 18
Yes, I'm familiar with this.
Question 19
Do you agree that the use of each other's powers by
is government bodies not desirable?
Answer question 19
Yes, I agree with this. Using the powers of fellow officials from other organizations or engaging in the task field of a
other service/agency is not legally allowed. This is also concluded
in the piece you are referring to: “sharing each other over and over again
powers given to the partners in an intervention team are not considered to be the most
practical solution seen to assess the effectiveness of the intervention teams
enlarge. In addition, it is so-called “piggyback” on the powers of
fellow officials or engaging in someone else's field of work
service/agency is not legally allowed and therefore not a passable path. this
is, however, in practice, given the opportunity to do so with
to be able to work common questionnaires, not as a bottleneck
experienced. '
Cooperation between government bodies therefore does not mean that the mutual
powers merge and become shared powers. Participating
parties remain bound by their own powers.
Question 20
Can you indicate how long, where and how the standard questionnaires are
have been applied?
Answer question 20
Experience has shown that in practice, the questionnaires are only partly
are completed because the questionnaire is too extensive and not in all cases
relevant. The questionnaires that are used are attached in the annex.
Each participating and interested organization works in using
the questionnaire entirely based on your own powers. The time has come
known not to find out since when the standard questionnaires were
applied.
When working with standard questionnaires, privileges are assigned to
participating parties, as far as known, have not been applied crosswise. The competent
participating party that retrieved information by means of a
standard questionnaire, shares this information with other participating parties,
provided that this is necessary for the partnership (article 64, paragraph 3),
SUWI Act).
Question 21
Have the powers also been applied crosswise at any time without
questionnaires?
Answer question 21
See answer to question 19
Question 22
Are the standard questionnaires still being used and, if so, which ones? Can you wear these
do the Chamber
future?
Answer question 22
As stated in answer 20, the questionnaires that are
applied attached.
Question 23
Are you familiar with the mention of Bulgarian, Polish, West African,
Egyptian, Asian and Chinese target group in the presentation of the
SZW information hub in the LSI meeting on 31 January 2008? (4)
Answer question 23
Yes
Question 24
Does the Information Hub or its activities still exist and where are they?
housed, at ANL or elsewhere?
Answer question 24
I assume that ANL means the Dutch Labour Inspectorate. It
information hub is located at the Notification Information Center of
the Dutch Labour Inspectorate. Reports with indications of fraud in the
social domains are assessed there on the nature and extent and thereafter
forwarded to the correct customer. As a rule, this is UWV, SVB or a
municipality.
Question 25
Does ANL or SZW still work with target groups and, if so,
which one?
Answer question 25
The Dutch Labour Inspectorate formulates target groups for its risk-oriented
supervision. For examples, the Dutch Labour Inspectorate refers to her
annual plan. Within social security, SZW has a target group policy:
specific benefits and schemes are intended for specific target groups,
such as migrant workers, social assistance recipients, parents and people with a
distance from the labor market.
Question 26
Are you aware that, as annexes to answers to Parliamentary questions show
by member Omtzigt, the data from LSI projects are processed in special
Intervention Team Information System (IVT System) developed for interventions
and are processed by the Office for Chain Computerization for Work and Income? (5)
Answer question 26
The IVT system provided project members from intervention teams - working at
different organizations - the ability to use at the same time
create the same project data. This application was managed by the
Office for Chain Computerization for Work and Income2 (BKWI). In this application
project members were able to work together in a safe way. Data was
under the responsibility of a national project manager on a project basis
recorded and unlocked again. In the IVT system, several
documents and data used. Only prepared documents could
are being edited, source data is not. Source data is data from those sources such as
Basic Personal Registration (BRP), Verification Identification System (VIS) and the
Commercial register. Depending on the type of study, certain information was
visible. The documents and data were published one year after the closure of the
project removed from the system.
The IVT system was phased out on 1 January 2018 and is no longer used.
The system did not meet user requirements. Since the end of 2017, it has been carrying
Office for Chain Computerization for Work and Income (BKWI) no longer carries out activities
for the LSI.
Question 27
Under what legislation is it allowed to collect data from different
implementation and
to mix government bodies into one database?
Answer question 27
If government data is brought together in one file, it must
processing is, of course, based on a lawful basis and also
otherwise comply with legal and regulatory requirements. For
the now phased out IVT system applied to the requirements of the Act
personal data protection. Today, the requirements of the
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). One of these requirements is
the GDPR is that controllers are obliged to provide appropriate
to take technical and organizational measures to secure data.
If government bodies bring data together in a single file, they should therefore:
assess whether this processing is lawful and compatible with relevant
regulations.
The basis for processing personal data within the LSI cooperation by project participants is article 64 of the Act.
structure of the implementing organization for work and income (SUWI Act). This article is
formulated in a neutral manner and does not contain a ban or an obligation to
bringing data together in one database.
Question 28
Do all participants in an LSI study have access to all data collected with
in relation to that
research being processed?
2
The Office for Chain Computerization for Work and Income is part of UWV
Answer question 28
No. In the procedure sent to the House on 26 January this year,
explains the way the LSI3 works. At the start of the project
all participating chain partners provide their own signals.
Within the system, each chain partner has its own folder containing the signals
are uploaded. The chain partners only have access to their 'own' folder
and therefore have no insight into the data provided by others
chain partners. When the chain partners have uploaded their signals,
the municipal project manager of the project, an overview of all the
discuss addresses where at least two partners have an interest. This one
addresses are discussed at the so-called case table. At the case table
so only the addresses that are interested in more partners are discussed
have.
Question 29
Which participants in an LSI study are allowed or allowed to make changes to the data
add to the IVT system?
Answer question 29
For this, see the answer to question 26.
Question 30
What personal data is processed in the IVT system and is there
ethnicity or nationality data processed in the IVT? If so, which ones?
Answer question 30
The specific data needs were determined for each LSI project, so it is not up to
to specify which personal data has been processed in the IVT system. Well is
to indicate that participants had access to the BRP where, at the time of the
IVT system still included the second nationality. In addition, they had
participants via the BRP access to, among other things, first names and surnames,
birthplace and country of birth of those involved and was, as of 2014, the
the distinction between residents and non-residents is transparent. Whether and why
certain nationality or ancestry-related data in individual projects
have been used can no longer be traced, because the system is no longer in
use is.
Question 31
Is special personal data or criminal data also processed in the IVT system?
Answer question 31
For the BRP, see answer 30. This does not exclude that in a particular LSI project
special personal data has been included in a document by parties
that is placed in the IVT system. This is no longer detectable, because it
system is no longer in use. Within the IVT system, no
criminal source data is processed, but here, too, it cannot be ruled out that
criminal data may have been included in a document that
has been in that system.
Question 32
3
Parliamentary Paper 17 050, No. 604
The LSI designates itself as a joint controller
according to the Format
Intervention Teams roadmap, as shown in annexes to answers to Parliamentary questions
of the member
Omtzigt, is that correct? (6)
Answer question 32
Yes. The partners within an LSI project are, under article 64, paragraph 2,
SUWI Joint Controllers Act in the phase where they
collaborate and contribute your own data to that end, and then do so with
exchange other participants.
Question 33
Can you answer these questions separately within three weeks so that the
answers are given well before the FSV committee debate?
Answer question 33
I sent you a deferral letter on May 16. I have the answers for the
FSV committee debate sent to you.