Fees? Which charges still urgently need to be cleared up?

　　Deepen the reform of fee cleanup and effectively reduce the burden on enterprises and individuals—An interview with Lou Jiwei, Minister of Finance.

　　In recent years, the State Council has taken a series of measures to streamline and standardize fees, helping enterprises and individuals reduce their burdens. So, just how many fees have been cleared? Which fees still urgently need to be addressed? And how can we prevent the resurgence of arbitrary and excessive charges? On these topics, Lou Jiwei, Minister of Finance, accepted an interview with a reporter from Xinhua News Agency.

Central fee reductions relieve enterprises and individuals of a burden totaling 92 billion yuan annually.

　 　Reporter: In recent years, the state has consistently stepped up its efforts to streamline and regulate fees. So, just how many fees have been cleared, and what specific results have been achieved?

　　 Lou Jiwei In accordance with the decisions and deployments of the Party Central Committee and the State Council, since 2013, governments at all levels have taken a series of measures to actively promote the cleanup of fees, abolishing or reducing a large number of fee items and thereby easing the burden on enterprises and individuals. At the central level, a total of 420 administrative and public service fees and government funds have been abolished, suspended, or reduced, relieving enterprises and individuals of approximately 92 billion yuan in burdens each year. Currently, the number of administrative and public service fees and government funds at the central level has been reduced to 138. At the local level, too, a substantial number of fee items established by local authorities have been abolished or reduced. According to statistics, in 2014 alone, the cumulative number of fees abolished by provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities) exceeded 600. At present, the number of administrative and public service fees legally and compliantly established by provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities) has been reduced to around ten.

　　Meanwhile, we will strengthen and standardize the management of lists of fee-charging items. A catalog system has been established for administrative and public service fees and government funds that are set up in compliance with the law. These catalogs are regularly made publicly available on the websites of the Ministry of Finance and provincial-level finance departments, and the establishment of new fee-charging and fund projects will be strictly controlled in accordance with the law.

　　The fewer fee-based services there are, the better—this is not necessarily true. While general public services provided by the government should be funded through taxation, it would be unfair for ordinary taxpayers to foot the bill for non-general services provided to specific businesses and individuals. Therefore, fees should be charged directly to those who specifically benefit from these services.

　　For example, when applying for a passport, costs are involved in activities such as passport printing, the installation of anti-counterfeiting features, technological research and development, and human services. Going abroad is an individual or corporate matter, and the costs incurred should be borne by the individuals or enterprises themselves who apply for the passport to cover their expenses. Another example: if an individual loses their ID card and needs to replace it, they should bear the associated costs themselves. Therefore, government fees should be differentiated based on whether they serve general public services or specific services. Not all service costs can be covered solely through taxation; for non-universal services, costs should be offset through user fees.

The issue of excessively high fees for mandatory monopoly services remains prominent.

　　 Reporter: What problems still exist with government fees at present? And how can we promote the shift in government functions during the cleanup of these fees?

　　 Lou Jiwei: Although fee collection and cleanup efforts have achieved positive results in recent years, some prominent issues still remain in fee management:

　　Currently, some localities and departments still engage in arbitrary fee collection, such as setting up fee-based fund projects in violation of regulations. Even among the fee-based funds established in compliance with the law, some are not entirely reasonable—for instance, if a particular service genuinely requires fees to cover its costs, but the actual cost is 50 yuan while the fee charged is 80 yuan, then such a fee structure is unreasonable. Generally speaking, fee collection should adhere to the principles of cost recovery and fiscal balance. If fees consistently exceed expenditures, the fee rates should be reduced accordingly.

　　Moreover, there is also a prominent issue of excessive and unreasonable charges for certain mandatory, monopolistic service-based fees. Some services that could be provided by society should indeed be handed over to the social sector; services offered through competition tend to be better, and the government should refrain from excessive interference. Furthermore, some government agencies, public institutions, and intermediary organizations have not yet fully separated themselves from one another, leading to conflicts of interest and, consequently, frequent instances of arbitrary fee collection due to monopolistic practices.

　　In addition, unreasonable fees charged by certain industry associations and chambers of commerce also significantly disrupt businesses.

　　Standardizing and streamlining fee collection will help ease the burden on businesses and individuals. Deepening the reform of fee cleanup is an important task for comprehensively promoting administrative streamlining, delegating power, combining deregulation with regulation, and transforming government functions. It is also an urgent requirement for deepening the reform of the administrative management system and building a government that is rule-of-law-based, innovative, clean, and service-oriented. Moreover, it is a crucial measure for reducing the burdens on enterprises, encouraging investment and entrepreneurship, and serving the real economy.

Cancel fees that are intended for the purpose of raising animals and violate market principles.

　　 Reporter: What further measures are planned this year to clean up and standardize fees? And how can we prevent the resurgence of arbitrary fee collection?

　　 Lou Jiwei In 2015, the in-depth advancement of the fee cleanup and reform involved seven key measures:

　　—— Strictly implement the state’s explicit regulations on abolishing, suspending, and reducing or exempting fees and funds. Implement effectively the policies on waiving or reducing fees and funds for small and micro enterprises, the elderly care and healthcare services sector, affordable housing construction, and employment of college graduates.

　　—— Resolutely abolish illegally established fee-based fund projects. Any measures established without legal or regulatory basis or exceeding authorized powers shall be abolished in their entirety; any unauthorized increases in collection standards or expansions of the scope of collection shall be immediately halted.

　　—— Clean up and standardize fee-based funds established within the scope of prescribed authority. Eliminate administrative and public service charges that are provided by the government but do not deliver universal public services or perform general administrative functions, as well as those whose primary purpose is to support personnel and violate the fundamental principles of the market economy. Abolish government-managed funds whose policy effects are unclear and no longer suited to the development of the market economy. For government-managed funds whose fees exceed service costs and that have substantial revenue-expenditure surpluses, reduce the collection standards. Integrate duplicate fee and fund systems. In accordance with the law, merge fee-based funds with tax characteristics into their corresponding tax categories.

　　—— Clean up and standardize mandatory, monopolistic charges for business services. A comprehensive cleanup and standardization of fees charged by intermediary service providers will be carried out. Intermediary service agencies must be completely decoupled from approval authorities. It is prohibited to delegate tasks within the scope of government responsibilities to public institutions or intermediary organizations and charge fees for such services.

　　—— Rectify and standardize fee-charging practices of industry associations and chambers of commerce. We will firmly put a stop to practices such as forcing enterprises to join associations and collect membership fees, as well as compelling enterprises to pay fees. Industry associations and chambers of commerce are strictly prohibited from arbitrarily setting up fee-charging items or raising fee standards by taking over government functions or leveraging administrative resources.

　　—— Implement a management system for a list of fee-charging items. After cleanup and standardization, administrative and public service charges, government funds, and business-service charges subject to government pricing that are retained shall be listed in a catalog compiled at both the central and provincial levels and publicly announced. No fees may be charged beyond those listed in the catalog.

　　—— Strengthen fee regulation. Strengthen the mechanisms for enterprise reporting, investigation and enforcement, and accountability. Establish a supervision and follow-up system. For any verified instances of illegal fee collection, in addition to imposing penalties in accordance with laws and regulations, we will also hold the responsible persons in charge of the relevant departments and units strictly accountable.