Proposition 50K1338

Projet de loi modifiant l'arrêté royal du 18 novembre 1996 instaurant une assurance sociale en faveur des travailleurs indépendants en cas de faillite et des personnes assimilées, en application des articles 29 et 49 de la loi du 26 juillet 1996 portant modernisation de la sécurité sociale et assurant la viabilité des régimes légaux des pensions.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

July 5, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

bankruptcy social security

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR FN VB

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 22, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

As of 1 July 1997, the social status of self-employed persons includes social insurance in case of bankruptcy. After three years, it has been concluded that this insurance is rarely used, despite the socially disastrous situation in which the persons concerned sometimes find themselves. Then they decided to make a round question. From this, two conclusions were drawn, namely that the measure was insufficient and, above all, that the conditions of award were too strict and too complex. That is why this new draft law, which as it were, eases and simplifies the conditions of granting. Thus, it becomes an individual right and the right is extended. It now provides for a benefit ranging from 15,606 francs to 31,212 francs for the bankrupt for six months.

Let me go into the discussion. Ms. Pieters considers it fundamentally a good thing, but does not find it going far enough. She will continue to explain her position. Mrs Gerkens has also expressed her support and also believes that this addresses a social gap. She will also express her position here. Mr Danny Pieters, on the other hand, from doubts. He finds obtaining compensation for a longer period of time is not always a good solution. He is concerned that a higher compensation for a shorter term might be better. Basically, he believes that the initiative does not actually involve an activation policy. As far as I am concerned, this is obviously a good measure that fits in the action plan of the new Minister of Medium Standing. Like most of the colleagues who spoke here, I also find in quasi-consensus with them that the amounts paid after two months are still below the subsistence minimum. However, we all find it a good safety net for self-employed persons for six months. Their

The bill provides a good safety net for the self-employed for six months. With this bill, the ministers do not pretend to solve all the problems of the self-employed. This requires more reforms that will be addressed in the longer term. They are willing to consider an immediate adjustment of the amounts or a shortening of the deadline. In the future, in any case, efforts will be made, including at the courts’ offices, to provide sufficient information to the bankrupt. Mr. Speaker, that was in a note note the report of this draft law. The bill was adopted with nine votes in favour and five abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the bankruptcy insurance is three years old and was the subject of intense discussion in the Social Affairs Committee following the 1996 Program Law. It is good to evaluate the facts three years after date because we can clearly establish that of the amount granted, only a small portion, 20 million francs, is recovered by the bankrupt self-employed.

The administration conducted a survey to pinpoint the reasons why the bankruptcy legislation was so difficult to apply and grant. It showed that insolvency insurance is not sufficiently known and that the conditions for granting are too strict and too complicated. This bill aims to remedy this by easing the conditions of granting, by converting the right to benefits into an individual right and extending it from two months to six months.

The insolvency insurance was already announced in the KMO plan of Minister Daems in August 2001 and by the Prime Minister as an important element in the State of the Union. This is an important, but not the most important part of a SME plan, the basic elements of which already exist and are adapted to the current situation. Therefore, I hope that this year’s SME policy will not be limited to the adjustment of insolvency insurance.

This is a good bill, as was also said in the committee. However, some comments should be made. Mr. Minister, you have yourself admitted that it would be better if the benefit was automatically granted to the failed self-employed. You said that you would make the necessary efforts to examine whether this could still be achieved through an amendment in the plenary session. Today we must conclude that this is not the case and that we will need to continue working with the existing instruments. The failed self-employed shall be informed, through all the bodies listed by Mr Lano, of the possibility of entitlement to this insurance.

Employed persons who become unemployed automatically receive an unemployment allowance and it is ⁇ regrettable that this is not the case for a failed self-employed.

Mr. Minister, like Mr. Lano, we expressed, with respect to your colleague, Mr. Minister Vandenbroucke, who replaced you in the Committee on Entrepreneurship, our surprise at the fact that the level of benefits for the last four months added to it is quite low. Indeed, these benefits are situated below the subsistence minimum and this while it has already been proven that the bankrupt is “evidently impotent” and thus can claim a guaranteed minimum income. This is regrettable. In the KMO plan of August 2001 you talked about an insurance against involuntary cessation of activities. During the previous legislature, a lively debate was held on this issue, which was attracted by Mr Valkeniers. For budgetary reasons, at the time, we advocated, by a majority, to limit this measure to those who go into bankruptcy in good faith, while Mr Valkeniers wanted to extend the measure to all those who must cease their activity on an involuntary basis.

After reading your KMO note on this subject, Mr. Minister, I thought that Mr. Valkeniers had achieved his battle on the basis of possibly decisive arguments, since what he now obtained he had not succeeded in the previous legislature. Now, however, I must admit that his aspirations were nevertheless not met, as the measure remains limited to those who go into bankruptcy in good faith.

Then we are not happy with Mr. Lano’s amendment, which makes this bill come into force three months later.

Finally, during the discussion of your policy plan in the business committee, where you were absent, we made a note regarding the impact of the plan which can be quantified at 18 billion and in which context you once announced that you would work in phases; you would take small but solid steps. Well, Minister Vandenbroucke, who replaced you during the committee meeting, had to admit that this bill actually offers too little and does not address the problem fundamentally. His answer to the problem was to act quickly and to keep the ambitious vision for later — with which we, by the way, agreed — which was completely contrary to your position on this matter. Their

Because of this astonishing connection between the two government partners, but especially because one fails to deal thoroughly with a law that has not been in effect for a very long time, we will abstain at the vote.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, those who dare to take risks and embark on entrepreneurial activity contribute to the creation of wealth and very often to the creation of jobs, and are often impoverished when circumstances, in particular economic circumstances, strike them in full. Indeed, when the self-employed is no longer able to cope with the situation, when he is in a state of bankruptcy, his social protection network does not allow him to get out of it and is of no help.

What is more normal than to provide for the benefit of these living forces a guarantee of rescue, of assistance of which they benefit, by the other, in a quite appropriate manner, you will all agree, the wage workers. by

I do not intend here to make an inventory of the improvements that should be made to the social status of the independent. by

Since taking office in July 1999, the federal government has already done a good job on these issues.

By my intervention, I simply intend to emphasize the fairness of the bill which is now subject to our approval.

In recent years, a new branch has been added to the mandatory social status of independent workers. Social insurance in case of bankruptcy.

Unfortunately, as you said very well, more than three years after the entry into force of this system, it appears that the independent did not appeal to it. In any case, it should be known that they can only very rarely claim to this insurance, despite the difficult and often disastrous social situation in which the persons concerned are.

From a survey carried out among the self-employed, it shows not only that the measure is very little known by the self-employed and by the bankrupt in particular, but also and above all that the conditions of award are provided in a way too rigorous and complicated.

Currently, bankrupt self-employed persons receive, after multiple actions, for a maximum of two months, a financial benefit, the maximum amount of which is fixed at 25 or 30,000 francs, depending on whether the person concerned has or does not have a dependent person.

Moreover, this minimum protection net was extended to non-commercial self-employed workers only from 1999 and provided that they are subject to a collective settlement of debts within the meaning of the law.

The government and our majority intend to improve this insurance by raising to six months the period during which the financial benefit can be obtained and above all by easing the conditions of granting.

Bringing the intervention to the benefit of these bankrupt self-employed is a mere measure of equity ⁇ still insufficient, but that will allow people who are in this difficult situation both materially and morally, to reorganize their professional life while guaranteeing them a minimum of income. by

Furthermore, the planned amounts will, as you know, be linked to the new pivot index in force since 1 January 2000. In other words, the monthly amount of the financial benefit is therefore raised to 31.212 FB for the first two months, and to 21.000 FB for the last four months.

Finally, let us also emphasize that the financial intervention will be done, and that is quite logical, faster than before. The coverage period shall run on the first day of the month following that of the bankruptcy judgment instead of the first day of the quarter following that of the judgment. For some, this may be a detail, as far as I am concerned, I think it is useful to provide for this adjustment since the bankrupt is often without a resource immediately after the declaration of its state of termination of payment.

Finally, it is clear that these arrangements could of course not benefit persons convicted for bankruptcy under the provisions of the Criminal Code.

The PRL-FDF-MCC group will firmly support this bill that improves the social coverage of bankrupt self-employed. He reminds very clearly that this measure, combined with those already taken by the government in this sector, somewhat fills the delay to be caught for the citizens of this country who, by their willingness to undertake, intend to take their destiny into their hands, contribute to national wealth and create jobs. It is only fair to intervene for the benefit of these people when the circumstances of life or the economic context in which we evolve lead to a situation of bankruptcy.

For us, this bill is both a necessary and a minimum. by

This bankrupt insurance is a right for the self-employed; in fact, not only do they contribute to benefit from it, but, moreover, the principle already existed as such. In fact, this insurance was not applied because the self-employed were not aware of its existence. Therefore, the budget provided for this purpose was not used.

We are ⁇ pleased that thanks to the assessment that took place, changes have been made in order to allow the self-employed to have access to this insurance immediately after the declaration of his bankruptcy. This was the primary concern of the self-employed who, finding themselves without income, had an immediate need for liquidity to continue to live.

We also emphasize the individualization of the law – which is logical for someone who has worked for years contributing for that security – and the simplification of the conditions necessary to ⁇ it.

As I just said, the main reason why the previous law was not applied was the ignorance of its existence. Thus, during the work of the committee, we insisted on finding a way to inform the independent. Personally, I had suggested as a clue that the commercial courts systematically inform the social security funds of the self-employed in such a way that the latter in turn inform the self-employed by verifying that they meet the conditions allowing access to this insurance.

During the discussion of the project, Minister Vandenbroucke seemed to say that this formula could be held and that a circular would be proposed by the Minister of Justice. Mr. Minister, can you tell me if the arrangements were made for this circulary to be published as soon as the law came into force, in such a way that we avoided a situation of non-information and this, especially since we only have one year to verify the suitability of this new system? I would like to communicate to you a regret that I have already expressed in the committee but that goes beyond the scope of this insurance, namely that this insurance — organized for 6 months in a degressive way for the self-employed to regain an activity — is widespread. The question I ask myself is the following: is it correct to expect from an independent employee who has reached the age of 55 years, for example, that he recreates an activity or finds a job?

In the future, I would like to imagine a system that allows a self-employed person of a certain age and who has gone bankrupt to be entitled to a replacement income. I’m not going to give him a name, but that income should allow him to go to his retirement without having to start a business again.

I am pleased that this project complements a project that we adopted a few months ago regarding the excusability of the bankruptcy. Both are complementary and interesting.

Finally, I think, like my colleagues, that it will be necessary to seriously resume the discussion concerning the self-employed, while ensuring that the guarantees given to them respect budgetary balances and that the improvement of the status of the self-employed is not done at the expense of the status of the employees, for example. I think progress is possible in the medium and, I hope, in the short term.

Mr. Minister, I take advantage of this to ask you if a date has been set to discuss the second part of the Cantillon report on the pensions of self-employed. by

The ECOLO-AGALEV group fully supports this project.

I think we all agree on this draft. This arrangement fits into the first part of the social statute for the self-employed, which we want to thoroughly improve. The part now accepted in the budget discussions relates to how we can address an involuntary cessation of activities. I make a distinction between two possibilities. First, the company is no longer viable and goes bankrupt. Second, the manager suffers from a long-term illness or becomes disabled. What should he then do? These problems are now being thoroughly addressed in the 2002 budget, with effects already in this year.

More specifically, it means that we provide an allowance for a bankrupt self-employed for six months, where previously only two months could be counted on support. The benefit will be paid on the first day of the month following the bankruptcy and not on the first day of the next quarter, because if you accidentally go bankrupt at the beginning of a quarter, you will have to wait almost three months for a benefit.

It is true that the current benefit for the first two months has increased somewhat, but for the next four months the amount is too low to normal standards. On the contrary, the fact is that we can add those four months to the benefit period. We have some budgetary constraints, but we have sought a solution. Ms. Pieters asked how we can be sure that this system will be used, since the previous system was only used for 5%. This can be done by setting up a data stream in which the failing party automatically, in a very short term, receives the information at his home. I’m talking about a application form that he can send back immediately so that the system can start operating immediately. The automatic granting of the right creates a problem because one then grants a right to people who must subsequently refund. At this time, there is a high risk that people will automatically receive a benefit that they will have to repay a few months later. Since they are in a very penible situation, we would only aggravate the problem for many people. Indeed, today we do not know what percentage of bankrupt persons would fall under the conditions, although we have considerably eased the conditions. We could have done this legally and we even drafted a text for it. Since only 5% use it so far, we don’t know what percentage would effectively use the scheme. If it was 95% now, then we only have problems in 5% of cases. Suppose it is fifty-fifty, then 50% of the failed self-employed must repay so many months later, in an already difficult condition. We found that too risky. Therefore, we want to deliver the form to the people in a very short time, so that they can sign it and send it back. Thus, they can receive the benefit on the first day of the month following the bankruptcy.

It is my intention to obtain additional financial resources within the government, but the limitations are there — as you know — of a general and economic nature. In other words, it is entirely my intention, in the next budget formulation or budget control — in addition to this aspect and in addition to a proper approach to disability and accidents at work — to sensitively increase a number of amounts that are still too low. I have to get the government’s approval for this, but I can’t imagine that there would be a problem with benefits below the subsistence minimum. This does not seem to be a sustainable situation.

As the economic situation is getting worse and as many bankruptcies are declared, we want to provide a solution as of 1 October. If this system works properly, we can try to make improvements in the coming weeks and months. Better a bird in the hand than ten in the air. That is an important point, because if we re-enter the discussion here, we may not have a solution at all at the beginning of next year. In the meantime, many self-employed workers would go bankrupt who are not covered by the new regulation at all. Therefore, I ask that the Chamber approve this draft.

Mr. Minister, you say that a form will be sent to the bankrupt independent workers. Who will send it?

Mr. Speaker, it is normally the courts and the RSVZ who are immediately notified of the bankruptcy, who inform the Social Security Fund, who immediately at that moment themselves proactively send the information. Until now, the provision of information often took months, so the Kas was not even aware of a bankruptcy.

The necessary circular will be ready on January 1st.