Proposition 50K1627

Projet de loi créant un Service des créances alimentaires au sein du SPF Finances.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Servais Verherstraeten
Ecolo Marie-Thérèse Coenen
Groen Kristien Grauwels
LE Jean-Jacques Viseur
MR Pierrette Cahay-André, Jacqueline Herzet
Open Vld Fientje Moerman
PS | SP Colette Burgeon
Vooruit Magda De Meyer, Els Van Weert

Submission date

Feb. 6, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

maintenance obligation budget divorce

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V FN VB

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.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

Jan. 23, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. van Weddingen, take your breath and your minds! I give you the word for the report that you assume exists since you have signed it.

The effectiveness of this House will always surprise me! I thought this issue would be discussed a little later.

What happens, Mr. of Weddings?

Mr. Speaker, I have climbed the stairs four to four, which is really not my age anymore! The proof has just been made!

I think of a famous film: "The Breath to the Heart."

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will be all the more brief as the 165-page report you have received is detailed. I would also like to thank the services for their contribution to this important report.

The Finance Committee began the examination of the initial bill almost a year ago, on February 26, 2002. Four meetings were held in March, two in April, one in December and two more meetings since the beginning of this year.

The course of this proposal in the Finance Committee was not banal and experienced some rebounds. In fact, the original proposal was fully discussed, article by article, during six meetings in February and March last year before being the subject of a first general amendment re-writing the proposal to take into account all the comments made during the discussion, amendment filed on 30 April 2002. The adoption of this amendment was, however, postponed in anticipation of the opinion of the State Council and the opinion requested by the Commission to the Court of Auditors on the estimated budgetary impact. by

In October last, following a consultation between the authors and the government, a new general amendment was submitted by the authors of the original proposal. This new text renounced the creation of a fund for the benefit of the extension of the existing regime within the CPAS. by

The discussion of this amendment in the Finance Committee on 17 December resulted in a third and last general amendment significantly closer to the initial proposal since it relates to the creation of an Alimentary Claims Fund and does not provide for any income ceiling to benefit from it.

This last text is submitted to you and was adopted in a committee at the beginning of this month of January with ten votes and three abstentions.

The committee decided to divide the proposal, depending on whether the provisions taken regulate a matter referred to in Article 77 or Article 78 of the Constitution. This is how two distinct but forming one whole propositions are submitted to you. The second proposal amending the Judicial Code regulates the jurisdiction of the seizure judge in case of appeal, namely that of the judge of the creditor’s domicile. As a parliamentary initiative text, the authors will have the opportunity to outline its objectives and to specify their appreciation for the text finally adopted. As a rapporteur, I will therefore not here, as is the case when it is a project, summarize the proposal.

As for the debate, which was extremely lively and constructive, I will not try to synthesize it, given the existence, as I just recalled, of four successive texts, which would require an unreasonable time of exposure.

I would like to refer to my written report. I will simply say — and I hope in this not to betray the feelings of the Commissioners — that the treatment reserved for this proposal is a very beautiful example of parliamentary work and constancy, the debates having taken place outside of any classical political clash and with the very effective technical collaboration of the advisors of the Minister of Finance, who also showed himself constructive patience.

I thank you.

I would like to thank mr. The rapporteur . Several speakers are included in the general discussion but I will first give the floor to Mrs Herzet, who is the author of the oldest proposal.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, my dear colleagues, I would like to quote you simply three dates: 1974, filing of the first bill in the Senate by Mrs. Huberte Hanquet; January 2002, filing of the bill signed by all the parliamentarians of the democratic parties and today, ladies and gentlemen, January 2003, vote — I have no doubt — of the bill.

I would like to begin by thanking our brilliant rapporteur for this brief but yet very precise, very constructive and very positive report. It shouldn’t have been easy every day. I would like to thank you, Mr. Rapporteur, for the report you have prepared for the plenary session.

January 15, 2002 was for me an extremely important day in my parliamentary life. On that day, together with all the democratic parties, we submitted a bill creating a Fund for advances and recovery of food claims, a subject that is very close to the heart of all parliamentarians and for which they have been fighting, regardless of the party, majority and opposition, French-speaking and Dutch-speaking, since 1974.

The discussions have been ongoing for thirty years. These two projects were deposited by each other, both in the House and in the Senate and the ministries returned the ball, once Justice, once Social Affairs, another time Health. Finally we found in the head of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Reynders, an interlocutor who sought with us a solution to this problem that became insoluble. This solution, the minister found it in his department of recovery of non-tax receivables. Indeed, he proposed us to expand this department so that it can take care — he recently recalled the large number of employees and operational services at his disposal — of the recovery of all unpaid maintenance claims.

We immediately embraced this interesting proposal. In fact, the Ministry of Finance’s intervention with the maintenance debtor was meant to be a means of exercising psychological pressure on the “bad payers” debtors so that they execute more quickly. I would like to remind you that maintenance pensions are too often unpaid, incomplete or too late and that this puts many families in trouble.

This is, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, my colleagues, the starting point of this process that has experienced many rebounds this past year. I remind you that 133 amendments have been submitted in the Finance Committee, not only submitted but discussed, listened and heard for the most part, whether they come from the majority or the opposition. However, the consensual mode, which was the starting point of the dossier, remains quite up-to-date. I take the opportunity to thank all my colleagues, who have really invested in this dossier for contributing constructively to the drafting of the text that is presented to us today.

I suppose and I hope that the Minister will come soon to give us important technical explanations. The text submitted to you establishes the creation of a service of food claims, a service that will be autonomous, financially viable and sustainable. This is what we all wanted.

In terms of principles, I would like to highlight some advantages of this system that I find ⁇ important. It will be effective, quick, easily understandable, with excellent information that the Ministry of Finance will provide to municipal administrations, CPAS and anyone interested in this issue.

The first principle is that the proposed law enables the obligation of assistance between parents and children and between former spouses to be enforced. It is about enforcing a right enshrined by a judicial decision and not granting a favor or privilege. The political order and the State can only tolerate that the institutions on which it rests are violated or blamed impunely.

The second principle is that the proposed law aims to grant an advance right on maintenance to all maintenance creditors who no longer receive maintenance. This applies to children, former spouses, former cohabitants and this regardless of their income level. So this is a kind of universal service that we all absolutely depend on. The amount of the advance will be placed at 175 euros, while it is currently at 125 euros.

The third principle, the advance guarantee made by the service of claims to the entitled, will be an important instrument in the fight against the precariousness of families that have become monoparental or recomposed. We who live in our communes day by day, we know how much this advance will allow families to breathe, to have financial, emotional and social security. Fourth principle: compliance with the maintenance obligation is also an important issue in ⁇ ining family relations. Too often, after a divorce, the problem of non-payment of alimony becomes the subject of betting, blackmail or affective merchandising. The intervention of an independent and neutral service in the event of non-payment of the maintenance pension will help to dismantle certain tensions. This can only be beneficial for all families.

Fifth principle: the service of maintenance claims ensures the protection of the creditor while ⁇ ining the full liability of the debtor. This has the advantage of giving national solidarity a subsidiary role over family solidarity. It is necessary to ensure that the family shortage does not put these creditors at the expense of the community.

The CPAS are discharged from their functions in this regard. I remind you that we had many hearings and that the CPAS absolutely refused the extra work and financial burdens that represented for them the fact of having to do what was necessary to ensure the recovery and advance of the maintenance claims.

I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues on the fact that the Food Claims Service does not discharge the CPAS from their responsibilities in this regard. Under the CPAS Act, they remain the service of proximity, first-line, counseling and guidance of persons who come to them for other needs, in particular in order to be directed to the competent department to enable them to obtain maintenance claims.

After the adoption of this bill, the Finance Administration will have an essential role on which the proper functioning of the service will depend. An information mechanism should be established for creditors but also for alimony debtors. We have received the Minister’s promise. We rely on its effectiveness to allow quick and easy access to creditors. We have put so much hope in this bill that the service should not cause disappointment. It must be correct, effective, quick, easy and clearly understandable. Forms must be written in advance and allow useful use for each of us.

I also wanted to say that the establishment of the service of food claims must remain of use of proximity and easy access for everyone. Another important thing, which was also added during the discussions, a evaluation committee will be established. It will be responsible for drawing up an annual evaluation report. The latter will improve the system in place and adjust the amounts of advances to the rise in case of proper functioning.

In Quebec, 90% of all food claims are recovered. Why not imagine that in Belgium, too, such a recovery rate is achieved? It therefore appears that the proposed law constitutes an adequate response, too long delayed, to the material needs, to the social needs of many alimony creditors who, due to the default of their debtor, are in precariousness. It allows to ensure the balance between the roles of each of the stakeholders, to come in help while preserving the responsibilities of each and we also cared a lot about it.

I would like to present my most vivid thanks, with my friendship above, Mr. Minister, to you, Minister of Finance, for your support, but also to your cabinet and your administration who have made, defeat and re-made a text that, in the end, has obtained a broad consensus, in any case from all the democratic parties. I know, Mr. Minister, that within the government, it must not have been easy every day for you and that you never let your arms fall. I also wanted to pay tribute to you this afternoon.

I would also like to thank all my colleagues, men and women – because this is not a project that is only of interest to women, we live in a mixed society and this project is of interest to men, women and children – who engaged, in a concern of consensus, mutual respect and appreciation, to this project, who believed it to the end and who never despaired; to all those who contributed to its realization and adoption. by

I would simply tell you that, for all of these reasons, the MR group will enthusiastically support the bill that we have the honour of making yours by our assembly this afternoon. by

I thank you.

Colleagues, in order to give Mr. Verherstraeten the opportunity to fulfill his obligations in the Sabena committee, I had placed him at the end of the speaker list on his question. As a member of the opposition, however, he asks me to be able to speak briefly. Then I will ask Mrs. Moerman to speak.

Thank you and my colleagues. I apologize for not being able to follow all debates in full, as I will immediately return to the Sabena committee to do so.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, on the one hand, I think that today is a happy moment when legislation will be created later. I also wish to thank and congratulate all who have contributed. On the other hand, however, I think it is also appropriate to introduce some nuances in the debate.

This legislative initiative was preceded by several years of parliamentary work. We have arranged — I have already said that at the committee meeting — some rounds turned in the horse mills. Eventually, the horse mills stopped and we were able to land. However, we are now at the end of the ride. The disadvantage of landing at the end of the ride is that the invoice is not settled by the majority that will approve this law, but is forwarded to the next legislature. If this had not happened, there would probably have been no agreement.

In part on behalf of my group, I had, on the one hand, submitted a separate proposal and, on the other hand, a consensus proposal on which there was no consensus afterwards for a period of time and then again, then again not, and eventually yes. I approved it because I submitted it myself with the clear agreement though that this was not my way, but that every improvement was positive. That is also the reason — I hear that some still prefer another option — why our group will abstain from this regulation, despite it also contains positive elements and even more than that.

In any case, it is an important social problem. The worst-paid debt, maintenance, gives shameful social dramas. Every proposal involves an improvement. However, it is appropriate to make a few critical comments.

First, we courier here also a little am Symptoms, without addressing the causes. Many domestic and out-of-marriage relationships splashed apart. Today we are faced with a family instability, which continues to grow. That has a lot to do with a spicy acid generation, which can no longer cope with the pressure. They have too little time for each other. Sometimes you can spend too little time together. As a result, families are under pressure and break up, resulting in nutrition problems. We have silenced too much on this issue.

Second, there is also pressure in marriage relationships. As a result, families are also separated. For these relations, we still have legislation, which is overlooked anyway. During this legislature we have submitted several legislative proposals — and I have done so — to make our “divorce legislation” a more friendly, conflict-managing and conflict-prevention legislation, which is less based on concepts such as error and guilt but more on responsibility. It had to be a legislation that was in the light of choices made jointly, of self-reliance and also of responsibility. During this legislature, steps were taken: the period for actual separation was reduced from five years to two years; family mediation was regulated. However, the divorce law as such and the error principle have not been removed from the law. However, several proposals have been made to the banks. I think this should happen in the next legislature anyway. Even here is sometimes the basis of a conflict, which later arises and sometimes leads to the non-payment or late payment of alimony.

Third, this legislation refers to the crime "family abandonment". This has been included in the law for a long time. However, the judiciary does not give sufficient priority to this crime. There is too much sepot. The College of Attorneys-General does not give priority to this. The Minister of Justice has his responsibility. It is mandatory to file a complaint with a civil party. That is not the right way. This causes problems to last too long. Thus they only get worse.

Didn't the Prime Minister in his government statement in October 2002 say that he would make family abandonment a priority? In the meantime, we are almost six months ahead. What has come out of this? This should have been linked. I have repeated this until in the mourning during various discussions, both in the Committee on Justice and then in the Committee on Finance.

Fourth, in addition to the shameful problem of non-payment of maintenance, which is in no way good to speak of, there is another problem, in particular the right of contact, the right to contact. This was also silenced. Legally it falls and the right of contact cannot be linked, but in fact it is linked. This has nothing to do with gender. Whether the victim is a man or a woman, in both cases it is annoying and not good to speak. In the mind, the heart, and the belly of the people—and I have a great deal of understanding for that—both are connected. We give an answer, but only with regard to the problem of non-payment of maintenance. However, we are too silent about the non-respect of the right of contact.

Collega Bourgeois also asked a written question about the size of the figures. I do not know if he intends to incorporate that written question into his speech. He will undoubtedly do that, and so I will be silent about it.

In any case, the failure to respect the right of contact is a big problem. I think we should have linked the problem with the problem we are discussing now, especially because this government, this majority in the budget, saves on the budget for the neutral meeting rooms. However, that could have been an excellent instrument in that regard, in which more was better invested. I regret that there is not enough link in the text between the non-payment of alimony and its causes.

Third, in addition to the fact that there is too much courier at Syptom and that the problems are addressed too little with the root, I regret that it was not chosen to maintain the existing advance scheme. My colleagues, you know, I would have chosen a different path. After all, the advance scheme has proven its usefulness on the ground. The scheme worked well and there was a lot of local expertise at the OCMW’s. I do not deny that the regulation also had disadvantages. Thus, there was flirting with poverty; only the children were eligible for its payment; the amounts were too low; the income limits were too low and the OCMW received, usually very late, only 90% of the amount of advance. I admit that many of these disadvantages are addressed by the new regulation. This should be welcomed. However, disadvantages remain. Despite the fact that the previous scheme remains possible in part, I fear that with the dozens of offices that will now be established on land, the contact between the office and the victim of the non-payment of maintenance will be more impersonal than was the case when the official of the OCMW took care of it.

I am also concerned that the new regulation will run a little slower. The experience of the Fund for Victims of Deliberate Violence teaches that sometimes one has to wait too long. I fear that this will be the case here, and that the bureaucracy will rule, resulting in a loss of time. I understand that the OCMWs were not wild enthusiasts and that they were not asking party to fulfill this role. They were not, because they were not paid for it, nor were they given logistical support for it. If we had said that they would be paid for it, all costs would be reimbursed, and in addition could have counted on additional staff, support and intervention in the costs incurred, then maybe another debate would have been possible. I still fundamentally don’t understand why subscribers should pay 5 percent.

Finally, my friends and colleagues, I also find it inappropriate that we do not place a price label on this legislative initiative. That is no different than the shifting of invoices, a recipe that we have been able to taste more often in this legislature. I regret that.

Mr. Minister, I had another question to you. The Association of Belgian Cities and Municipalities nominates the members of the committees for Finance and Budget. She expressed concern about Article 22. According to that article, municipalities and cities are obliged to provide information at their own expense. They are especially concerned that the professional secret would be violated.

Could you be able to answer this for the report and for the clarity? I think this does not necessarily have to be so and I hope you can provide a bit of clarification on this subject.

After these nuances, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to say in any case that this regulation is a good step that we welcome. We would have preferred to see something else and would have preferred to go a little further. I hope that a response can be given, especially to the many causes that actually cause this problem and which I have referred to later in the next legislature – because we are now on the final track – can be given. A humanising divorce legislation and also the right of contact deserve public attention. I thank you for your attention. We will abstain for the nuances, but we welcome the initiative and the improvements.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, many people say that politicians are dealing with problems that are far from the people. I said “men,” I looked at you, Mr. Minister, but I didn’t mean you. We are often blamed for this. I think that what will be approved here today in this Chamber does not belong to this category. This is a serious social problem, a problem that does not belong only to the private sphere. It is about guaranteeing existing rights.

It took a long time for a legislative initiative to finally come to an end. I will not repeat what both the rapporteur and Mrs Herzet have said. In 1974, the first proposal was put on the table. Almost thirty years later, we can finally establish a service for maintenance claims. I would like to briefly list or repeat the reasons — repeating is sometimes necessary in politics — why this service for maintenance claims is so necessary and why the VLD will support this.

In 2001, ⁇ 30,000 marriages in Belgium ended in divorce. In many cases, this leads to the payment of maintenance payments for the children, for the former partner or for both. In two out of three cases, the child maintenance is concerned. The average amount of maintenance per child in Flanders was a year or three years ago if I am not mistaken — figures from the Family Union — 150 euros. In one case out of five, there is no payment, in two cases out of five, there is either insufficient or irregular payment. Only in a little less than half of the cases everything is done correctly as it should be. This is a large-scale social problem. As we have learned during the hearings we organized, then still in the Committee on Justice, non-payment of maintenance, either for children or for the former spouse, is one of the main causes of poverty or financial precarious situations. To this day, anyone who is faced with it can file a complaint for family abandonment. Mr. Verherstraeten — who, unfortunately, is no longer here — has rightly cited that the abuse of family abandonment is too often spotted. This also applies to complaints submitted for refusal of access. It is regrettable that the Minister of Justice is not here, because both cases can be traced back to the same, namely the inadequate action of the court, both in terms of the refusal of the right of contact and because of the crime of family abandonment. But well, those who are faced with it must then take the heft in their own hands and try to bring the difficult and expensive process of collection to a good end.

In addition, there is already a scheme within the framework of the OCMW. I will not repeat them, but this scheme has shortcomings. The amounts are too low and the categories are limited. After all, it is only about children. The OCMWs themselves are facing a number of problems because the recovery or recovery is almost null and the OCMWs do not get back all of the State that they advance.

Maintenance is a right. It is either a law established between the two parties, in mutual agreement, or established by the court. It is not a social benefit, it is not a favor. It is a right, a maintenance duty. In most cases, it is a maintenance obligation towards their own children which is not only a legal but, in my opinion, also a moral duty. There are, therefore, sufficient reasons to finally answer this question and to ensure that those who have the right can also rely on them to see this right adequately guaranteed.

There has been a long calvary for this bill. We have walked several pistes, abandoned, re-walked, yet again abandoned but eventually we were faced with a fundamental choice: either an extension of the existing OCMW system, or an alimony fund. An extension of the OCMW system would see the problem of maintenance payments permanently cataloged as social assistance. A social aid that would only be paid for “minority-divided” people, regardless of the border. Only creditors with a certain level of income, which would not exceed the limit, would be able to exercise that right to advance.

In the end, we all — the committee voted unanimously with a few abstentions — opted for the establishment of a Service for Maintenance Claims within the Ministry of Finance and for the application of the principle of universality. This means that anyone entitled to maintenance can use that service without income restriction. The limitation is at the level of the advances.

I think, my colleagues, Mr. Minister, this is right. After all, let us not forget that within the system of alimentation and maintenance payments there is a tax deductibility that costs the State several billion old Belgian francs per year. This deductibility also applies without income limitation. If one right exists without income limitation, the other right must, in my opinion rightly, also exist without income limitation. In addition, the system applies to all maintenance payments and not only children.

In fact, this is an alternative pathway for sanctioning an existing right. It is not the addition of rights. Instead of activating the judicial apparatus over and over again — which costs a lot of money — we have opted to sanction the right by this body that is most suitable for it, namely the Ministry of Finance. Per ⁇ this involvement of the Ministry has a deterrent effect for default payers because one will in the future be cheaper as a maintenance liable if one pays directly to the person who is entitled to the maintenance payment. After all, if one does not pay and one turns sight to the service, then anyway for a minimum of 6 months an increase of 10% will be added. We can still count on that this will have a greater deterrent effect than a friendly note from the OCMW to eventually, if possible, pay anyway. The OCMWs are no longer present in the story and this on their own request.

As regards the OCMWs, colleague Verherstraeten pointed out that in a letter last week they expressed their concerns about the fact that they were obliged, under Article 22 of the draft, to provide, at their own expense, all useful information relating to the means of subsistence and the place of residence or residence of the debtors.

In fact, they fear that they will have to communicate to the Service for Maintenance Claims information covered by the professional secrecy relating to their clients who are liable for maintenance. Therefore, in that letter, they propose to include explicitly in the legislative text that Articles 36, paragraph 2, and 50 of the Organic Law of 8 July 1976 on OCMWs and Article 458 of the Criminal Code relating to professional secrecy would apply without prejudice. The question was asked to the Minister. I do not want to answer them in their place, but allow me to give my opinion. I do not think it is necessary to include this in the text here. The proposal is not intended to provide for an exception to those provisions of the organic law or to the provisions of the Criminal Code: they remain applicable without prejudice. Furthermore, detailed rules concerning the application of this provision of the law shall be recorded by a royal decree, taking into account or taking into account the professional secret.

I would like to pause on the price. It is true that the maintenance fund will require a commitment of people and resources, but I think that is worth it. The current system also costs the state a lot of money. First, the advances that are now paid through the OCMWs and where the recovery rate revolves somewhere around 5% or 6% no longer need. Let’s say: an almost integral lost post! Secondly, I said it before, the enabling of the judicial apparatus with everything that comes with it. It also costs money. It is likely to prefer a more efficient settlement through the service of maintenance claims, especially if we already look at the overload of the judicial apparatus. Finally, much will depend on the efficiency of the recovery by the service itself. If this service works well, this service works quickly — in that respect I mean the full confidence in the minister and his services — then indeed the roulement in the service will be large and through the recovery, which will therefore be a socially heterogeneous group, will eventually be able to create a piece of money mass from which the advances can be paid.

I recognize a contradiction in what colleague Verherstraeten recently said. He asked why you should pay another 5% as the rightholder on the funds. First, that is not correct. You do not have to pay 5% on what you get from the service; on the advance you do not have to pay anything. That 5% will be retained later and only on the additional part that the service may recover later. But this is also necessary to finance the functioning of the service. One cannot, on the one hand, ask whether the costs have been considered and whether the invoice is not pushed over, and on the other hand, advocate that the costs should continue to rise.

The VLD will approve this bill, which we believe is the best solution. We do not want to do this without thanking the Minister of Finance and also his services, some of whom are represented here on the tribune, for the incredible efforts they have made. They have looked at the matter until in their holidays, exhausted, refurbished, adjusted to compromise, adjusted to new texts because the compromise was revoked and eventually other pistes were chosen. Chapeau, you have done a really good job.

In conclusion, Mr. Minister, Mr. President, let us put this in a larger whole. Indeed, it is true that our right to divorce has become somewhat outdated and that we must go to innocent divorce. There are many proposals on the table. Whether we are still around, we do not know, but in any case this should not be forgotten. What should not be forgotten is that in this context we must go towards an objectivization of the determination of the amount of maintenance payments.

Too often now one has the feeling that, when one requests a divorce, one enters somewhere of which one does not know the outcome, of which one does not know how much one will be owed. It may also be recommended to work there within a well-defined framework and to use objectivable criteria. This is also the case in other countries.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to leave it here. I have spoken long enough. We will approve this proposal in any case.

Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Moerman, I fully agree with what you said last. Today, despite some attempts to develop very complex formulas for determining the amount of maintenance payments on the basis of objective criteria, it is apparently not possible in this country that the judicial authorities would have the elements to do so in an objective manner. The very simple reason for this is that in many cases the exact amount of income on which this would be based is not known or at least not declared. So I hear with pleasure that you would sign up in a system where an inventory is made and a record of possession and property of everyone is ⁇ ined. That would enable the objective criteria to be established.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer this briefly.

I would like to clarify two things, Mr. Chairman of the Justice Committee. First, if you think that my question implicitly involves an approval of a property register, you are wrong. By the way, I thought that when determining maintenance benefits, the criteria primarily refer to income and not so much to assets.

Second, Mr. Speaker of the Commission, if you think that my judgment would contain an uncritical approval of a general principle in which one would put the economically weaker partner within a marriage, in the case of a divorce after several years with an unwavering automation on the street without income, then you are also by. When objectivizing, all these factors must be taken into account. This is perfectly possible. In most cases, the family home is, by the way, the main property. This is sufficiently known. I think it should be perfectly possible for it to establish objectivable criteria which then can be used by the court, without property register or tax.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to give you four thoughts on this bill. The first is about our work. We have demonstrated through this proposal that the two branches of the legislative which are parliament and government can, at certain times, unite their efforts to bring an idea. This would not have been done if there had not been a powerful relay of the concern of parliament within the government. On our part, I think that we have contributed a lot to support a logic that was inserted in the initial approach and if there were more than 130 amendments, they tended not to overturn the texts but rather to improve them to arrive in the current state of things to a system as good as possible and that meets the initial idea that had animated a number of groups.

It must also be said – and I pay tribute to all the members of the commission – that the attendance was very large, that the will to succeed was very strong, and that the way to work was marked by this will to succeed in a solution, beyond the natural divisions in a parliament between majority and opposition.

Regarding the principles, what is crucial in the text we adopted is that the right to an alimony claim, the right to see that alimony claim paid, largely escapes a vision that rejected this problem in the private sphere, believing that it was the classic problem of a creditor and a debtor, consisting in finding, through the normal modes of execution, the way to see the right respected.

We knew from the beginning that this situation is not true for maintenance claims because, in this matter, we are not, according to this fiction of the Civil Code, between a creditor and a debtor who are equal before the law and the means of enforcement. There is an imbalance that most often plays at the disadvantage of the food creditor. In fact, he begins his journey as a food creditor under often humanally difficult circumstances. These are the breaks, these are the tensions. This is the constant blackmail of children when there are children. This is the constant blackmail of not paying pensions when it comes to an alimentary pension rather than a contribution. There is a strong and there is a weak. What is capital on the level of principles is that the State comes here to help the weak, as it is its duty, even though the strong may also have its weaknesses and its difficulties. It is, on the level of principles, the assertion that the right to maintenance claim is a right that society is interested in and to which the state contributes its strength and arm. On all expeditions of judgments, we find this executable formula saying that the prosecutors general, the prosecutors of the King, the police forces are sent to execute the judgment. It is well known that often in civil matters, this comes up with the impossibility of obtaining payment. In this system, we now see consecrated the belonging of this problem to a social sphere where the society is clearly interested in the fulfillment of these obligations.

For a very long time, we have had the illusion that through the criminal law, the state marked its interest well, since it had established in crimes the non-payment of alimony pensions and the abandonment of children. But these were often inadequate measures, although necessary, since the prosecutors avoided prosecution in such matters and above all avoided the execution of decisions which, resulting in prison sentences, kept the impossibility of execution.

Here, we have a system accessible to all and I think that the right of each of the food creditors is hereby enshrined, regardless of their state of fortune, regardless of their situation. It is important. I think this is one of the essential elements of the text and it is a major progress. Furthermore, the system is simple, quick and it is accompanied, regardless of the amount paid as advance by the public authorities, by the State, of the substitution at the level of the execution of the delays, which undoubtedly relieves the alimony creditors.

I have been a lawyer for 25 years and I can say that, repeatedly, I have been struck by the fatigue of food creditors when they are at their fifth, sixth execution. They have spent irrevocable expenses but largely higher than the amount of the pension and therefore, at some point, out of fatigue, they give up. Therefore, very often, we see people saying that they have given up claiming their maintenance. In this relationship of the weak and the strong; it is the weak who, at a given moment, no longer trusts the public institutions, no longer has the material possibility to use the public force or the means of execution. It is something that marks a lifetime to be thus fully subject to this obligation to weigh between very heavy costs and administrative and legal procedures and the renunciation of the maintenance pension.

There is another striking aspect in these relationships, that is what I call blackmail. How often do we not see the creditor or the creditor of alimony, in relation to children for example, say, "or you give up any claim or I raise the children against you"? How many times, during his visitor rights, does the maintenance debtor not blackmail the child by saying to him, "but here, I refuse you this or that advantage because your mother is pursuing me, because there are court fees, etc."? The tension is therefore often maximum in divorced couples and this blackmail is all the easier as one is in the presence of a direct confrontation between a creditor and an alimony debtor. The intervention of a third party, which in this case is the State through the Department of Finance, is a huge progress in these reports. The interposition of this third party has the effect that the reports can be less tense, that these reports are no longer aggravation reports, since if the executor is sent, it is not by the food creditor but by a third party. I think this will greatly soothe the relations between creditors and food debtors.

Finally, there is that essential element of any legislation that must be effective, that is what is called the big stick behind the door. I am convinced that the deterrent nature of using this system will ensure that people who do not have the good will in terms of payment will be forced to pay.

by Mr. Van Weddingen once said that the vocation of this system is to be biodegradable, i.e. degradable by its effectiveness and by the fact that everyone will know that one cannot escape an obligation. Knowing such a thing is an important element in fulfilling it.

I come to the last positive aspect of this text. by

For a very long time, opponents were essentially driven by the fear of seeing local authorities and in particular the CPAS face an extremely heavy burden that was not just administrative management. There was also the advance, payment with deadlines between payment and refund by the state. The system releases, in my opinion, the local authorities and in particular the CPAS from this obligation and results above all in the latter being able to focus on their obligations in the matter, which consists in dealing with urgent situations without their functions being burdened.

This is the result of ⁇ 30 years of struggle. by

It is quite interesting to note that if there had not been a sufficient number of women in this Parliament, we would not have been able to deliver this text. Consequently, if you needed an argument to convince that the balance between men and women is an element of progress in our society, you made it, ladies, during all these debates, the demonstration. And I think I can say that a few men have accompanied you in this approach.

We will vote for this law without reservation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, today is under discussion for a bill aiming at establishing a new service for maintenance claims at the FOD Finance, which will be charged with the payment of advances on maintenance payments to the entitled to maintenance and with the collection of that maintenance payments from the entitled to maintenance. The new fund to be established will thus take over the tasks currently carried out by the OCMWs, with the extension of its scope. There is no longer an income limit to be eligible for an intervention from the Fund. Also the maintenance between former spouses or cohabiting partners can be advanced by the fund. Finally, the ceiling of the monthly maintenance allowance is also raised. I think that all these expansions are welcome and that they are indeed serious improvements to the current scheme.

From now on, maintenance payments will be collected more efficiently because the task is entrusted to the Federal Public Service Finance, which has gained special experience and expertise in this area.

The desired efficiency is contrary to the state of affairs so far. Indeed, the figures show that the OCMWs were able to recover an excessively limited part of the amounts advanced by them from the maintenance debtor. The OCMW of Antwerp, for example, collected only 5.4% of the files in 1999. The cost of pre-shooting and collecting that maintenance fee costs a city like Antwerp about 250,000 euros. This cost is almost entirely allocated to the government. This means that the community—that is, all of us—inspires those who escape from their most basic duties.

As a community party, we advocate solidarity. As a responsible party, however, we believe that citizens should not escape their responsibility. The State — and above all the legislator — must ensure that the citizen assumes his responsibility and, in the absence of this, is forced to do so in the most efficient way, and that as ultimum remedy the State intervenes where necessary. In this case, the question is how to do this most efficiently. I have a lot of questions and comments to which I will return later.

First, I would like to point out the principle that, in any case, we must assume individual responsibility, that the person liable for maintenance must fulfill his duties and that he must be forced to do so if necessary before almost automatically resorting to the solidarity of the community.

We have the impression that the slope on individual responsibility has stumbled from cadans and that it is sliding too far in the direction of irresponsibility.

From this principle, we are very critical of the method developed, Mrs Herzet, but not of the objective of this proposal, let this be clear. We do not close our eyes to the problem that is at the basis of this bill and I think that I may be the first and maybe even one of the few members of the Justice Committee not once, but repeatedly interpelled the Minister of Justice about the problem of family abandonment and the non-compliance with the right of contact which also Mr. Verherstraeten once again drew attention to.

I pointed out to the Minister the failing prosecution policy of the prosecutors in this matter. Payment of maintenance is an obligation imposed, either by contract or by a judgment of the judiciary. Failure to pay maintenance is criminal.

To my questions to the Minister on this issue, I received shocking and shocking answers.

The whole problem of family dysfunction — the non-payment of maintenance, the non-compliance with the right of contact — and even the problem of intra-family violence, which I have repeatedly pointed out to the minister, remains far too far out of the field of view of the parks. This is not a persecution priority. I have repeatedly questioned the Minister about this. I have repeatedly asked him, in his capacity as the Minister of Justice who directs the prosecution policy, to make it a priority. This does not happen, just as no priority is given to the follow-up action in the case of non-compliance with the right of contact and just as no efficient means are sought to enforce the right of contact. Their

In France, colleagues — I say this for a moment aside — 25% of adolescents no longer have contact with one of their parents. It affects 25% of adolescents. I think this is socially really disturbing. A lot of people across Europe are starting to get attention to this. Therefore, we propose that the marriage certificate also contain the obligations of the parents towards the children. We are facing disturbing developments. I have submitted a few bills on this point to give the judge an active role in compliance with the right of contact. You know that court enforcers are very reluctant in this matter. They refuse to act because it is almost material violence against minors, which is very delicate. I have also submitted a bill to allow for a separate imposition of a penalty if the right of contact is not respected. This makes it possible to go to the court separately to impose a penalty. I would like to point this aside in order to point out the problem of the right of access which, on the other hand, causes equally large human, social frustrations. Then I’m not talking about intrafamily violence that is also neglected by the parks.

I think the figures on non-payment of maintenance payments are shocking. At least 18% of child maintenance benefits are not paid at all and 24% are paid late. We know that many divorced parents fall below the poverty line because the maintenance they are entitled to is not paid. This is a very real problem that should be a point of concern for the legislator. Single-income single-income families who need maintenance and receive maintenance are already often in the category of the socially weakest, let alone the maintenance they charge is not paid. Their

These principles, however, should not prevent us, colleagues, from having a critical approach to the present bill. As I said at the beginning, we must ask ourselves whether the means used here is the most efficient in achieving this goal, which we, I think, all endorse. I think this is not the case. The aim pursued can be achieved much more efficiently, cheaper and with a greater responsibility result. I believe that the legislator must first ensure that the person liable for maintenance assumes his own responsibility and fulfils his obligations. After all, it is in the first instance the parent who must take responsibility for his children. It is not permissible that this too quickly — I would say almost a priori — fall upon the community. Community intervention should be the ultimate remedy to help these people in an emergency.

I have submitted a number of legislative proposals. I have formulated a number of suggestions that, in my opinion, actually need to be approved in advance and, above all, implemented.

The first, I have already said, relates to the prosecution priority for the crime of family abandonment. A significant number of complaints about non-payment of maintenance is not prosecuted and therefore never comes to court. Most of the files are even spoofed. I interrogated the Minister of Justice on this subject, inter alia, on 6 March 2001, with my oral question no. 4035. It shows that the number of suspension is much greater than the number of convictions.

I would like to make a nuance of what colleague Viseur has said, namely that one can no longer pay maintenance money once one is in prison. This is true, but the practice is different. The practice is that most of those persecutors, when they are in front of the criminal court and when it puts them before the choice — it’s usually a man — say, “Sir, will you pay, or do you prefer prison? I’ll see you here again in two months.” As a practice lawyer, I can tell you that most of them pay at that time. Once confronted with the threatening prison sentence, they suddenly realize that they have obligations to fulfill.

I deeply regret, and I agree with the criticism of colleague Moerman on the Minister of Justice, that the Minister, despite repeated questions from Chamber members from the opposition and the majority, does not make this a prosecution priority. One would give the most powerful social signal by saying: this is the priority of persecution, as well as everything that has to do with the family situation. I think Mr. Moerman is right in this. I have repeatedly asked the Minister of Justice.

A second proposal, which we have formulated and submitted in the form of a bill, is the generalization of the receipt authorization. Rightly, colleagues, I think also colleague Herzet, pointed out the enormous costs that people sometimes have to make to recover the maintenance fee, which is sometimes relatively low. One must be seized, the maintenance liable changes of employer or moves, one must be seized again, a new date of sale must be determined; the costs accumulate. This should be avoided, which is why we suggest that a receipt authorisation should always be issued automatically in respect of maintenance. The peacekeeper can do this now, but we think this should become an automation instead of optional. This means that the optional acceptance authorization should be generalized, that it should become the rule. The Bill No. 1217, which I have submitted together with colleague Van Hoorebeke, implies that the peace judge and the court in short-term proceedings issue a receipt authorization, whenever a person is condemned to pay maintenance. In this way, without having to pay costs or go to a custodian, the entitled to maintenance can ensure that the amounts are recovered from the institution that has to pay, from the employer who has to pay or from any debtor of the entitled to maintenance. This leads to a much more efficient, simpler and, of course, cheaper way of collecting.

We also propose that the court in short-term proceedings be granted the same powers as the peace judge, in particular by ensuring that the court in short-term proceedings — as the peace judge can thus already do — can require the spouses and even third parties to provide all information and documents that shed light on the income and debt claims of the parties.

Upon acceptance of our proposal, the collection of maintenance would be much easier and cost much less.

The third proposal submitted by my group is a bill to amend the crime of family abandonment. I would like to draw your attention to this proposal. The N-VA calls for the introduction of French law. Article 391bis of the Criminal Code defines the crime of family abandonment. Anyone who fails to pay maintenance for more than 2 months is subject to correctional prosecution. One of the constituent elements of the crime is that there must be a judicial decision that is no longer subject to appeal or opposition, in other words, a judicial decision that has entered into force from time to time. In practice, it is very common to appeal against a court decision imposing maintenance. In the meantime, the debtor must pay, the decision is enforceable. However, the verdict is not final. This means that the prosecutor cannot prosecute while the case can be appealed for years. There is no crime. A person who does not pay his maintenance cannot be brought before the criminal court. Criminal prosecution is not possible. Our bill 1218 aims to change the constituent elements of the crime of family abandonment. We propose that no longer a final judgment be demanded, but a judgment that is enforceable and is notified. This judgment – regardless of further proceedings – allows prosecution as is currently the case in France.

Our fourth bill, document 1388, aims to introduce a right of investigation and information by the court executor. This proposal aims to make it much easier to enforce all types of judgments in order to have much easier insight into the income and assets of the person concerned. This is also a law in France. In all humility, I dare to say that we have refined and improved this. The court enforcement officers are the requesting party. In practice, it is practically impossible for a party to be paid to execute the judgment. In many cases, the debtors are very ingenious in extracting their assets from the grip of their creditors. Therefore, we propose that the court executor be granted the right to obtain information about, and to initiate an investigation into the debtor’s assets. This can be done with the debtor himself, with the banks, with the notaries and even with lawyers. This balanced proposal leads to transparency and makes it much easier and cost-effective to enforce a judgment.

I will not go into detail on each of the proposals. That would take me too far. However, I wanted to show that there are other, much more desirable ways of achieving the goal that we all have in mind, in this case ensuring that the maintenance is paid. The most effective means is, in my opinion, prosecution priority for this crime. Therefore, in my opinion, the person liable for maintenance can be highly personalised through a number of techniques so that in the first instance the non-payment of maintenance does not affect the State, not the community, not all of us. Of course, the community must contribute. In this, I support the purpose, colleague Herzet, of your bill. The community must contribute when there is no payment, when one is in need, when a problem arises. The question then arises how to do it best. We, of the N-VA, believe that this would still be best done by the OCMW. We do not believe in that new central, centralist institution, that new service to the FOD Finance. I have a number of objections to this.

In the first instance, however, I have concerns with Article 6 of the bill itself. In fact, Article 6 does not require that such maintenance service be applied if there is a delay. There should be no backstop and yet one can turn to that service. Article 6 only stipulates that there must have been a default of two consecutive or non-consecutive periods during the previous 12-month period. That means that the service can be recovered while the maintenance liable can pay in the meantime. He once had a backbone, but now no longer, and now pays well. Then a serious conflict arises, with a new discussion, a new trouble and resistance at the seizure judge. I think that Article 6, as it is formulated here, goes a long way.

The next objection concerns the new service and in particular the new administrative burden that is being created. This is a new procedure. The person concerned must request this in writing, even in this era of e-government. The person concerned should not go to his OCMW, where everything is so close to the people. This happens significantly at a time when all in Flanders is thought of the expansion of the OCMW into a social home. So I make some reservations to what one of the previous speakers said: "Whoever goes to the OCMW is stigmatized." This should not be the case, my colleagues! An OCMW should become a social home where everyone, not only the needy, but also other people with social needs — whatever they may be — can be justified and helped in a simple, friendly and customer-friendly way, close to the people. Now that is being removed from the people. We, of the N-VA, are in favor of the Danish model in which services are brought to the people and not centrally located in Brussels.

Why that new administrative burden, that procedure, those deadlines, that possibility of resistance with the seizure judge, both of the entitled to maintenance and of the entitled to maintenance? That will be a difficult, complementary procedure, while it was precisely one of the main objectives of this majority to ⁇ administrative simplification. That was one of the big dada's of purple-green: "We are going to simplify administrative." How can one work easier in such a social matter than to tell the people that they can step into their OCMW in their congregation, which solves everything for them and which also pays the advances. This is of course the simplest and most efficient. Why do you not allow these advances to be paid by the OCMW? Let them then indeed — in which I give you the right — be collected by the tax officer who, as I said, has experience in it, has the necessary means for it, and can himself proceed to collection. But let the OCMWs shoot ahead and then let the taxpayer collect back. I think that seems to be a good idea. However, not the way it is being done now.

I come to a third objection.

Colleagues, this law will realize a transfer from Flanders to Wallonia. I look at the practical lawyers around me. Every practical lawyer in Flanders knows that collecting in Wallonia is almost an impossible task. I am being addressed about this every month. It is not implemented in Wallonia. In Flanders it is quite different. I will give it to you on a piece of paper: with the bill, a new north-south transfer will be created. It will be this: whoever most evades his responsibility will be able to rely most on the solidarity of those who obey the law. He will be able to count on the solidarity of those who ensure that the law is enforced. That is the reality.

Finally, I have one last objection. I regret that the State Council has not given an opinion on the constitutionality and competence issues of this latter proposal. The State Council was consulted on the related bill proposed by Mrs. Burgeon. On that proposal, the State Council said that the federal legislature has the power to regulate this matter. In fact, it was a matter of justice, in particular the collection of maintenance payments. This is still a federal authority.

Colleagues, I think this reasoning cannot be passed on to this bill. This bill does not concern the establishment of a fund, let alone the establishment of a fund at the Ministry of Justice. The proposal aims to provide assistance to those who have difficulty collecting maintenance. Well, assistance to individuals is the competence of the Communities. The bill has received a completely different orientation due to the many peripeties and many discussions. The fund was initially a matter of justice. It was a federal matter. However, it has now become a matter of helping individuals. In my view, this is a competence of the Communities. It is not a federal authority. The State Council has not given advice on this issue.

My colleagues, I will decide. I repeat that we fully support the goal. We would like to ⁇ this goal in various other ways. I have outlined four methods for achieving the goal.

Finally, if the goal is not achieved by other legal means, we feel no central service should be established at the Ministry of Finance. The OCMW should fulfill that task in a customer-friendly way, close to the people and decentralized, as modern democracies work. Let me take the Danish example.

The current majority finds a way in this, which is actually not consistent with what its priority was. Its priority was administrative simplification.

Therefore, we have great problems with the means that the majority has developed to ⁇ a very worthy goal. We remain behind this goal. But in all humility we have equally, if not better, suggestions for achieving that goal. Due to the large, practical and constitutional objections, we do not approve the bill. Of course we are not against. We do not vote against a proposal whose objectives we fully endorse.

Mr. 18.11 President, Mr. Minister, Dear colleagues, Ladies, Gentlemen at the tribune, this is another project supported by the Rainbow Coalition and which finds a solution during this legislature! by

From my point of view, a tribute must be paid to the pioneers who preceded us because this bill ⁇ deserves to be pinched as one of those that took the most time to accomplish. Mr. Speaker, I even ask myself whether this is not a record since World War II in terms of time and duration before leading to a vote.

As Herzet recalled, it was in 1974 that Melle Hanquet submitted her first proposal to the Senate. At the time, she already observed that separations of couples were increasing, leaving children and sometimes spouses without income in precariousness. Maintenance claims were not paid or were paid at random. by

Since then, the legislatures have succeeded and bills have been submitted in 1981, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996 to get to this fifty-third legislature where the file is taken over and returned to the profession for the second time but this time, it is the right one!

The solution that had been found in the meantime to bring a start to the solution was the system of advances, via the CPAS, for children with examination of the income of the person who was responsible for it. It was Ms. Miet Smet in the ranks of the former CVP, Secretary of State in charge of Emancipation at the time, who had initiated more in-depth studies on the issue and who had tried to study the average amount and the number of families affected by this problem of non-payment of claims. These studies still serve as references today when one wants to address the problem.

Ms. Smet herself presented the system as a step-by-step, as a transitional system that was not the solution. The water has flowed under the bridges, research and conferences gathering experts, family movements and women’s movements have regularly drawn public authorities’ attention to the need to find a sustainable solution. by

In fact, it is not about providing assistance or doing charity, but rather about respecting the rights of persons and making a judgment apply. Maintenance obligation is one of the basic principles in our society. by

I was pointed out that it was very rare that matters falling within the civil rather also have a criminal aspect; in fact, non-payment of maintenance claims provides for a six-month prison sentence for defaulting debtors. Everyone agrees that imprisoning people for non-payment of debts is not a solution. In fact, this does not solve the payment and, moreover, it costs expensive to the state. I don’t think prisons are made for that. It is the pedagogical virtue of deterrence that the legislator wanted to highlight and, for my part, the Credit Service has the same value. Others have said it before me. In this case, one does not deprive a person of his freedom but one ends up addressing his wallet, if I can express myself so. by

The better if laws can be improved, the better if there is still work and prospects for change and improvement both in the quality and objectivity of the judgment and in the whole of the procedures. by

But I don’t think that it is by loading the boat today in this bill that the whole issue will be solved. The construction site will remain open. This is only a solution that answers a concrete, practical and so important problem. During the next legislature, the better if the file continues to make emulsions and the better if legislative proposals that improve the whole system become concrete.

Nevertheless, I always ask myself this question: why did it take so long? Why was there so much resistance to establish a fund, now a service?

Since the early 1980s, all democratic parties have submitted proposals. All democratic parties have, at some point, participated in the management of state affairs, but never a lasting solution could result.

Sometimes I wonder if the budget pretext is not the tree that hides the forest, that is, the change of society that will not fail to intervene if we vote this law. Per ⁇ we are coming to a node of our patriarchal society. Somewhere, the field is opened for state intervention in a private affair where, until now, it had put a lot of reluctance to interfere.

The political world has taken time to measure the problem. The Justice, Mr. Verherstraeten recalled it, ⁇ has not yet given priority to these issues on its agenda. I really hope that the vote of this law will also, on that level, make the cases relating to conflicts between persons, at the level of food claims, progress faster.

This proposal for the creation of a service for food claims is subject to your vote and I hope it will be positive. I think there will be more abstentions than negative votes and I look forward to this.

However, I would like to recall the circuit taken by this proposal. For the sake of congratulating, one might forget the path taken: the opinion of the Committee of Opinion for Social Emancipation, the examination of the multiple proposals in joint committees Justice and Social Affairs, very interesting hearings, ministers who, one after the other, declined the request that was made to them to "shelter" the fund. In the end, there was only the intervention of the CPAS to improve things.

Mr. Speaker, this part that lasted a year — all these investigations, these hearings, these different proposals — would also deserve to be attached to the report as an annex. The people who came here gave us reports, evaluations. At that time, the CPAS presidents, the CPAS section of the Union of Cities and Communes of Wallonia, Brussels and Flanders, all came to tell us that the system was not good, not very efficient and did not answer the fundamental problem of respect for law.

I would like the report of Mr. Van Weddingen has an attached component that allows to ensure the continuity of all these works and the participation of all those people who have put themselves at our disposal to reflect collectively on these different problems.

Of course, Mr. Reynders, you have agreed to receive us. It was November 8, 2000 and you agreed that your administration should consider the possibility of integrating this subject into its competence and functioning. Everyone knows the next. The file is transferred to the Finance Committee, of which I thank the President for the diligence with which he has ensured the follow-up of this case. Everyone agreed that it was a good thing and that there was bread on the board.

The work on the texts was done by trial and by error. It is not easy to innovate, especially by respecting acquired situations. For me, it is a rich, politically strong experience to have worked on the elaboration of this bill. Our exchanges were constructive, although they are sometimes contradictory. You have the reflection on this tribune, but the result is here. By the way, I would like to thank your cabinet and your administration. I would also like to thank Ms. Herzet who took the reins of this passenger ship and who, with great diligence, openness and a sense of reconciliation, advanced the proposal and systematically tried to blow up the blockages where they appeared. by

Majority and opposition, we found ourselves around this collective work, even though there have been, sometimes, couches. Also, I would like to thank you, Mrs. Herzet, for this pilot work. You will no longer represent yourself in the next election, but you have shown a working method that we would do well to inspire in other occasions. As a young parliamentary, I learned to adopt a spirit of conciliation.

The adoption of the law by the House is a step. This proposal will have to be examined by the Senate, but we have heard that the senators would not fight to evoke it. So the text is expected and, whether it is mentioned or not, I know, Mr. Minister, that you will do everything to ensure that the shortest deadlines are respected. I remind you that you committed yourself before the women’s parliament on 8 March 2002 and that it would be a shame, on the anniversary date, to miss this convergence. I am sure you will pay attention to it. I would like this text to appear in the "Moniteur belge" for the next 8 March.

I would also like to draw attention to the expectation and the immense hope that this bill raises. It is the realisation of the principle that the law must be respected, justice must be done, and that a judgment made must be observed. Many believe it has already been voted. Ms. Moerman pointed out that we are already informed about the procedures to be followed. She is awaited with impatience. It is an integral part of the debate of our society and therefore it is necessary, Mr. Minister, – it will be your responsibility – to concrete what must still be: forms, the development of a procedure. You have already lifted the veil on the methodology you are going to use in the press conference that has just taken place. I suppose you will make the point in the synthesis that you are going to bring now. Nevertheless, the service may encounter efficiency problems when it starts.

In this regard, I will repeat a statement that Mr. Dehaene always highlighted: “A question must find a solution when it arises. This does not prevent us from thinking about it before, but we do not make politics only on the assumptions of what is likely to happen.”

I think we can vote this law safely and trust the SPF.

I would like to remind you that we have set up an evaluation committee that will step by step follow the launch, development and implementation of this proposal.

We wanted this parity assessment committee. It seems to me normal that its composition does not only reflect an equal distribution between men and women, but it must also be pluralist, that is, it affects the relevant administrations, Finance and Budget, as well as civil society, family movements, associations and women’s movements; the latter have been, in my opinion, at the forefront of this struggle in this case. Memorandum after memorandum, they have interpelled the successive governments and the representatives of the nation that we are.

As Ms. Moerman pointed out, this project presupposes good information, not only to citizens but also to departments such as the Justice department, with judges and lawyers, the experts who deal with these issues, the legal assistance services can come to help the persons concerned, both debtors and creditors.

Madame Coenen, Mr. Erdman is looking forward to being able to interrupt you!

I will finish soon, Mr. Speaker.

As a feminist activist, during the “Women Against the Crisis” demonstration in 1980, I demonstrated for the creation of the Food Credit Fund. I have signed and signed many petitions, I have written with others motions that we have sent collectively to many ministers and many governments, without much success, it must be acknowledged.

When I was elected in 1999, I had set myself three goals. The first was taken over by the Senate. The second concerned the status of the guards, which now have a social status, partially professional, this is a first step. The third was the implementation of this project that we have been carrying for so long with all the women’s organizations, namely the service of food claims.

There is still bread on the floor. The adoption of this law is only one step. It is necessary to give form and reality to this project, to realize it.

You can count on our cooperation and on our vigilance. At the end of this legislature, it is the time of the balance sheet and I believe I can say that the rainbow has worked relatively well in these matters. For me, it’s a “win-win” operation for everyone that offers more justice, more equality and more happiness for all. In this regard, we are all winners. All the members and members who have worked on this project will ⁇ be able to highlight this.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the Greens will resolutely support this proposal at the vote. I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mrs. Coenen for the suggestion. I have now checked it too. There have indeed been very valuable hearings in the Joint Committee on Social Affairs and Justice. A lot of data has also emerged from this. These data were subsequently discussed in the Committee on Finance. Their

In order not to have made all this work useless, I would suggest that you add those data, elements and discussions to the report as an annex and publish them. I think this should be perfectly possible. This, after all, constitutes a complete whole. Their

A second point I would like to emphasize, and to the attention of Mrs. Coenen and all the fellow supporters of this proposal in the Senate, is the following. It is best not to wait until all deadlines have expired. It is much easier to do the evocations in consultation with the Senate factions and to immediately establish that there is no reason for amendment. This, of course, accelerates the process. If one wishes to ask the Minister to make publications in the State Gazette, which is now modernized and can be consulted electronically, within the limits of his powers, this can be done in due time. If, as provided in Article 78, one waits, then we have left and we are with a waiting period of a few months.

Mr. Erdman, I think there is no problem in adding an annex to document 1627/18. Of course, I cannot make a new report, but I can add an annex to the report.

I will add this appendix to document 1627/18. Sometimes it happens. Here, there is an appendix containing a legal opinion from our services but we can add another.

The other suggestion is practical, bicameralism can make the task easier for us.

I have to tell you the following.

The committee has met ten times on this issue. 10 meetings of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, in any case, I will be ⁇ brief. All my dear colleagues have already explained it much better than I could. I can only say that I am ⁇ happy and very happy with what is presented here today in the Chamber.

It is a historic moment for women in Parliament. I was fortunate to be able to relate to such a historic moment in Parliament years ago, in particular the vote on abortion. Even at that time, the legislator actually showed his heart to those many, many women with tremendous problems. Actually, exactly the same thing is happening right now.

Finally, after long revolutions, after a lot of discussion and with a lot of resistance, we have been able to ⁇ this. It is proof of the enormous power of women in this Parliament, of their perseverance, and of cooperation across all party boundaries. The fact that it has lasted more than thirty years is evidence that women have a long way to go to bring the level of machogue and testosterone in Parliament a little down in favor of a little more female-friendliness. The existence in Parliament of only one Advisory Committee on Social Emancipation shows that there is still a long way to go. Therefore, more women are needed to ensure that Parliament deals with matters that people are awake to.

This proposal is a heart under the belt of single women who take on the care and upbringing of their children and of the only men who do so. After all, it is often the case that the father who does not pay is also usually the completely absent father. It is the single women who have problems, not only to tie the ends together but also because they are solely for the upbringing of the children. As legislators, we have at least already taken care to remove the financial worries of these women. That is very important. For the rest, the problem of men who do not take on their responsibilities will primarily need to be solved through awareness, through education in schools and through the cultivation of sense of responsibility, because the new man is still far from being generalized.

Important to us is that from now on women can count on those 175 euros per month per cup, both for their child and for themselves, without additional costs for the maintenance entitled. The philosophy is indeed that maintenance is a right and not a form of assistance through the OCMW. I therefore sincerely hope that the new service will work quickly and efficiently, using the existing tax offices, via a simple form, easily available. We still have six months to put this system on our feet. The tax administration has experience in the field of recovery and also has a lot more authority to throw into the scale than the left behind women with children to put pressure on the spouses.

The SP.A is very pleased with this important achievement during this legislature. Thousands of women and children are waiting for this parliamentary initiative. The vote on this proposal is, by the way, also a beautiful crown on the work of colleague Jacqueline Herzet who was the engine behind this titanium work. I would like to cordially congratulate her on this. With this proposal, Belgium will finally join the group of civilized countries such as the Netherlands and Germany where similar systems have been in place for years without the state treasury having gone under.

The SP.A will also watch with arguments the vote on this bill. In the committee, the opposition found it not necessary to support this proposal. I hear the same thing in the statements. The plenary session also gives the opposition the ultimate opportunity to demonstrate that Parliament is indeed committed to the real problems of the people. I therefore sincerely hope that the opposition in this time will not play political games but let its heart speak in favor of all those single women with childburden and will ensure that this proposal — please — is unanimously approved in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, it is really with a lot of emotion that I speak to you today to tell you that the bill creating a service of food claims within the Federal Public Service of Finance responds to a parliamentary work of more than 25 years. The Socialist Party has at least always been very attentive to the acute problem of non-payment of maintenance pensions. Already in 1990, socialists, including Laurette Onkelinx and Viviane Jacobs, to whom I pay tribute today, as well as myself, had submitted a bill concerning the creation and organization of a National Fund for Food Claims. This political struggle, which we have led and won today thanks to all of you, represents an undeniable advance and will enable many families to get out of poverty.

The establishment of the Service of Maintenance Claims provides a comprehensive response to the issue of recovery of unpaid alimony pensions, which put the beneficiaries of these claims in great financial instability. Identified as a major cause of uncertainty, non-payment of claims affects 40% of divorced single-parent families. This situation creates an unacceptable situation of precariousness and poverty for them. The League of Families has recalled in our debates that non-payment of alimony pensions remains a major problem. Only 60% of them are paid regularly and 19% are not paid at all.

The establishment of a specific service was necessary to get out of the current situation. Maintenance claims remain a means of pressure between former spouses that may deteriorate their relationship as parents. The establishment of a third party, the service created by our bill, in disputed situations allows to reduce the use of maintenance pension as a tool of pressure. The current system involving CPAS has shown its limits. Indeed, it does not target all categories of children and has been declared unconstitutional by the Arbitration Court. In addition, the amount of work per file for social workers was considerable and the result of recovery was not seen. An evaluation of the subsistence advance scheme in the CPAS has highlighted the steady increase in the number of beneficiaries of this scheme since its launch in 1989 to the present day. It also highlighted the low rate of recovery of advances from creditors. This study helped guide our reflection and the submission of our bill for the creation of a Fund for Food Claims. At one point, it was discussed that the CPAS were responsible for the granting of these advances, without, however, providing for their 100% refund, the CPAS must therefore bear part of it. The representatives of the Cities and Communes revolted against this proposal and adopted an unambiguous point of view: the communes cannot be imposed new charges. The analysis clearly shows that the CPAS are already facing huge burdens, both in terms of their missions and from a financial point of view. Strengthening this mission of advances on food claims by the CPAS would have had the effect of strangling them a little more and leading more to not attempt to recover the debt of the food debtor.

Fortunately, thanks to the amendments submitted by the PS, we have managed to evolve the debate and reach an agreement.

The service of maintenance claims will therefore eventually be implanted within the Public Service of Finance (SPF), which presents for us a double advantage: that of the means of the administration for the management of the service and that of the proximity of the tax office for the recovery of unpaid amounts. The federal power will thus have full control of the dossier, without any intervention from the CPAS. In this regard, it is often to be noted that it is sometimes very difficult for some people to pass the door of a CPAS.

The service must, at least initially, be fed by a credit entered in the state budget. In addition, it will be fed by the contribution of the persons concerned, i.e. 10% of the amounts to be recovered in the main, at the expense of the maintenance debtor, and 5% of the balance of the amount of the recovered maintenance claim and recovered delays, at the expense of the maintenance creditor. Therefore, it is in the interest of interested parties not to use this service.

As of 1 September, or even 1 October — but you will give us the necessary details, Mr. Minister — the beneficiary of an unpaid alimentary pension will be able to address directly to the credit department to receive an advance, which is limited to 175 .

The Socialist MPs have achieved that this service is accessible to all creditors and that the approach to it is a right for all, regardless of their income. This claim arose from the fact that, for us socialists, a child is equal to a child. It is the respect of a right provided by convention or by judgment and this, for all children. Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child reminds States of their responsibility in this matter. We should not install the affected families in a logic of assistance, unacceptable to our eyes. Like the right to family allowances, it is a universal right of which enjoyment cannot be subordinated to the non-exceeding of a resource ceiling. Furthermore, it should be clarified that the possibility of addressing the SPF does not prevent anyone from addressing the CPAS to request, as already exists in other circumstances, administrative support. The Organic Law of the CPAS of 8 July 1976 provides that every citizen has the right to be assisted in his administrative and social proceedings, the CPAS being obliged to provide his assistance.

Furthermore, for those in greater difficulty, the CPAS retains their capacity for financial advances, as is currently the case for, for example, advances on unemployment benefits and advances on pensions.

Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the Royal Decree of 11 July 2002 concerning the general regulation on the right to social integration, explicitly provides that for the calculation of resources, in order to determine whether a person can or cannot benefit from the integration income, neither the maintenance pension nor the advance on the term of the maintenance pension received for the benefit of single children is taken into account. The formulation is unambiguous: advances perceived by children should be considered as exempt resources.

On the other hand, I would like to insist on the fact that, below a certain threshold, no seizure can take place, even when it comes to guaranteeing the payment of maintenance claims. Indeed, the objective of the legislator is not to plunge people into greater precariousness, if this fact is already established.

Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that the new text of Article 22, paragraph 1, does not imply in any way that the CPAS will be obliged to provide the Service for Maintenance Claims with information covered by professional secrecy concerning the debtors of alimony. It would ⁇ be desirable, Mr. Minister, that you confirm this point in order to reassure the Union of Cities and Communes, which has expressed its concern in this area.

Finally, I will insist on the commitments made by the Minister to ensure that the composition of the service evaluation committee reflects well all political trends and integrates interest groups, so that there are not only representatives of the Ministry of Finance. The aim is to ensure the greatest transparency and independence of this assessment committee.

Finally, I am delighted, as well as my colleagues in the commission, but also Yvan Mayeur and Claude Eerdekens, who fought with me to bring this case to an end, that a concrete and effective solution has finally been found to deal with the non-return of food claims. This solution will enable a large number of families to get out of the precariousness. It was time!

I now form wishes for the Senate to adopt this text as soon as possible so that families, who need it most, can take advantage of this service. Finally, I would like to join all my colleagues to thank all the people in your office, including one in particular, who worked on this file and who allow us to live today a great moment.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the law that we will pass today and which, in my opinion, is erroneously announced as a fund, because it is a service for maintenance claims, is very important. I would even call the law historical, for the following reasons.

First, the law provides a solution to a social problem that has been addressed for years and that has now received a definitive solution. This law addresses a problem of unpaid alimony payments which are ⁇ detrimental to single women with children. This law is also the result of purely parliamentary work across different party boundaries. This is not so everyday either. It is also the result of mostly female MPs who have pulled to the carriage and also sustained in difficult periods of negotiations.

Dear colleagues, the problem of unpaid alimony must be placed in the entire divorce process, which is a major social problem. More and more couples, more and more relationships end in a divorce. That is a determination. However, it all starts with a love, a relationship and in the fairy tales it ends with: "And they still lived long and happy and had many children."

More and more couples are no longer able to sustainably fulfill the sustainable commitment they have made. The decision to separate is not taken lightly. By the way, it is also always experienced as a failure and it has very many and profound consequences on the further lives of all involved. Therefore, it is not necessary to seek out whose fault it has now been all and to present the account to the other in the process of divorce.

Too many divorces also end in disputes. Adult partners who have liked to see each other now stand each other to life and are very creative in each other doing the devil. Their

The difficulties in the case of divorce appear also to arise in particular when arrangements must be made on the distribution of common property, on the regime for children and on the amount of maintenance, not so much because of the amount for the children, but primarily because of the amount for the former partner. After a divorce, it is still often the woman who raises the children and who has the children with her. That brings with it additional costs and extra worries, especially when you now fall back on some or no income after a divorce. The average amount currently paid for child maintenance is about 150 euros per month. You can pay for child care.

But there is not only the financial element. Having children also means taking responsibility and that does not stop after a divorce. Both partners should continue to assume this responsibility and children also have the right to contact with both parents. In this sense, I also understand the reaction of some men and some men’s associations who have been engaged in struggle in particular to bring the interest of their children in not being able to enforce the right of visit. Some men, especially after divorce, also seem to discover that they have children. However, I do not follow them in their reasoning if they pay alimony automatically commit to exercise visiting rights. Different alimony payers therefore have not so much trouble with alimony for children, but for a former partner. Therefore, I personally believe that we must strive to ensure that each adult better acquires his own income and thus builds up his own rights. If that were the case, the maintenance could remain limited to financial support in the upbringing of the children. Their

However, we must take into account and above all not be blind to the still existing role pattern that still persists even in young families. From the moment when there are children, it is very often the woman who with love and free choice takes a step back to take care of children and a household. The man usually likes to vote with that choice. Obviously, because that choice also improves for him the quality of his life. It creates space that he can invest in the work. This scheme is usually introduced with the consent of both parties, but often constitutes a topic of discussion after the divorce and the maintenance scheme. It is a reasoning that you see many returning in letters and emails that we may all have received as a result of this law. To put it cruely: the man thinks that his wife has had a good life all that time, and that she must now go to work herself; the woman feels caught because she has put herself in the service of her husband’s career and has let her chances pass. Their

When we choose a model where both partners are encouraged to provide income, this results in the equal distribution of care and childcare tasks.

More and more men are more consciously choosing better quality of life, with more free time left to participate in family life and to take care of the children. There is no need to wait until you become grandparents.

The next point concerns the establishment of the service for maintenance claims. What was the problem they wanted to fix? It has been said repeatedly, and it is now well known that maintenance payments are too often not or irregularly paid. As a result, the partner who needs to receive maintenance lives constantly in uncertainty about the income. Maintenance is often a necessary supplement to the income of single women with children. Failing or irregularly getting that money brings them into money problems, along with the other concerns they already have. When a legal regime has been established for maintenance and that regime is not complied with, a sense of legal uncertainty arises. They are entitled to alimony, but it remains a dead letter. Thus, the people concerned feel abandoned by the government and they get the impression that the government itself fails to enforce its own rules.

The next item is about the advance scheme through the OCMW. It has become clear during the many discussions that this scheme is no longer compliant. Furthermore, requesting advances through the OCMW is often perceived by the persons concerned as having to apply for assistance, while in fact they are entitled to it. There are also women who testify that they perceive the social research carried out by the OCMW, or the guidance of the OCMW as overwhelming and unfair. Probably the problem of the maintenance payment in the future will still be discussed by the OCMWs. Especially when they evolve into a social home, many people will initially try to obtain information there. It is therefore important that the OCMWs — ⁇ during the transitional period we will experience — are properly informed and that the transition from the existing to the new scheme can go smoothly.

The proposed solution of the legislation, which we will approve today, has many advantages. The discussion between ex-partners about paying alimony is thereby neutralized. This seems to me a very important factor. It should be clear that the government intervenes when the rightholder is not or irregularly paid out. This is a very important aspect. In this way, whether or not to pay alimony is no longer played out as a means of harassing, hurting or blackmailing the former partner. Paying or not paying alimony has too often been an element of blackmail and tensions between former partners.

The service will also have a preventive effect. If the insolvent clearly knows that non-payment will have serious consequences, he will deal with it more cautiously. However, if the income of the man is not sufficient, the collection is stopped. The service provides the rightholder with the assurance that advances — though limited — can be invoked and that the government is taking steps to recover the defaults. The procedure followed by the rightholder has become much simpler and avoids additional costs.

We still need to ensure that the service can be quickly populated and organized to get to work. There is a need for an intense information campaign that informs everyone. Anyone who has the right to this regulation should also be able to know this. Those who intentionally do not pay or who would think about it should be warned. It will be necessary to ensure a smooth transition from the existing scheme through the OCMWs to the new service. It is unthinkable and unacceptable that the rightholders who now have a file with the OCMW would encounter any obstacle, any delay in payment, in the transition to the new scheme. Finally, the new scheme also provides for an evaluation moment. When a regular review of the new law is carried out, any problems will be listened with care and attention and a solution will be sought.

To conclude, I would like to express my very express thanks to my colleagues across all party boundaries, who have worked together in a constructive atmosphere to ⁇ this result. I also expressly thanked the people of the administration for the patience that they were able to exert at all times, which I could highly appreciate. Their contribution has absolutely been of great importance. I would like to thank Minister Reynders. He has a good day today, I think, because he has been congratulated very often for the choice he has made.

Finally, I would like to make a call. In the course of all discussions on the Alimentation Fund, different people among us were often contacted by people who wanted to clarify their personal story, their personal problems. One thing has become unmistakably clear to us: everything that has to do with relationships, with children, with divorce, that is what people are doing, that is what they are waking up. It is our responsibility to respond to these signals. Per ⁇ , as we could have worked on this law on maintenance claims, we should also work together in the future to find a solution to the problem of access to children, the problem of the objectivation of maintenance payments and the problem of innocent divorce. We will support this law with full conviction.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I stand here today with an exceptionally great satisfaction, for two reasons. First of all, of course, because of the breakthrough in this file that is at my heart. Why Why ? It has already been said abundantly here, but I would like to repeat it. For years, major problems have been identified with regard to non-payment or incomplete payment of maintenance.

I repeat that 40% of respondents do not pay, too late or incomplete. For all clarity, this is very important, because studies show that for many families this means the difference between existence certainty and existence uncertainty.

The breakthrough in this file is thus joyful and even exceptional joyful because this is the first file that was dealt with by the advisory committee for social emancipation of which I was fortunate to be able to immediately observe the presidency as a new member of parliament.

The advisory committee conducted a serene but extensive debate, engaged in a lot of consultations, weighed the pros and cons against each other, and prepared a clear inventory of the problem. At that time — now more than three years ago — we were not yet mature to agree on how we would address the problem. One point, however, was clear, in particular that there must ⁇ be a solution in the course of this legislature.

I am therefore very grateful to the colleagues of the Advisory Committee that, as a follow-up to the debates held, took the lead in finding a compromise to address this problem. Very expressly I wish to thank the ladies Herzet, Moerman, Grauwels, De Meyer and all the other members who joined the chariot in order to ⁇ consensus in finding a solid solution to this problem. Those whose names I forget to name do not blame me. Their names are mentioned at the signature.

After the discussion, there remained two pistes to solve that big problem. The first step was to involve the OCMWs in the case and to extend the existing system of advances to the OCMWs. This had a number of advantages. The OCMW is an institution that is close to the people, but whose threshold is unfortunately still high. I notice that Mr. Bourgeois is not present at the moment, but I would like to make it clear that we too would like to come to a true social home whose threshold is no longer so high and where people can easily end up with all their social problems. This is not yet done, but work is being done.

Another disadvantage of the OCMW track is that income is checked and that an income ceiling is used. Furthermore, we note that the OCMWs clearly gave the signal that they were already severely overloaded with a number of tasks that they could hardly support.

The second track, the fund, for which a number of proposals were formulated, had the disadvantage that many people feared abuse and a lack of selectivity.

After many wheels and roads and after hard work, in consultation with the administration, a honest and decent compromise was concluded and a good proposal came out of the bus. This proposal is overall positive.

Alimentation is a right that must be respected, that we must not forget, and the government must monitor it. The formula for which today is chosen is low threshold. I suggest, however, that in the practical application, eventually in the long term, the OCMWs or the social house should be involved in this, in order to guide the people in submitting their file and in their contacts with the relevant service. However, the formula should be low threshold and I emphasize that we need to work on this.

Particularly the recovery of the funds that are advanced by the service is in the hands of Finance, which, however, is the most suitable to ensure in a smooth, serious way that the public funds are quickly recovered from those designated by a court ruling to pay that.

I would like to draw your attention to a few minor disadvantages of the present proposal. Ms. Moerman has well argued that it must also be affordable, but I still regret a little that another 5% will be borne by the creditor. It is, of course, a system of advances. It remains a bit of a layer with a ceiling of amounts that can be paid out. That is all very understandable and justified, but it would of course be better that we could reduce the percentage of those who do not pay the alimony. That should still be our goal. Therefore, I would also like to appeal to ensure that the Judiciary does not give an incentive to act even more loudly, for example in the case of family abandonment. However, I expressly ask for attention to catalog this as a serious crime and to work on it from a judicial point of view. Therefore, a multi-track policy remains really necessary. Their

Finally, I would like to say very clearly that this is a sad moment for all those women and sometimes even men — I have already met them — who do not receive their child maintenance from the husband or wife who must pay. All those families who at this time see a right not being exercised and therefore often find themselves in difficulty, will ⁇ be helped in this way, this more than thirty years after that problem.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, as a preliminary in this debate, I would still like to highlight a few elements regarding the position of my group on this subject.

However, the debate this afternoon clearly shows that we all agree that there should be a solution to the problem of maintenance benefits, a social problem that has been raging for years. When it comes to maintenance benefits, I mean the non-payment or late payment of benefits, two elements that have already pushed many women — but also men — into poverty. These are two elements that cause the existence uncertainty of those involved. Their

Despite the fact that the proposed bills have a very noble purpose, the Flemish Blok still has a few comments to make. Their

A first element is the fact that the OCMWs are no longer considered as a point of contact or place for submitting the application. After all, it is the OCMWs who have a huge expertise in this area. It remains, in our view, a social service to the population. The local availability of the OCMWs has always been one of the assets.

The question is whether this will be the case with the rather limited number of offices of the Ministry of Finance, I think it is about forty-four offices, spread across the country. As the Vlaams Blok, we consider it important that files regarding social benefits, and this in this case maintenance benefits, remain in the hands of the OCMW, regardless of whether the proposed structure of the Ministry of Finance will be operational within six months. The Ministry of Finance, by the way, also has a rather negative perception among the general public.

I come to the second element. The Flemish Blok considers that the problem of maintenance benefits is a personal matter. Since this is a matter of assistance to individuals and the Communities are responsible for family policy, including all forms of assistance and assistance to families and children, we believe that this issue should be addressed not at the Belgian federal level, but at the level of the Communities. Furthermore, the Council of State has repeatedly confirmed that the Communities may establish a system of advances on maintenance benefits for needy persons who have been entitled to such benefits by court decision.

As with any Belgian regulation on the social sector, and that is the third element, we also fear here for a transfer from Flanders to Wallonia, a transfer from north to south, though it was only because the collection of backstakes in the French-speaking part of the country appears to be much more difficult and more difficult than in Flanders.

Finally, I come to the fourth element, Mr. Speaker. It is undisputed that the pressure of the end of the legislature has brought several groups to more willingness, to more compromise, but the financial account is moved to the next legislature. I can understand that this cannot stand in the way of the noble purpose, but if this proposal had been completed a year ago, then the financial aspect would probably have been one of the breakpoints.

Mr. Speaker, we support, in any case, the need for a regulation and the legal certainty regarding the maintenance benefits, especially for those who are entitled to it, but given the above facts, we will not approve the present bill and will refrain.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues women and men, it is true that the bill that ends in plenary session today is all in the honour of Parliament.

This is a parliamentary initiative due to our female colleagues for an essential social goal.

Some might question whether the intervention of the legislator in order to enforce judicial decisions and whether the recourse to a particular service of the state were necessary.

The debate in the Finance Committee — and I thank here the colleagues who fed it — demonstrated that in order to bring calm in relations between former spouses and to prevent children from sometimes being hostages of bad quarrels due to feelings that are not yet calmed, there was no doubt the need to provide for a legal mechanism that allows to restore if it is not completely calming, in any case, a different way of relationship between former spouses in the settlement of their financial disputes.

We know all the procedural difficulties we have encountered and the different formulas that were sketched during the committee work. In my opinion, the bill, which resulted from the remarkable collaboration of the Minister of Finance, his services, his collaborators and his collaborator in particular, helped to find the right balance.

It is important to emphasize the maintenance of the matter covered by the bill in a logic of federal jurisdiction. The State Council has, in fact, ruled twice on this competence in its opinions delivered on 2 May 2000 and 9 July 2002, respectively.

In its first opinion, the State Council stated that, I quote: "The rules on maintenance claims are part of the provisions of the Civil Code concerning the status of persons and the family. These matters remain within the competence of the federal state under its residual competence. The objective of the proposals is to ensure the effective compliance with maintenance obligations as established by a court decision or by an agreement pre-divorce by mutual consent. The powers transferred to the Communities did not prejudice the federal competence in this matter. The competence to regulate the arrangements intended to ensure the effective payment of maintenance claims is, in fact, so linked to the rules relating to maintenance obligations that it remains inseparably attached to them in terms of the allocation of competences and that it therefore belongs to the federal authority.”

In a second opinion, the State Council would reiterate its findings, regardless of the different formulas outlined at a given time to settle this matter.

This is how the system is fully coherent and allows to avoid the risk of a communitarianization of the debate; I even believe that it was time to legislate on this issue before eventually the institutional debate comes to disturb the correct understanding of this matter.

The fact of creating a fund within the Federal Public Service of Finance guarantees, in an even more certain way, the competence at the federal level. It is therefore preferable to what was sketched in terms of tasks entrusted to the CPAS, not only for all the reasons mentioned but also to ensure the maintenance of this competence at the federal level. A fragmentation of this matter between the Communities would pose the risk of a different application of judicial decisions depending on the persons and the place where they live.

The authors of the bill have ensured that the mechanisms for the recovery of maintenance claims are registered, in execution of a court decision; therefore it is in no way a form of assistance to persons on a voluntary basis.

The second fundamental aspect taken into account by the bill is that advances are granted to the maintenance creditor without taking into account the level of his income; I was ⁇ attached to this with other members of the committee. Some may question the relevance of this request and recognition.

I would like to reiterate here that, in relation to the aim pursued, which is to enforce judgments recognizing rights, there is indeed no objective argument to justify whether it is the level of income of maintenance creditors that determines whether or not access to the proposed mechanism. It is a right resulting from the execution of a court decision which, therefore, does not fall within the logic of social assistance, a logic which obviously intends to take into account the income of potential beneficiaries. An advance scheme that would have created a difference of treatment based on the income of the maintenance creditor could even be legally criticized, in light of the principle of equality protected by the Constitution, and could be the subject of an appeal to the Arbitration Court; this risk was excluded by the solution finally elected. by

Should it also be recalled that the magistrates take into account the incomes of former spouses in determining the amount of maintenance pensions? Why should debtors or alimony creditors therefore be subsequently penalized on the basis of the same income, when granting any advances? by

A third advance to be welcomed is the opportunity to have placed the service of maintenance claims within the Federal Public Service of Finance. More than one said it really ensures system coherence and equal treatment of all people concerned, not only regardless of their area of residence, but also regardless of their income or personal situation.

I also take note of the creation of the evaluation committee and I believe that it would be to pay tribute to those who have carried this project than to make sure, Mr. Minister, to associate them tomorrow — since some will no longer have the chance to sit in our assembly — with the work of this evaluation committee.

A fourth major aspect deserves to be emphasized in the balances of this proposal. It is about legal certainty and its various facets. When searching the bill, whether for the examination phase of the application submitted by the alimony creditor or his representative, possibly his lawyer, whether for the recovery phase, you are hit by the obligations that weigh on the service of alimony claims. It must ensure that each party is properly informed of the consequences of the procedure that is thus initiated. It should be noted that this is not a procedure to strangle the food debtor.

Even before the enforcement of the recovery procedure, there is a possibility for the maintenance debtor to regularise his situation, to eventually declare that the debt recovery document is no longer valid, and to claim his legal remedies with the federal public service. Thus, the bill was ⁇ concerned, in the different stages of the procedure, to ensure the balance of the rights of each of the parties. Of course, the goal is to enable alimony creditors to benefit from advances and to see effective recovery take place. It remains, however, that we did not pay in the excess that would be to hear the only point of view of the alimony creditor. and no. After a court ruling, it was also ensured to give the debtor of alimony every chance to assert his point of view, not to challenge the court decision, but to eventually report payments that he would have made and which would not be recovered by the creditor of alimony or to report other legal causes that would justify the well-founded nature of his position. I think the proposal is also ⁇ remarkable in this regard.

I also note that in recovery proceedings, before the compulsory proceedings are implemented, there will still be a time left for the maintenance debtor to ensure that it complies with the law and fulfils its legal obligations.

I conclude by saying that this bill, not only is to honor the parliamentary work of its authors and of all those who contributed to its success, but demonstrates that the federal public service of Finance, often perceived as a service sometimes difficult in its relations with taxpayers, can assume in short an eminently social mission, with the will to respect the authority of a judgment but also with the will to reconcile the points of view of all parties. by

This is ⁇ an innovative fact but it also demonstrates that the Minister of Finance’s will to see his services have a conception of attention towards citizens is a will that is confirmed by this bill. It is not the least of the things to see that it is the Ministry of Finance that, by making available its human and logistical resources, ultimately allows to bring about a legitimate claim that had too long awaited its response.

I reassure you from the beginning. I will try to be very brief by simply mentioning three or four elements. It seems to me natural to start with the debate that has just taken place in the plenary session, trying to answer some of the questions posed.

The first concerned the relations between the CPAS and the Department of Finance, with regard to data transmission. Mrs. Burgeon has returned. I confirm, of course, that the Department of Finance has a long tradition of data exchange and that the confidentiality of a number of data transmitted will be respected. There is no difficulty in this regard. Mevrouw Moerman has questions gesteld over de aftrekbaarheid van verschillende posten. We need to think about it further. I hope that it is possible will be a number of fiscal aspects of this file you treat.

As far as evaluation committee is concerned, we must strive for a very open committee. As I said in the committee, it is obvious that we will try to involve all actors in the Evaluation Committee which is also an important element of this bill, since it is through it that we may have the opportunity to make further progress in the coming years. It is important to engage in a broad way those who have, in one way or another, participated in our work, whether associations, Parliament or relevant departments.

As for the contents of the proposal, I recall that we have chosen to concentrate the shares within one place: the Department of Finance, the Federal Public Service of Finance. With regard to financial affairs, we must go further with initiative and take you. We must evolve towards a decentralized service, a working of many decentralized services. I hope that it is possible is a 40-tal local kantoren op te richten om de mensen te woord te staan en te helpen. What the first contact concerns, it must also be possible to work together with other governments such as municipalities in the OCMW's. From then on, we will do our best to make all these services as decentralized as possible, so that proximity plays a role in the implementation of this new formula. We will obviously take care of all the tasks that Parliament wishes to entrust to the Federal Finance Service, both in terms of advances and recovery.

The third element on which I want to intervene concerns, of course, the actions that we will have to undertake so that this new activity of the department works properly. There will be a need to establish the new organization and to operate not only the service itself but its coordination with other services. I think of the Treasury for the quick payment of advances once these are decided as well as the collaboration with many actors who intervene in this same debate, in other worlds sometimes than that of the department of finance. We will not hesitate, in the coming months, to disseminate information on this subject. I reassure all those who are concerned about this matter: we will of course contact all stakeholders and all the public concerned to make sure that the texts and mechanisms are known and that from the effective entry into force of this system, everything can be done in the best way possible.

I would like to conclude on two points. The first concerns of course the thanks that all and all have already addressed to a large number of speakers. In any case, I would like to say that a proposal like this could not have resulted without the motivation of a number of associations. Everyone and every one has mentioned it. In the coming months and years, we will still have to work with these associations.

This proposal could not have achieved without the involvement of many parliamentarians in such a matter, and this, for several years. Let me join in the thanks to Mrs. Herzet on this point. I do not ignore the stubbornness, patience and fingering she has shown to bring this proposal to fruition. I use the term “success” because we are on the eve of the final stages of the establishment of the new service.

Many of you have mentioned a person without naming him. Let me, since she is part of my department, associate Mrs. Laloux with our thanks. It is the source of many solutions and it still assists our work today. From time to time, it is necessary to know how to give back to those who collaborate with the files what belongs to them.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, my intention is to make sure that this whole project actually starts on 1 September next year. Therefore, I hope that the work can be done very quickly in collaboration with the Senate groups, so that we can put everything in place and start very concretely the activity of this new service by this date.

It is with great pleasure that I will try to publish this law in a short time and I welcome this parliamentary initiative, I find it useful to recall it.