Proposition 52K1940

Proposition de loi rétablissant l'article 61 de la loi du 12 juin 1991 relative au crédit à la consommation et concernant les taux annuels effectifs globaux.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Colette Burgeon, Karine Lalieux, Alain Mathot

Submission date

April 6, 2009

Official page

Visit

Subjects

consumer protection consumer credit interest indebtedness

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

April 29, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a very brief report of the discussion in the committee, as there are many legislative proposals linked to this important bill.

There were about ten bills linked to this draft. There was an opinion from the Consumer Council, which is now more than a year old. During the discussion, several organizations were also consulted on the proposal of the Minister for Entrepreneurship and Simplification and the members of the committee.

There was a presentation by the ministers Van Quickenborne and Magnette, who explained the two main objectives of the draft: on the one hand, the transposition of Directive 2008/48 of 23 April 2008 on consumer credit and on the other hand, the objective of updating the existing law of 12 June 1991.

The new European Consumer Credit Directive pursues a dual objective: harmonisation of legislation to create a genuine internal market and a high and equivalent level of consumer protection. The pursuit of full harmonisation must ultimately be limited to the harmonisation of a number of key or core areas. These include the following domains: advertising with cost indication, pre-contractual information, contractual information, annual cost percentage, early repayment and right of withdrawal. Furthermore, even for these so-called harmonised matters, there is still a discretion for the Member States. Furthermore, Member States on consumer protection were free to regulate their own areas not covered by the Directive.

Both ministers then explained the draft, emphasizing that it was a balanced draft that respected both consumer protection and the rights and obligations of creditors. It was also ⁇ that the provisions on credit intermediaries in the draft were deleted as these provisions will be regulated within the framework of the financial supervision reform, the so-called Twin Peaks model.

The draft is based on three strengths: first, the fight against overcrediting, second, the approach to misleading advertising and, third, stricter controls. The Economic Inspection will receive more resources in checking compliance with the law. The introduction of new penalties for non-compliance with information advice and a precautionary duty are covered below.

Then there was an explanation of the bills. The various applicants explained their proposals. It was a total of thirteen proposals during this legislature from the colleagues de Donnea, Jadot, Bonte, Blanchart, Wiaux, Arens and myself.

During the general discussion, CD&V gave a favorable assessment for the design. The draft has the merit of transposing the Directive and yet at the same time ⁇ ining the consumer protection, which we have known in Belgium since 1957.

Collega Logghe of the Vlaams Belang found it a balanced design but had a number of technical questions and questions for clarification.

Mrs Almaci of Ecolo-Groen! was ⁇ concerned about the rising debt burden, the link to poverty and the growing number of default payers registered in the National Bank’s credit central. She was partially satisfied with the draft but regretted that her proposals on a zero setting deadline and the introduction of a maximum JKP were not stopped.

Mr Bonte van sp.a expressed concern about the link between the use of consumer credit and poverty. He found the draft a step in the right direction that will make the credit sector more transparent.

Collega Staelraeve found it a balanced design.

Mr Jadot of Ecolo-Groen! regretted that the transposition of the Directive took so long and repeated that the proposals of his group were more ambitious.

Collega Blanchart of the PS was satisfied that the consumer protection in Belgium could be ⁇ ined under the directive.

He was satisfied with a number of concrete measures in the draft. He also emphasized the importance of the statute for the credit intermediary.

Both ministers replicated and both emphasized that the draft goes far beyond merely transposing the directive.

For the article discussion, I would like to refer to the report. 33 amendments were submitted, four of which were retained. It was mainly about deadlines. For example, the deadline for the entry into force of the new law was increased from three to six months, to allow the financial sector to make the necessary ICT adjustments. In addition, there were some technical questions or questions for clarification. Overall, there was largely consensus on the draft, although some members of the committee wanted to go further on consumer protection. This was reflected in the overall vote, which was approved by nine votes in favour and four abstentions.

You are also registered as a speaker. I thank you for the report and I suggest that you continue immediately and take the floor on behalf of your group.

I will take advantage of it, because it may be the last time.

Unfortunately, it will not depend on you.

CD&V was very pleased with this design. It is, of course, a mandatory transposition of a directive, but I still think that very good work has been done. The directive came into force in April 2008, just before the financial crisis. I don’t have to tell you that the directive might have looked different if it had been published after the financial crisis, because before 2008 there were still votes saying that regulation in the financial sector was not necessary. After 2008, everyone agreed that the credit sector needed a minimum of rules. I refer, for example, to the principle of caution or “responsible lending”. I don’t have to say that market self-regulation has become a loose notion.

The credit crisis in the United States as a result of the massive lending on the U.S. mortgage market, packed as investments, has undermined the entire international financial sector and caused the current financial-economic crisis. If in America the same rules had been applied as in Belgium, we would not have known a global financial and economic crisis.

I would like to point out some positive elements in the design. It is, in general, and as the ministers have said, a balanced design. It defends the interests of consumers and creditors. It builds on the tradition we have in Belgium. This is also stated in the general explanation. I would like to mention this explicitly, because it is important. The Consumer Credit Act, which has been revised repeatedly over time, has ensured that a real balance has been achieved in Belgium between the legitimate rights of creditors and consumer protection.

The sensitive reduction of disputes, the continuous reduction of defaults registered with the CPC until the outbreak of the credit crisis, and the increased credit activity, both in terms of the number of contracts and overall volume, show that the legislation has achieved its purpose. It makes it possible to prevent the fight against excessive debt burden without compromising the development of the activity in the sector.

This bill aims to maintain this delicate balance to the extent possible. I think both ministers have done well.

This is also evidenced by the discussion with the various stakeholders who have given their views on this draft. Creditors, companies, Fedis, VOKA, VBO, have no fundamental criticism of the design. Also the Credit Professionals Association at Febelfin, stresses that the transposition of the Consumer Credit Directive is a compromise between consumer protection and economic development. They ask for clarification on four points, regardless of what happened.

The consumer and debt mediation organizations also have a moderate tone in the comments. The Observatoire du Crédit et de l’Endettement stands behind the project. Test purchase sees several positive elements. The Platform Day Without Credit says that many recommendations have been realized and some have not been realized.

The European Directive itself is also a compromise. It is the result of complex negotiations, the balance between creditors and the fight against excessive debt burden and consumer protection.

Even here, if the directive had been adopted after the crisis, it would undoubtedly have been stricter.

This design not only has good starting points, but also makes them very concrete, for example, the rules for credit advertising are clarified. I am, of course, satisfied that the proposal of CD&V that I was allowed to submit on behalf of my group has largely been followed.

The maintenance of the precautionary obligation, Article 15, the maintenance of a specific prohibition on linked sales, the maintenance of strict conditions under which the lender may terminate the credit agreement, the maintenance of the principle of maximum annual cost percentages and the maintenance of civil sanctions are all very important elements in our legislation which are confirmed and improved here.

I have already said that this is an important design, but the work is not finished yet. In addition to the financial supervision reform in the so-called Twin Peaks draft, there is still a lot of work on the shelf. The government was far advanced with a draft on consumer protection in the financial sector. I am convinced and I think that further work needs to be done on this, unfortunately in the next legislature.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the fact that we are still discussing this bill today is extremely important, for very many Belgians. A lot of Belgians have a loan; a lot of them are mortgage loans, but there are also a lot of consumer loans, so-called loans that do not save on mortgages. They relate to consumer goods.

This bill is not only important for people who may already have problems with paying off such loans. That is a whole dress, which we could read two days ago. It is also important for people who can repay their loans well, because you never know what else can happen. People who may be taking a loan in the future are also interested in a good protection.

The timing of the bill is also extremely important. Mr. Partyka has already cited it. It is the transposition of a European directive on consumer credit, which had to be approved by Belgium before 12 June. With the vote tonight in the House, we hope to do so.

The two ministers present here, who have prepared the draft extensively, in consultation with many actors, have eventually delivered a very balanced compromise, which has also been extensively discussed and confirmed by the Chamber Committee, by all parties. It has already been said that the need for additional protection was undisputed. All parties feel this need. This is more than just the transposition of a European Directive. It is also really needed.

As liberals, we would like to add some emphasis to this. Unlike certain other parties and actors, who believe that one can never impose too many rules and rather depart from the idea that the consumer should be protected as much as possible by strict rules, we are known for promoting the freedom and flexibility of the consumer as well. We believe that people are indeed able to make the right choices and that they should also be given the opportunity to do so. We need to create a framework to protect people as best as possible when things go wrong. We do this with three blocks in this bill.

The first big block is about everything that has to do with better information to the customer who wants to take a loan, because we are convinced that such something is essential to be able to make the right choice. I would like to keep up with a few important issues that are approved in the bill.

There are clear obligations to provide information to those who wish to conclude a credit agreement. A European information sheet will be used that is equal for all customers and all lenders. It imposes mandatory information on the amounts to be paid effectively. Therefore, it must be clear to the customer how much he will pay in total.

Also very important in addition to these informational aspects is that not only the info should be there but that one also plans to take stricter measures against abuse. If you, as a lender, provide incorrect information or request illegal information, you will be punished more severely.

A second important gap in information is in terms of advertising. There are also a number of restrictions on advertising. One should not simply advertise for all types of loans. For example, there is a ban on advertising for credit grouping. The credit grouping itself can still be because it can be useful in certain cases, but targeted advertising can no longer. There is also a ban on working with cash money in advertising and there should be a mandatory mention that borrowing also costs money. These are just three examples in terms of advertising, which ensure that consumers are better informed and protected.

Another important aspect is that the attractiveness of taking such consumer loans is also limited. This is ⁇ the case due to the provision that no more cash money can be given when one wants to take a consumer loan. In other words, one can no longer get cents paid out in the hands. Payment when taking a credit must be made by transfer or by cheque.

A third important part concerns the consideration period. If you have taken such a loan and you may have done it unconsciously and you regret it, then the consideration period is extended from 7 to 14 days. Therefore, it can be returned for longer. There is reasonably more time to think about it and screw it back.

Finally, it is also very important that a friendly arrangement is possible. The procedure may be arranged amicably between the creditor and the borrower for the modification of the existing credit agreement. Therefore, when one has an existing credit and one comes at a certain time, by whatever circumstances, in the difficulties with the payment, then one can reach agreements with the lender, in his own interest, to be able to repay the credit in a defective way.

These are all measures that show that we have sought to balance the flexibility of lending and the protection of consumers. We emphasize that consumers can make their own choices and are really able to do so. This is based on the average Belgian. Taking into account the fact that in Belgium there are eight million credits issued and that only a very small portion of them are outstanding — they are not insignificant parts that are outstanding, although its size can be relativized — it is clear that we are introducing a framework to enhance protection.

As said by colleague Partyka, the work is not finished with this. Collega Partyka referred to the draft law surrounding the CBFA, but I also think further. We definitely need to work harder in this country on financial formation. Every time we find that a lot of people don’t dare, can’t talk about money, about their spending, about what life costs and about how they deal with it. If we are convinced that people can make the right choices, then they really need to get all the information to make those choices. For this, we must also dare to warn them that in certain situations, it may be better not to do some things or to pay equal attention and, after calculating their capacity, to determine what they can or can not cope with. There is a beautiful West Flemish proverb that still applies, especially “seeding to the bag”. Everyone should carefully consider what one has, especially during campaign times, if one has to spend money for it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, it was in my opinion essential to vote without delay on the bill on consumer credit, firstly because we are bound by the extremely short transposition deadlines of the European Commission, but above all because this project allows to implement a whole series of measures essential to consumer protection, especially the most fragile of them.

It must be acknowledged, we had concerns mainly about how the European Consumer Credit Directive would be transposed. Would we still be able to maintain a high level of consumer protection, or would we be entitled to the detriment of the law towards ever less protection? By the current times, this would have been a catastrophe!

The bill presented to us this afternoon not only ⁇ ins a high level of consumer protection, but also adds others, among which many proposals from my group, including the prohibition of advertising specifically targeted to the most disadvantaged audiences insisting on the speed and ease of obtaining credit, the maintenance of the obligation of information and counseling, the generalization of the 14-day reflection period for all credit contracts, the obligation of zero opening for credit openings and the ceiling of the overall effective annual rates of credit openings to 10%, and the strengthening of the conditions of access to credit intermediary ⁇ .

This bill is timely. It makes the synthesis between the necessary European harmonisation and the maintenance of a high level of consumer protection. From the beginning, it was not won. Today, credit is no longer merely a tool for financing large purchases; it has indeed become a tool for financing common consumer goods, which normally do not require a payment scale.

By reading the latest report of the Central Credit to Private Persons, we even find that the credit serves, in some cases, to cope with current expenses. Clearly, some people use credit to warm up, light up and even eat. This is unacceptable, essentially in a society that wants to be modern and solidary.

In view of the trends revealed in 2009, it is likely that Belgium is currently experiencing an increase in situations of problematic debt, or even over-indebtedness. The crisis strikes again and again, and not only the most precarious of us.

One in seven Belgians live below the poverty line, or close to 1.5 million people, to which we still have to add all those at the boundary of the swing, constantly increasing numbers. All those people for whom easy credit can take the appearance of a hollow rescue bucket at risk of sinking ever deeper and deeper.

Such situations of precariousness therefore justify in themselves the absolute need to maintain a high degree of protection. We have good reasons to be satisfied. That said, my group remains very attentive to this fundamental issue that is credit. The evolution of this tool, which is also very useful in some cases, is now largely worrying.

The bill does not solve everything, far from that. The question of the role and place of credit intermediaries, for example, is not fully resolved, in particular when it comes to the place of sale of credit. However, the bill remains a very useful tool in the fight against overindebtedness.

We will therefore follow with great interest the concrete application of this historical law so that we can ensure that the whole sector plays the full game and finally respects the law. We expect real accountability from lenders and credit intermediaries. They must effectively apply the obligation to search for the type and amount of the credit that is best suited, taking into account the financial situation of the consumer and the purpose of the credit. They must be informed about the creditworthiness of the consumer and refrain from giving him credit if he does not have the ability to repay. Any breach of these obligations must be severely punished.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. The issue of over-indebtedness is a priority for environmentalists because it is a real plague that strikes the most disadvantaged layers of society. In Wallonia, over-indebtedness has increased by 300% within a year. Of course, the case is equally crucial for Flanders and for Brussels. At the end of 2009, 5.8 million consumer credit contracts amounted to 20 billion euros. Consumer credit accounts for 5% of Belgian GDP.

Before coming to the bottom of the bill, I would like to return to the attentism that the government has shown in the matter, attentism that prompted it to ask for the urgency for a matter that has been discussed for a long time already. On 24 June 2009, my colleague Meyrem Almaci, along with other colleagues, questioned Minister Van Quickenborne about consumer credit. They insisted that the government make known its intentions as soon as possible and take concrete initiatives. Today, nine months later, the government had to activate the emergency procedure so as to accelerate our work, not by political voluntarism but because the directive compelled it to do so.

In November 2008, it was already 17 months ago, Ecolo-Groen! He submitted a bill aimed at stopping the phenomenon of overindebtedness concerning at least one percent of the Belgians in this year of fight against poverty and social exclusion. Some of our ideas have been absorbed little or no in the bill, such as the provisions on TAEG, the right of withdrawal and the information to be communicated in case of unauthorized exceeding.

Our proposal wanted to be more ambitious on the following two points.

First, we were considering a zero-rate period of 12 months when the amount of credit is less than 5,000 euros and 5 years for the higher amounts. This prevents occasional defaults in payments from turning into structural financial difficulties. In addition, we also wanted to set a formula to limit the maximum TAEG to 9%. This limitation aims to force lenders and their intermediaries to seriously examine the financial situation of consumers and not to give a blind white-seing to credit, as in the United States, so that there is no imbalance between the concern of profitability and the interests of consumers.

So we submitted amendments online with our bill. The majority, however, refused to support these amendments in the committee and we can only regret it. On the other hand, given the importance of the bets around this topic, Ecolo-Groen! He also believed that an hearing of organizations and experts should take place before the analysis of the bill. The majority did not want it, and we also regretted it, even though we nevertheless obtained that the various stakeholders were invited to write a contribution on the bill submitted by the government.

Several elements have attracted our attention among the contributions received, confirming our opinion that this additional round of consultation, which several majority parties did not want, was however capable of enriching the parliamentary debate.

Among the elements highlighted by the various contributions we have received, we noted the demand for information and awareness campaigns as well as the importance of a genuine financial education to address the problem of over-debt. In particular, Febelfin and the UPC highlighted these aspects.

Another position shared with stakeholders is the need to transform the credit central into a debt observatory.

Finally, the Credit and Debt Observatory issued a series of proposals that seemed to us quite justified and that the Ecolo-Groen group! It has decided to submit as such in the form of amendments. Unfortunately, there was no opening of the majority parties to support these amendments.

In conclusion, gentlemen ministers, as I have already had the opportunity to tell you during our exchanges in committees, I consider that the bill presented by the government constituted a good basis for work, but that it was also largely improved. This opinion seemed to be confirmed by various contributions. It was therefore in a positive state of mind that we had to submit these amendments, the latter having not been supported by the majority. Therefore, our group will abstain from voting on this bill because we consider that this is a missed opportunity to take some strong measures against over-indebtedness.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, I must admit that I did not have the chance to follow the discussion of the bill in committee, which I regret. Sometimes they are taken by other occupations.

That said, I regret that our work stops at a time when the majority had built, within a very sustained dialogue, a consumer protection agency that supplemented this bill, in particular with regard to the control of intermediaries, and many elements for the protection of consumers and citizens with regard to financial services.

I hope that this parliament will resume its work very soon to try to complete this bill; in fact, it is not sufficient as such but it must be supplemented by bills aimed at consumer protection at the level of all financial services.

I thank you and wish you all a good campaign!

Mr. Speaker, during the current surrealist debate, I would like to briefly respond and address the feelings of regret that Mrs. Lalieux has for not being able to follow the work of the committee.

I have repeatedly stated that it would be good that Mrs. Lalieux would be present in the committee.

Mrs. Lalieux, I just want to tell you the following. Let us not wait until the next legislature. I read yesterday in the newspaper that there are again every month about a thousand people who are covered by debts.

I invite you to vote on your bill. We will be happy to approve it, for example because there must be a mandatory zero setting that effectively protects consumers.

In the current embroglio of the majority, it may still be possible and your bill, which is important for you and me together and ⁇ also for other members who are awake from the protection of weaker groups, will be supported and approved.

Mr. Speaker, the [...] Look who’s talking. You are never in our committee. You are not even an effective member of the committee. It is not up to you to blame any of the committee members for never being present during the discussions. You are making a blatant comment.

[...] from the beginning to the end.

To accuse a member of the majority that, due to circumstances, could not be present once or twice is really shyness.

Madame Partyka, I do not take this at all as a criticism, since I was on a mission. I just want to tell Mr. A number of socialist legislative proposals were joined. A draft law always has a certain balance. Now this balance seems quite satisfactory to us today, even if it should have been supplemented by something else. We have tried to ensure that sp.a. regains some stability in this state, so that we can put legislative proposals on the agenda of the Economic Commission. We will no longer have the opportunity to do so. I encourage you to change your mind in the coming days!

I do not want to interrupt the discussion among the socialist comrades. I would like to allow colleague Lalieux to continue speaking.

We participated in the discussions on this bill. As a social people’s party, we are committed to the matter. In principle, we have nothing against the bill. The increasing number of outstanding and people in collective debt settlement are all signals that should keep us alert.

Our group would like to make a few comments to the ministers. Minister Van Quickenborne, you remember our questions regarding the liability of the credit intermediaries. I repeat that certain players in the market are worried. We can continue about it endlessly.

Our group had submitted two amendments. In the interests of consumers and in the interests of the committee’s extensive work, we found it necessary to re-submit those amendments.

The first amendment is divided into two parts. The first part relates to the fact that we want consumers to be better informed about their rights and duties. This must be done by creditors, credit intermediaries and their staff.

We want staff to be hired who are trained to fulfill the legal obligation to provide information and advise customers when concluding a loan agreement. We propose that the federal government determine the minimum training requirements for staff.

In a second part, in order to prevent too many credit contracts being concluded too impulsively, we propose that the lenders would no longer be physically present at the place of purchase, so as to avoid a problematic situation.

Our amendment aims to make it impossible to deal with credit agreements at the place of purchase of the product. In other words, the customer will have to struggle to go somewhere else to get a loan.

Our second amendment concerns the credit agreements that are accompanied by the entering into a debt balance insurance. We consider that the draft law should include that the relevant costs should be included in the total cost of the credit and that the “relevant costs” are included, in the case of debt balance insurance: either the one-off premium payment for the debt balance insurance, or the indication of the annual premium payment, supplemented by the number of premium payments for the coverage. We find this important because credit agreements are quite often concluded by people who are less comfortable in our society or also by older people. These two categories are now in the interest of being informed as accurately and accurately as possible, including the exact cost price of the debt saldo insurance, which is an integral part of the credit agreement.

This is the purpose of our two amendments. I am sure that they are supported by many members in the Chamber.

I will be brief and will not repeat the words of my colleagues. This bill incorporates two concerns, namely a directive that has been imposed on us by the European Parliament and the European Council, and then the need to adjust the Law of 12 July 1991 on Consumer Credit.

Such a law is always a bet on the future. We know that engineering activities have partially diverted the laws that were passed in the past. Some found flaws that allowed them to create abusive situations. This is the first reality.

The second reality is that credit is obviously an essential instrument of the economy, because it allows people who do not have sufficient income to make a purchase or make an investment. For them, it represents a moment of satisfaction and favorable fulfillment of their projects. But it is also a crucial moment for the economy as it allows to meet a demand for consumer goods.

However, this situation also leads to deviations. We have kept in mind the one that emerged in the United States. In fact, it should be recalled, the financial crisis has its origin in the abuse of mortgage loans, largely widespread, for which there was no regulation. On the contrary, the agencies that were responsible for it multiplied them, thus causing the financial disaster.

This is the whole object of this law. It was about tackling misleading advertising, but also tackling the weaknesses of certain people so that they are no longer the victims of companies whose yield – if possible, two-digit – is the only goal. On the other hand, it was also necessary to avoid the multiplication of over-indebtedness situations.

It must be seen how the litigation, which is now in the hands of labour courts, has literally exploded in recent years. Moreover, the creditors of these over-indebted persons are often lambda citizens who, by receiving the amicable mediation plans, realize that their debtors have contracted debts that they will be unable to repay. They will have the hope of recovering 10 to 20 percent of their debts.

It is appropriate, in this sector as in others, not to believe in the invisible hand and not to let everything and anything be done. The bill responds to these prospects.

Indeed, it seeks to fight over-indebtedness, to tighten the matter of advertising by avoiding any deceptive propaganda; transparency is a beautiful principle, but when there are, on the one hand, hyper-professional societies and, on the other, a citizen with his reality, his social situation, his environment, tempted to indebt himself, it is well legitimate to seek to protect him. This protection should be addressed in particular to the most vulnerable groups.

We have experienced the abuses of credit aggregations, we have experienced the abuses of advertising announcing that the credit would cost nothing. And we know the consequences.

One of the key objectives of the law is also to strengthen the severity against abuse. In this sector too, the disruptors, the creators of difficulties, the disrespecting of the laws, such as some large companies with well-known trade names, should be severely punished.

It is on this balance that this law is based. Certainly not everything is perfect. We could have gone further in different directions. It might have been necessary to tighten things even more in some areas. We observe the path of some of our fellow citizens in the face of this aggressive advertising, especially in the large surfaces, where every credit is possible, and every shot imaginable.

We also know what is happening in certain sectors. The specific prohibition affecting the joint sale is ⁇ ined, but we also know that, in fact, it is bypassed: if you remove an insurance contract, your credit rate will increase. This is similar to a joint sale.

Therefore, in conclusion, Mr. Minister resigning, the bill is based on a balance, which seems to me quite desirable, but it will be appropriate to go further. In my opinion, our work will have to be continued and we will have to observe the development of things. A law in this sector is a bet on the future; we take it today, but we hope that engineering will not be developed to the point that it will soon have to return the work to the profession.

During the discussion of this draft, a lot has been talked about excessive debt burden. This week we could read in The Standard that there are 80 287 families enjoying a debt settlement where the culprit is the credit cards. Meanwhile, we all know that the financial crisis has led to more payment difficulties among families, to more people facing excessive debt burden, to more people who can benefit from a collective debt settlement.

I think there is still a very big lack in this bill. If I didn’t stand here, my colleague Meyrem Almaci would say it. She followed it extensively for us in the committee. The law itself does not establish a ceiling for the total annual cost percentage. The zero setting deadline is also not predetermined. Colleague Hans Bonte has already mentioned this. However, the competent ministers have said that they will make a royal decree that will determine those matters. It is a “second best option.” For us, it would have been better to include this in the law. This does not happen now. It would come in the form of a royal decision. It is only to hope that it is not one of so many royal decrees to enforce a law that will never come.

We all hope, and we will watch over this in the next legislature, that those royal decrees will be effective and that the zero-set deadline and the JKP will be effective. This is one of the most effective means in the fight against excessive debt burden. However, it is regrettable that such provisions in 2010, the year of poverty, cannot be found in such a bill.

Collega Van der Straeten speaks of an increase in the number of collective debt arrangements. I want to nuance that. There is an increase, but the figures show that more than a third has nothing to do with consumer credit. It has much more to do with energy and telecom debt. One-third of people in a collective debt arrangement do not have any consumer credit.

Second, the collective debt settlement is a procedure that comes into effect only after many previous steps. You can’t make a call from day one. People have already had a whole path behind the back of building up debt and not paying for any reason whatsoever. The number of people in that procedure is increasing, but it is also true that those procedures stop after up to five years. If you bridge over a five-year term each time, new people come into the procedure.

This is for nuance, not to attack my colleague.

In addition to the nuance. It is still two-thirds, but it must still be the intention to prevent people from having to resort to a collective debt settlement. Then one of the fundamental points is just to work on the annual cost percentage and the zero setting deadline. We will wait to see what is stated in the Royal Decree. I hope that this political crisis and regime crisis will not throw roast into the food.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to apologize in the first place because it was planned with the Chairman of the Committee on Business to be in Shanghai at this time for the World Expo. That trip that has been talked about so long, we may be able to do it after June 13th. In any case, my apology for that.

A fortune in an accident is that by canceling that trip we can handle this design. So we did our job. First of all, I would like to thank the administration that accompanied the draft law, also the employees and, very ⁇ , the members of the Committee on Business. Not only the members of the majority we heard speaking here today, but in particular also the members of the opposition. I also think so with all my heart.

You have said that a lot of legislation has been linked to this draft. Remember on 14 July 2009, the extra-parliamentary meeting of members of majority and opposition on the seventh floor in “heaven” above Paul Magnette and myself, as we call them, where we have come to an embryo of consensus for this design. That way of working with Dutch-speaking and French-speaking people, majority and opposition, has led to a design that hopefully will be able to count on broad support. We will see this later in the vote.

Finally, I would like to thank the members of the committee for the good cooperation we have had. I ⁇ it. We did it in silence, but we did it with results.

Mr. Speaker, despite the circumstances, this bill will be submitted to vote, after it has been voted without opposition in committee. I am delighted. This is the result of a very long work and it is, in my opinion, a very beautiful bill, even though it remains improbable as any law.

It is only more bitter that we regret that other projects on mortgage loans or on consumer protection with regard to financial products have fallen into the limbs. There will be other parliaments.

Since this will probably be the last time, I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Economic Committee, majority as opposed, for these thirty months of extremely fruitful debates that we have had.