Proposition 52K2387

Projet de loi modifiant la procédure relative au règlement collectif de dettes.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Jan. 27, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection seizure of goods civil procedure credit indebtedness

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit

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 ¶

March 18, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The present draft law introduces a number of changes in the manner in which calls and notifications are made in the procedure of collective debt settlement. The draft aims to reduce the workload for the offices of the labour courts, and therefore does not imply substantial changes in the legislation itself.

Collective debt settlement procedures are procedures in which court letters are frequently used to make calls and notifications. As a result of the recent economic crisis, the offices of the labour courts are confronted with an increase in the workload and expenditure, which require immediate intervention. This is why the bill is motivated.

From that conclusion, it was decided to examine the various calls and notifications within the framework of the collective debt arrangement and to determine which can be made by ordinary or registered letter. Eventually, a scheme was developed that required fewer notifications by court letter.

Through that legislative amendment, with a minimum but targeted intervention in the procedure, a significant reduction in the workload for the offices is implemented, which, however, offers all guarantees in terms of legal certainty.

In addition, those measures should significantly reduce the financial efforts currently required.

The Minister also drew attention to the fact that this bill has been drawn up in consultation with the magistrates and the secretaries of the labour courts and courts.

During the discussion, all parties positively commented on this draft.

However, amendments were submitted by Mr Landuyt and Mr Bonte of the sp.a. group, including an amendment aimed at better informing the debtor about his financial situation. That amendment proposes that a monthly copy of the account extracts relating to the transactions under the collective debt arrangement should be provided to the debtor. The Minister of Justice responded by saying that he does not consider it appropriate to address that suggestion following the proposed legislative amendment. The text was also prepared in consultation with the magistrates and the secretaries of the labour courts. Additional amendments would therefore be better incorporated in Secretary of State Courard’s poverty plan, according to the Minister’s response. Landuyt and Bonte’s amendment was then rejected by eight votes in favour, one against and five abstentions.

In addition, several amendments were adopted following the opinion of the State Council.

Eventually, the draft was approved and adopted with thirteen votes in favour and one abstinence.

Thank you, the reporter.

In the list of speakers, I first inscribed Mr. Terwingen.

Mr Schoofs, you are asking for the word?

Mr. Speaker, I notice that there is no Minister present, while we are still discussing a bill. Does it mean that a member of the government is present?

That is a justified comment. A member of the government must be present. Minister De Clerck was there. What do you say, Mr Bonte? Has he escaped? In the meantime, I will be preparing the speaker list.

Mr. Speaker, I was initially the first to be registered, which, by the way, surprised me, but now I have noticed that the list has been supplemented. This is a relatively important bill. Everything related to the collective debt arrangement and the arrangement regarding this type of procedures has already been relevant, but is becoming increasingly important, given the economic situation and the fact that more and more people use this system to find a place back in society and to keep their heads over water financially.

Mr. Minister, we will support your project. It provides a number of improvements to the current way of working. I will not fall into repetition. Mr Van Hecke correctly expressed the committee’s concerns and adjustments. All these adjustments will result in the graffiti being significantly less taxed. The financial side of the case will also be considered. According to our calculation, this means that the national reduction in the workload for the service of the shipments at the offices will be 55 to 60%. This is important for the workload and the financial consequences. The workload at the offices will also be reduced by 20 to 30%. That in itself is already sufficient evidence that it is a good design and that it will undoubtedly be approved by all parties.

The aim of this bill is clear and correct, namely, reduction of workload and cost savings; no one can oppose this. The plea is based on the abolition of the various court letters which at this time were still registered in the proceedings but in themselves have no added value. Collega Van Hecke has explicitly pointed out in his report that some things do not hinder legal certainty. It has been properly chosen to replace the court letters, whether or not by ordinary letters or registered letters. The system is improved without compromising legal certainty.

I would like to emphasize that you have worked in this in a good way, Mr. Minister, with a bottom-up approach. This approach has yielded its fruits. There have been long negotiations with the various offices of the labour courts on the improvements to be made. That has led to this design that absolutely deserves the support of our group.

It is obvious that the CDH will support this important project. As my colleague has just said, the transfer of the litigation of collective settlement of debts from the court of first instance to the labour courts has caused in some courts not only an extra work but also practical difficulties in the management of this litigation which requires a powerful computer tool and a availability of magistrates, given the need to hear mediators and organize complex procedures.

I hope that with the simplification envisaged by this bill thought in perfect understanding with the labour courts themselves, the texts and proposals for amendment of the law coming from the ground, there will be no more overload of this contentious. It will need to be examined whether this procedure still causes difficulties, especially at the level of transplants.

First and foremost, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the clear report.

In any case – I also refer to the previous speakers – there are few reasons to be against this draft. It is about reduction of workload and cost reduction. However, the draft law completely goes beyond the objective of the legislation. It consists of protecting weak groups in society and helping them to further restore their debts.

So if there is a criticism, Mr. Minister, which my group and I have, then it is that some things are not capable. What is not in it? There is no mention in what poverty organizations, OCMWs, debt brokers and their clients, with an increasingly loud voice ask: they demand respect for the debtors, respect for the poor, respect for the debt brokers and the OCMWs, in terms of informing the customers.

The draft does not specify how the client should be taken into account in the course of collective debt management, or how the client should be systematically informed. That is the core of our criticism, Mr. Minister. The organisations concerned point out that it is crucial for a successful outcome of a collective debt settlement that people become motivated to get through the long tunnel of debt reduction.

What is important here is that they know where they are and that they know how much of their debt has already been reduced or how much debt may be added. This is the core of the problem and this is what poverty organisations, including the Flemish Centre for Debt Mediation, have been asking for years and days, but in recent months increasingly loud –: write in the procedures the communication obligation for the OCMWs, the debt mediators, for the customers. Thus people know how far they stand in their misery.

That is exactly what is missing, Mr. President. This is precisely what we have tried to correct in the committee and what we are trying to correct today again through a deadly amendment.

I would also like to put a critical note to Parliament here. I am gradually becoming the ancient in such files, Mr. Minister. There was previously a rule in which, when one in a committee dealt with a matter that also affected the competence of other committees, for example justice, one either organized joint committees or requested the opinion of another committee. This did not even have to delay the work.

Mr. Minister, it is significant for the coherence of the government that a minister comes up with a purely legal draft that, rightly, aims at reducing the workload for the offices of the labour courts and also consults with the offices and the presidents of the labour courts, but that the government is apparently unable to integrate a file with which the colleague of Poverty Eradication is dealing or to listen to the government’s poverty report and plan. This would have resulted in a much more balanced design. Then it would be more than normal that various committees would have their words on this.

For the colleagues who are not familiar with the social opportunities of the legal chapter, I would like to try to formulate a response to the question of who the collective debt regime is about. Provisionally, very provisionally, at the end of 2009, it is about 78 147 families. I say provisional, because the recent yearbook Poverty predicts a sharp increase in the group, especially among middle-class families who can no longer repay their loans. I say provisional, because according to the report of the University of Antwerp on behalf of the FOD Public Health debt downturn and debt build-up are increasingly the cause of fundamental poverty.

In other words, it is currently about 78 000 families. However, we receive disastrous reports both from the State Secretary of Poverty – you really need to talk to him before you make such legislation – and from the annual maternity report and from scientific studies that the group with payment problems and payment delays who do not yet enjoy collective debt settlement is growing. According to the figures, there are 356,611 people speaking in the waiting room.

When we talk about that group, it may be even more important to look at the impact of the crisis. What has happened in the last few months? I read, among other things, in a press release from the National Bank, that that group has increased by 16.1% over the past year: people with a payment delay. That payment delay has so far reached EUR 2.16 billion.

In other words, Mr. Minister: the legislation you make is situated in a social problem that is gaining explosive proportions. The Group is growing by 16% on an annual basis and the volume of late payments is increasing by an even greater percentage. You stand with your legislation for a very densely populated waiting room. To put it more plasticly: every day, 43 families are added to your collective debt arrangement. Weekday or Sunday. 15 904 new debt arrangements. I have the numbers here, including from your government. 15 904 have been added. That’s 43 families a day, even a little more.

Mr. Minister, why in the hell the government comes here with a draft for collective debt settlement with merely and only provisions for reducing the workload for the offices. Why not a simple, very simple answer for those thousands of debtors, families in debt, stating that they need to get information so that they know where they are, so that the debt broker knows where they are, so that we can help those families further. I do not understand it, and I suspect that the Secretary of State for Poverty Reduction will not understand it either.

In any case, colleagues, we return our amendments to the draft law and we hope that for now we can restore that balance in a further good cause that is regulated through the draft law.

I agree with the previous speakers. We find this a very good proposal. No one has anything against the proposal in itself, as it effectively leads to much less administrative burden throughout the procedure. The labour courts, and in particular the greffies, are heavily burdened by the administration resulting from these procedures. Because of the economic and financial crisis, there is, of course, also an influx of files. In any case, it is a very good thing.

Also the way the design has come into being, we find a good way of working. One has gone from a consultation with the base, with the people who work in the field and know the problems, namely the labor auditors, the labour judges and the people in the labour courts and the griffs. I think it would also be a good way of working in other cases to work with the workplace and thus reach a consensus if significant legal or practical problems arise.

If we do the analysis, I think that would show that there are still many legislation and procedures that we can simplify in a fairly easy way. The result of this draft law will primarily also be that money is saved and more resources are released. Within the framework of the complete reorganization of the Judiciary, which you still seek, Mr. Minister, – I hope that you will succeed in bringing the reorganization to a successful conclusion even in this legislature – it may also be important that resources and personnel be released for other important tasks.

I have already said this in the committee, the money you can save is also welcome and may cause you to soon be able to adjust or withdraw your turnover letter 154. You may now be able to realize savings that are not painful and that will not mortgage the proper functioning of Justice. I hope that this bill will be approved quickly and that the Senate will not have too many problems about it, so that you can also realize savings and reduce other announced savings.

As for the amendment of the colleagues of the sp.a, we fully support it. This is a very important issue that needs to be discussed. I am afraid, my colleagues, if we started this discussion...

We have no problem with the amendment, but if other colleagues also want to make substantial changes, then we risk that we have left for a discussion, which could delay the implementation of this law.

I think we really need to have a thorough discussion in order to thoroughly refine this legislation and make it more social, but I fear that we have left for a long time, if we start the debate now, because not everyone is on the same social line, colleague. We would like to support your amendment, but I think it is better for us to approve this draft as soon as possible, so that we are sure we already have it. We can realize the fundamental debate, about an improvement of this law, as soon as possible. We will ⁇ support you in this.

Mrs. Speaker, colleague, I appreciate that you fundamentally agree with our amendment and with the balance we want to bring into the text, but I absolutely do not understand why that should cause some delay or uncertainty. The main difference between the present bill and the amended bill is that we want to help the people who are the victims of debt and who are in that debt arrangement. We also want to help those people. We want to relieve the secretariat’s burden, but we also want to help those who today remain in uncertainty because they do not know how far it is with the repayment of their debts. Is it so much demanded to adjust a draft with one amendment stipulating that they should get an overview of their debt position every 3 months? Is it so much required to give that information to the debt intermediaries, so that they can help those people?

A balance must be found, especially in the interests of a group – of which I have given the numbers – which is systematically growing. Everyone says that we absolutely need to do something about poverty, and that ⁇ also applies to the State Secretary for Poverty Reduction. When one has an opportunity like this one can restore that balance without a minute of delay, by pressing a green button once. I would like to repeat that call.

In the same sense as the colleagues who have already interacted, I would like to congratulate that this indeed means a reduction in the workload. As a result, the judicial apparatus will gain armshake and have more resources. That is OK.

I have already pointed out in the committee that poverty detection and poverty prevention are much more important. Per ⁇ it is possible for the Minister to establish that there is sufficient political will in this regard within the majority and there is a political openness to make progress in this matter.

Our criticism is always that there is little progress in justice and that everything is pushed over the long term. Well, here one has the opportunity to work in the short term.

I would also like to point out that in Flanders there is indeed a movement in the civil society field to address this problem of collective debt regulation. Even in cooperation with, and that I have not heard colleague Bonte mention, with the court enforcers. Also there are people active within the sector who want to contribute to poverty detection and poverty prevention. We can only welcome that.

I really want to draw the Flemish map here and point to the Flemish Centre Schuldbemiddeling, with Couwenberg among others, to show that the social will is really there. The minister here really has the chance to be the engine of a whole movement that can ensure that poverty is detected and effectively combated. Despite the economic crisis, here is a possibility, a political field that you can play. Do not miss that opportunity. That is very important, you can score here, I will tell you.

Mrs. Speaker, as the Minister clearly explained in the committee, I think also to Mr. Landuyt van de sp.a, it is true that this draft is a first step, an improvement of the procedure for collective debt settlement. However, this design does not offer a solution to all problems.

The Minister also clearly pointed out in the debate what should be followed. He has committed himself to extend and further improve, in a second step, the basis of the collective debt arrangement and all the problems associated with it.

I propose that we stick to the text and to what has been discussed extensively in the Committee on Justice. The rapporteur has made it clear; in collective debt settlement proceedings, court letters are now widely used to send calls or to make notifications. Furthermore, there is also the increasing number of requests in relation to which the Minister in the committee had promised to provide us with the correct numbers. Both elements ensure that the workload at the griffies is irresponsibly high and that the costs outweigh the pan.

I requested the figures from the Labour Court in the court districts of Kortrijk-Ieper-Veurne. The number of court letters to be sent there annually in the framework of the collective debt settlement procedure was 8 921 in 2007, 29 367 in 2008 and 49 694 in 2009. These numbers alone demonstrate sufficiently that what we want to do today, more specifically the thinking exercise about when something should be sent by court letter or by ordinary letter, is a useful and necessary exercise that should no longer have to wait for itself.

We did not support the amendments that we discussed in the committee, for the benefit of the debtors, because they were too formalist and especially because they did not fit in the context of the draft and the discussion. It is only about the procedure in this first step. If the ground is touched in the second step, Open Vld will conduct and support the debate constructively.

Like all the members who have just spoken, we support this text. This is a small step, but I think we should support everything that can speed up the procedures for collective debt settlement. This text deserves to be adopted quickly given the explosion of the number of people who are precarious and affected by over-indebtedness, and therefore by this procedure.

It is only a small step that does not solve the whole problem, of a terrible scale in this period of crisis. Other initiatives are obviously needed to improve the fight against poverty. As Ms. Sabien Lahaye-Battheu said, a more comprehensive project is being prepared in collaboration with Secretary of State Mr. Lahaye-Battheu. by Philippe Courard. He promised us that this project will be on the table of the respective committees very soon, depending on the content of the project.

Even though we share the principle of the amendment submitted by the sp.a, we did not want to delay the discussions, because it is urgent to adopt this draft. We will re-discuss amendments and many other ideas as part of the overall project that will be submitted in collaboration with the Secretary of State.

It is obvious that the MR can only support the text that is submitted to us today and wishes that it be voted as it is.

The increase in the number of cases addressed to the secretaries of labour courts made it urgent that the procedure be simplified in order to facilitate their work.

In the medium and longer term, it is essential to look at all of this legislation again in order to be able to improve its effects at various levels, and in particular on the social level. We will be happy to cooperate in the consideration of all proposals or even bills that will be submitted to us in the coming weeks and in the coming months.

Some have advanced a series of reflective paths. In the case of mediation, where the mediator is to begin, at some point, on the basis of the available means, to repay a certain number of creditors, taking into account the fact that Article 23 of the Constitution makes the right to housing a recognised constitutional right to which we all attach great importance, it would be legitimate, given the case-law held by the cantonal magistrates – which consists in no longer terminating leases when lease delays are significant and to be content to see them honored in the future – to provide that lease and charge debts be considered priority at the level of the repayment plan. My colleague Jacques Otlet and I will also submit a bill on this subject to fuel the discussion and debate.

Thank you to the reporter. I do not need to repeat the good of this design because it has already been cited by many speakers. I would like to say another thing to Mr. Bonte, who has submitted a number of amendments, which were also discussed in the committee.

I think that from a certain wisdom and experience we have said to keep this apart and quickly realize an improvement that can be an advantage in the short term. However, this does not prevent the government from committing itself to discuss the second draft in the committees for Justice and Social Affairs, which can address the entire problem of debt regulation. This commitment has been taken. Colleague Courard is busy. We work with. There is a poverty plan. Principles are determined. We know in which direction we should move forward. I think the substantive debate is better conducted in a coherent way in its entirety. However, the technical, legal and procedural aspects must now be settled. From some experience, I would dare to say that this is the best method to get an advantage in the short term.

I had also promised to bring some figures and I would like to put them next to Mr. Bonte’s figures. I asked for the numbers and the increases are huge. In 2007, there were 35,934 pending cases. In 2008, there were 44 404. In 2009, there were 52 436 pending cases. I don’t know if these are the same numbers. Per ⁇ we should put them side by side. In 2009, 11 339 new cases were added.

In any case, it shows the trend. In any case, it indicates that it is about very many people and very many court letters. Therefore, in the short term, in consultation with all actors in the field, a large advantage can be realized. I would like to thank the many colleagues for their support for this project. The government’s commitment is very clear to come to Parliament as soon as possible with the Courard draft.

Mr. Minister, on one point I fully agree with you, namely that we would better conduct the substantive debate in its entirety rather than separately. Now it happens separately. You say that the number of pending files on collective debt management is more than 50,000. I also have government figures from the end of 2009. I quote: “The number of collective debt arrangements is increasing by 11.4% to 78.147.” Where are those 28,000 people? We can sometimes wake up from this. When discussing procedures, one should also think of the content, namely those 28,000 families you are threatening to forget along with those 50,000 families you have counted.

Mr. Minister, there is something weird. Mr Lahaye-Battheu referred to this. With the griffies one sees a problem, namely, too much useless paperwork. No one asks what the cause is because the legislation has not changed at this point. The reason has purely to do – also in Kortrijk, Mrs Lahaye-Battheu – with the fact that the group of people who request collective debt management with the shame red on the cheeks is rising sharply. What is happening? You see more paperwork. The answer is to simplify paperwork. This is done instead of putting the problem at the forefront, namely the ever-increasing poverty. All the flashing lights that Mr. Courard regularly informs us are on orange to blood red, indicating that that group is going to grow forests. They say we are going to work in two steps. Step 1 is the paperwork, the procedure. Step 2 hangs there somewhere in the air. Mr. Minister, it must happen now. It is not a coincidence that I said that there are 43 per day. Now there must be answers.

A small part of the answer – I also respond to what Mr. Schoofs says – is that the people who are in the purr and have high debts should at least know how high those debts are and how much is paid. So we ask for information. Mrs Lahaye-Battheu, you call that too formal. We purely ask for information to see how far it is. Regarding Mr. Schoofs, I would like to say that if there is indeed a chance that the federal legislation here works well with the regions, she might better listen to the regional debt mediation services, both here in Brussels and in Wallonia and in Flanders. They demand that this information transfer be registered in the legislation so that everyone knows where they are. So I’ll keep in mind that it’s an incredible missed chance that you refuse to add this little element to it. This does not necessarily mean delay, on the contrary.