Proposition 53K1410

Projet de loi modifiant le Code judiciaire en ce qui concerne le règlement collectif de dettes.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq
Ecolo Zoé Genot
Groen Stefaan Van Hecke
LE Christian Brotcorne
PS | SP Yvan Mayeur
Vooruit Hans Bonte, Renaat Landuyt

Submission date

April 28, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection seizure of goods civil procedure credit indebtedness

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR 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.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 16, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I could refer to the extensive written report, but I think this would disgrace the proposers of the bill, including Mr. Bonte. This would harm not only the content of this bill, but also the ⁇ 100 000 families who are faced daily with the problem of collective debt settlement, as well as the creditors and the actors of the Judiciary who seek to bring this problem into good order.

This is also the reason why the applicants wrote this bill.

We discussed this bill for the first time in the Justice Committee on 14 June. After a brief explanation, the bill was immediately sent to the Public Health Committee to formulate an opinion.

The Public Health Committee has organized a number of hearings. We have heard all the actors in the field such as lawyers and magistrates.

After the hearings, a unanimous opinion was formulated, which gave rise to an amendment that further refined the original bill.

After the committee received this amendment and the opinion on 25 January, there was another final discussion on 31 January and the amended bill was approved unanimously with the amendments 28 and 29 in the Justice Committee.

I will mention the main amendments formulated in this proposal. It provides that the payments to the debtor will no longer be in the hands of the debt intermediary but will be deposited on an account opened for this purpose. It is also important that the debtor will be given the opportunity to be permanently informed about the status of this account. This means that he or she will be aware of the transactions and the balance on that account. This was experienced in practice by people who are in a collective debt mediation as a deficiency.

As regards the living allowance, it is clear that the child allowance belongs to the children and therefore cannot be included in the debt repayment plan. These funds are, therefore, part of the living money.

The amicable purification scheme will from now on begin to run on the dates of the decision of admissibility. It will therefore come into force with retroactive effect, unless the court deviates from it by means of a reasoned and motivated decision.

The preparatory phase will now be limited to six months. It is renewable once for a period of six months, which will undoubtedly shorten the flow times of the collective debt intermediaries.

Finally and finally, debt mediation will be done in the hands of recognised practitioners, with the King also playing his role in this regard.

My group will support this legislative proposal. Although we were not co-applicants, we will support the bill. In any case, it meets a number of urgent questions from practice.

In addition, the balance between creditor and debtor is increasingly closely monitored, which makes sense.

It is crucial that, in any case, the bill will make the procedure more transparent and better regulated so that everyone – debtor, creditor and debt intermediary – knows what to stick to, which will make the process more smooth.

Social difficulties and over-indebtedness affect more and more people in our country. The crisis we are experiencing today, the situation in which our fellow citizens are in, demonstrates this with desire. Energy bills are only increasing. The delays in the payment of rent are legionary. Financial difficulties are common for many households. People facing insurmountable financial problems should therefore rely on collective debt settlement to get out of their situation with dignity.

However, in the current situation, the collective settlement of debts does not really allow the debtor to take over and disclaims him contrary to the objective initially aimed by the law. The proposal presented to us today seeks to highlight these objectives and to enable everyone to regain a dignified life following these financial difficulties. So I would like to highlight in a few words the advances that are important for my group.

First of all, the bill allows the mediator to obtain all the useful information to allow him to know clearly what is paid, what is not, what should still be paid and to whom, so that he is not faced with bad surprises. An account is now opened by the debt mediator who informs the mediator of the transactions carried out on that account and the balance of that account.

This measure allows the mediator and mediator to be accountable. It is also envisaged that the debt mediator shall make the payment of the tolls within the agreed deadlines and dates so as not to put the mediator in even more difficult and even dramatic situations in some cases.

Still in an interest of accountability of both parties, the amicable settlement plan will now include the detailed and up-to-date report of the household's available income and resources as well as a report of its charges and assets. It is also provided that all positions indispensable to the maintenance of human dignity are included in the plan. Similarly, the mediation piece will have to be indexed. Moreover, an annual report on the state of the procedure and its progress is planned. It will contain all the information necessary for the mediator so that he is fully aware of his situation.

The aim of the proposal that is submitted to you is also to provide, in the draft plan, a reasonable time in order to avoid outgoing collective settlements while allowing the mediator to act as best as possible to safeguard part of his assets while leading a dignified life.

Finally, this text constitutes an advance, but not an achievement. Some points still need to be analyzed in depth. This is ⁇ the case with debt relief. The current system does not seem to be effective. A balance must be sought once again. I hope that such a text will also be unanimously approved.

Mr. Speaker, my speech will not be long, although it is an important legislative change. In the committee we were confronted with the alarming figures of the number of families with a collective debt scheme. In 2010 there were more than 87 000, in 2011 there were already more than 94 000 and the trend continues. More and more people are facing structural debt problems.

The main objective of collective debt settlement legislation is to enable the debtor, despite his debts, to live a livelihood of dignity as much as possible, in addition to the payment plan for the settlement of his debts. In practice, there was a lot of criticism of the current legislation, and therefore a legislative change urged. The criticism was mainly that the communication between debt mediator and debtor leaves something to be desired. The debtor does not always know how many debts have already been paid, how long the procedure will continue, and how much money is still on his account. Therefore, fundamental changes are needed.

From now on, the debtor’s income will no longer be paid out in the hands of the debtor mediator, but on an account. I think it is logical that this is now legally stipulated. From now on, the debt intermediary must also inform the debtor about the status of his account, and prepare an annual report providing accounts and explaining the status of the procedure.

It is very important what will happen with the child allowance. Previously, a clearing plan was possible, including part of the child allowance in the repayment of the debt. From now on, the child allowance will be allocated only to the children, and no longer to the creditors.

Another important change is to make clear the duration of collective debt mediation. The friendly purification will now start running from the permissibility and will have a maximum duration of 7 years. The six-month preparatory phase may be extended at most once. This has many advantages for the debtor, who now knows well how long the collective regime lasts, and also for the creditor, who soon receives repayments of debts. The debt mediator will also have to work on the clearing plan.

In the criticisms we hear especially that a lot of debt intermediaries are not in a hurry to draw up a clearing plan. With a preparatory phase with a maximum duration of one year, we have now ensured that the debt intermediary will have to work out a clearing plan from the outset.

Finally, all debt mediators, including lawyers, will need to be recognized before they can be appointed as debt mediators. The orders of Flemish and French-speaking bailes were very pleased with this proposal, as this would improve the quality of the service. I too am very pleased with this, because we can distinguish between bad and good mediators, as we all have heard. The good debt mediator will take the fact of having to undergo a recognition procedure and training. He ⁇ has no problem with that.

I am closing. The amendments address the needs identified. The legislative amendment came into effect after hearing all actors. We discussed all aspects in two committees. How this legislative amendment came about is an example for other committees. Our group will approve this.

Mr. Speaker, we have submitted and supported this proposal, even though it is not an insignificant issue. If I look at the figures of the National Bank for January 2012, I see 95,315 collective debt arrangements and admissible applications. 1 206 are new; that is an increase of 8.8% compared to last year, if I remember correctly.

We also need to stop at a serious increase of 48% in consumer loans. So I’m not talking about mortgage loans, but loans for immediate use. In the case of delayed contracts there is an increase of 7 %. This is to indicate that the debt problem is important to deal with.

In addition to the idea of collective debt settlement, as embodied in our legislation, we point out what is important for us throughout this discussion, namely the balance between creditors and debtors.

Through this scheme we want to try to provide a perspective for debtors who are facing a serious debt burden. Thanks to a perspective to get out of it, they must be able to make a new start. In the meantime, their responsibility is not removed. On the contrary, their responsibility is actually pointed out in this way, and we must continue to do so, though, of course, in balance with the interests of the creditors. They expect, rightly, that the debts they have received will be paid out. The first important point is the balance between the creditor and the debtor.

Secondly, we also consider it important that a debtor can effectively make a new start. We believe that it is equally important to take into account budget guidance as well. This is outside the scope of that proposal, but it still remains very important. The OCMWs who are dealing with this problem know that. In addition, it is equally important that the debt mediator and the guidance can work together in a good way.

Finally, one should not forget that this problem is often part of a more global poverty problem. From practice we know that this is not always the case. There are also people with a reasonable income who do not always know how to manage their accounts. I think we should not forget the global problem: the easy way to obtain credit, the whole appeal of those who can sell, people who would buy, the incentive to buy, and so on. I think it is important that we take this too.

We agree with the principles of this proposal, namely transparency, sufficient living allowance including child allowance, sufficient information on accounts, the way the money is deposited on the accounts, but also sufficient information at regular times. That was also a common question, namely that people did not know what the status of their accounts was. I think the hearings that we jointly urged gave a good look at the balance between creditors, debtors, recognitions and great security. There have been discussions about deadlines and the like. I think in this way we have come to a balanced proposal, to help people move forward. This is a step in the collective debt settlement and the legal framework that we are currently creating.

Mrs. Minister, I think that the next step, more specifically with regard to the further implementation in practice and on the ground, concerns the further computerization in order to be able to easily support the Labour Court and especially the griffies in their work with regard to the collective debt settlement, although this step is not immediately part of the discussions we held in the Committee for Justice or the Committee for Public Health. I think this is a task that we are currently facing.

This bill has taken a very long way in a relatively short period of time. In the spring of last year, we, together with several colleagues, submitted the bill. We have been able to discuss it in the Committee on Public Health and in the Committee on Justice.

It must remind me, at the end of the ride, that it was one of those rare times that one could basically work on a certain legislation and do a law assessment. The law itself dates from 1999 and is thus almost 13 years old. In the atmosphere of government negotiations, we have found and taken the time to thoroughly reflect on the instrument of collective debt settlement. As other colleagues have ⁇ , we have also been able to hear virtually all civil society organisations, ranging from poverty organisations to the order of lawyers, labour courts and others.

There was also, even that is rare, listening to what these civil society organisations have introduced. I have seen many times that they order pro forma, but in these they have really made a contribution that has resulted in us sending up the bill. In this context, I would like to thank from the Legislative Chamber the representatives of all these organizations.

Regarding the substance of the case, no one, especially the proposers of the bill, has disputed that the system of collective debt settlement is a good instrument. It tries to give people a new perspective when they are sinking into a debt pit, taking into account a balance of interests between creditors and debtors.

The good instrument was evaluated and updated on a number of crucial points.

Mrs. Becq, you are right. The number of families resorting to that collective debt arrangement, the number of 95 315 that we have seen on the website, means, in my opinion, two things.

First, an increasing number of people sink deeper and deeper into the debt pit. As the Chairman of OCMW, you will agree with me that it is not just about people who live out of a benefit or who have a disaster. Our society also struggles with a lack of expertise, a lack of understanding of what financial commitments often involve. That is, I think, the first explanation for why we see an annual growth of 8.8%.

A second element is that the system of collective debt settlement is also becoming increasingly known and is demonstrating its virtues in part.

For those reasons, it was effectively necessary to attempt to address a number of obstacles that were brought to the fore, especially by poverty organisations but also by other echelons. Among other things, the timing and procedures were mentioned.

It must be that we offer people a real perspective, that they know when they can get out of their debt problem. After all, today we find that many families start with the promise that they will be away after five years, but in practice that period is extended. Due to the opacity of the bills already paid and any new commitments, today there are people who have been in that procedure for ten to fifteen years and even then still do not see the end of the tunnel.

I have collected a bunch of emails that illustrate what poverty organizations say. It is inhuman when a mother with children has to pay 50 to 70 euros per week to live on after the costs have been paid. However, these are current existing situations. The OCMW chairs know the problem of granting financial support to those people. In this time and in a society like ours, I think it is unacceptable that people with such low amounts should come around, especially when there are children to be raised.

The opacity of what has already been paid off and the communication obligation in it are important steps forward.

I would like to address my colleagues who followed the dossier from the Justice Committee. Even the Labour Court and the representatives of lawyers have explained in our committee that there is also such a thing as a commercialization of the debt problem by a limited group of lawyers-debt mediators. I remember the example of a labour judge about a law firm that has 500 families in its portfolio with the indication that it is purely for the sake of commerce. Even the OCMWs that accompany their clients do not receive any information from those lawyers involved. I would like to emphasize that it may be a small minority, but it exists.

It is a good thing that we have found a majority to recognize the lawyers who wish to be debt mediators after they have completed training and training. It is an evolution that we need to keep an eye on.

I end up with the most important adjustment, namely a more defective living money. I gave the example of 40 to 60 euros per week. It is not more than fair that the living money is indexed. It is even more important that by the bill child allowances are no longer charged for the determination of the living allowance. It is not possible in our society that children, even though their parents have large debts and bearings that may be responsibility, the asshole and their child support disappear. It is an important step forward to include in the law that child allowances should be counted with the living allowance anyway.

I am very pleased to note that in these difficult socio-economic times of restructuring, falling growth rates and savings orders, a wide-ranging legislation is being introduced that gives people in a very precarious situation in our society an instrument that should make it slightly easier for them to get out of that debt problem.

Mrs Becq, I agree with you that we are very quickly facing a number of problems, such as access to credit and credit cards and the problem of unauthorized credit advertising. There are interesting passages on this subject in the government agreement, let us work with it all.

Let me, however, today be somewhat pleased, together with the colleagues who submitted it, that we can bring this bill to a good end, also thanks to a construction draft by the other factions.

My colleagues have already discussed the content of the dossier. I will then merely congratulate myself, as co-author first, on behalf of my group then, for the change we are considering this afternoon. Beyond the technical elements, the amendment of the law has often been desired by the field staff, both by mediators and those responsible for otherwise accompanying debtors. There was a real demand.

The answer that the legislator is about to bring ultimately restores dignity and hope to the mediator. In fact, it will be better associated with all operations and better informed about financial developments, which was not always the case today. In addition, his/her privacy will be better protected by not threatening to all third-party creditors the situation of the debtor or his/her household. It was important!

The text also strengthens the obligations of mediators by increasing their responsibility. It’s about raising awareness of the fact that they work with human beings and not with hardware or anonymous whose accounts would be enough to manage. The training of mediators is very important.

I see that the Minister of Justice is almost about to go up to the tribune. We know pertinently, in the Justice Committee in particular, that this law, which has all its reasons for being, presents a difficulty of implementation. Today, labour courts, magistrates and greves, are drowned by the influx of cases. We can no longer remain deaf for calls, requests for reinforcement of staff and computer equipment. The Minister of Justice is a priority.

Finally, I join Ms. Becq and Mr. Bonte, it is the adaptation, the evolution of a legislation completely justified and that has proved its opportunity. All this should not prevent us from continuing to fight against easy credit policies or business practices that encourage people to borrow and often put themselves in dramatic situations from which it is difficult to get out. Let us pay attention to this aspect of things!

Like my colleagues, I am pleased with the work done. We worked on this text in a context of increasing cases of over-indebtedness, resulting in the need to allow more people to access collective debt settlement. I would like to thank Mr. Good for the collective dynamics around this matter. Everyone has agreed to hold hearings and I think they have been ⁇ beneficial, whether they are the main stakeholders, i.e. individuals in collective debt settlement, and the associations that work with them, mediators or judges. All this has enabled us to refine this proposition in order to make it correspond as best to reality. We also abandoned certain parts of our proposals, though filled with good intentions, but which were difficult to implement.

I will emphasize the willingness to allow everyone to keep a fair amount to survive during this period of collective debt settlement. We wanted to improve the information so that people can keep track of the evolution of the refund. There was also an interesting work of standardization based on good practices.

Overall, we have worked on two fronts. As for debts incurred for essential needs because incomes are insufficient, this involves a job of increasing allocations, minimum wages, part-time income. The second construction site to which the work done refers – other colleagues have cited it, so there is a wide willingness to move forward – concerns prevention, especially with regard to non-essential needs. There is a work to be done with regard to advertising for credit. When I hear that one can receive such a gift if one contracts a credit, it makes me jump to the ceiling.

When I see the ease with which one can get a credit, standing at a supermarket checkpoint, I think there is also matter to work on. Since we have a large majority, which seems to want to move forward, I hope we can do it in the coming months.