Proposition 53K3452

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 21 février 2003 créant un Service des créances alimentaires au sein du SPF Finances et le Code judiciaire, en vue d'assurer le recouvrement effectif des créances alimentaires.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Feb. 6, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

maintenance obligation seizure of goods divorce one-parent family driving licence penalty

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP MR

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Meryame Kitir (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Karin Temmerman (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

April 22, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Muriel Gerkens, rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, there are five bills on Finance and you will see me appear here again today.

The draft law amending the Act of 21 February 2003 establishing the Service for Maintenance Claims. The issue of optimization of the Service for alimony claims has been ongoing for several years. In recent years, as long as I am a member of Parliament, a large number of hearings have been held. There were also a lot of oral questions on the subject, including from colleague Gerkens and Mrs Becq. Legislative proposals were also submitted. Therefore, we cannot say that we have not talked about it in recent years.

There was a major problem with the Maintenance Claims Authority, namely the recovery of advances. The recovery rate is quite low. It is very difficult to recover the advance payments from the debtor. Thus, the proposals that have been passed here over the last few years have primarily focused on addressing that problem.

Much more was requested for an increase in the income limit in order to be eligible for an advance on maintenance from the Maintenance Claims Authority. However, in recent years the answer has been constant. This was the case at first with Minister Reynders and then with Minister Vanackere. I assumed that the change would not come, because there was, of course, a financial cost sheet linked to raising that ceiling. More advances would have to be paid out, and when they cannot be recovered adequately, a serious financial pit is steadily being created.

I was therefore surprised that suddenly a bill was proposed on this subject and that a consensus was reached in the government. It is intended to expand the target group and to take a number of measures to increase the recovery rate among the maintenance obligators.

The target group is expanded. Our party always wants to be solidary, but for us we must strive to ensure that the maintenance obligation remains a matter of the ex-partners concerned; we must therefore ensure that problems in this connection are resolved through mediation.

The HIVA study showed that approximately 13% of the population concerned is affected by a failure to pay alimony. We can therefore understand that one wants to increase the target group. The proposed approach can be viewed as a kind of aid scheme for families who usually live below the poverty line and who want to help.

When expanding a target audience, the question always matters where the boundary lies. That is a difficult question. After all, for some, the limit may not be high enough, while others rather want to hold the parties themselves accountable for taking steps.

I am very pleased that it is now also taken into account whether disabled children are involved in the calculation of the salary limit.

In addition to the expansion of the target audience, a number of measures are proposed to increase the recovery rate. I understand that, because the practice of advances is beginning to take on ever-larger dimensions. Especially when one wants to expand the target audience, one must ensure that sufficient advances are recovered.

We were the only party in the committee that abstained in the vote on the bill. What were the reasons for this? At the discussion in the Senate and long before the Order of Flemish Balies had sent a letter to the members of Parliament, we were already surprised that the bill was only for discussion in the Committee for Finance. Both in the Senate and in the House, we have requested additional advice from the Minister of Justice and to forward the bill to the Justice Committee. A large number of measures in the draft law are directly related to the law and the FOD Justice. For example, a new management and supervision committee should be established in the FOD Justice. In addition, there are a number of amendments to the Judicial Code, the Mortgage Act and the Criminal Code. We wanted to share this information with our colleagues in Justice and get their advice on this. That request was not answered.

This extends the sanctions area for the crime of family abandonment. The extension may be good, but if, according to the comments and the explanations attached to the draft law, the extension is due to the fact that existing criminal sanctions are rarely implemented in practice, then we believe that one should first use them and ensure that those criminal sanctions are implemented more effectively and better. This is preferable to the sanctions that are introduced today. For example, a maintenance liable person will be able to lose his driver’s license in case of non-payment of the maintenance.

The question is, of course, how efficient it is. Often, the driver’s license for the maintenance liable is just a means of earning income through labour. When a maintenance liable person loses his driver’s license while he needs it for his work, I find it difficult to impose that as a penalty.

The problem is that the maintenance obligators from the DAVO files are often in a very tight financial situation. If they are also deprived of certain opportunities to work, it becomes even more difficult for those involved. Good persons are found less often in the DAVO files. For us, this is a point of criticism of the expansion of the sanctions area. We would like to have the advice of the Justice Committee on this matter. The text could have been discussed more thoroughly.

In principle, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the bill deals with a topic that has been discussed frequently, but is ultimately pursued by Parliament in a short time. We find that regrettable.

Therefore, our group wants to amend the bill also in plenary session. In fact, we would like to see that Article 12 is repealed, so that the maintenance debtor can no longer lose his driver’s license. In our opinion, this is not the right step. We consider it better to ensure the effective enforcement of the existing penalties, rather than supplementing the Criminal Code with numerous useless alternative sanctions.

A second reason why we abstain in this story is the abolition of the living wage limit as a limit below which the DAVO cannot seize the income of the person liable for maintenance. Until now, the living wage was guaranteed for a maintenance liable. The problem here is the minimal recovery of the advances because the debtors are often in a not too rosy financial situation. So far, we guarantee these people at least their living wages. But what will happen now? We will abolish this salary limit. Many maintenance obligators in the DAVO files already have low incomes. The consequence of lifting that limit is that some people see their full salary confiscated. It is very likely that they will then reach the OCMW and will apply for financial support there on the basis of Article 1 of the Organic OCMW Act.

We created the DAVO at the time to remove the problem with the OCMWs. In fact, they encountered the same problems that the DAVO encounters today, namely that those advances are very difficult to recover.

By no longer respecting the living wage limit and in principle letting the full wage be seized, people will again turn to the OCMW and the OCMWs will also encounter problems. It is indeed true that the recovery rate at the DAVO is likely to rise, but you simply shift the problem. One solves one problem and creates another problem.

We also have difficulties with this. Therefore, we have submitted an amendment to remove Article 7 of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, also on behalf of our group, I would like to emphasize the importance of this draft, which was originally a proposal by colleague Cindy Franssen in the Senate, after which we submitted it to the House, to solve certain problems in the functioning of the Service for Alimentary Claims. On the one hand, the service helps people with the collection of alimony if the spouse is negligent and the alimony for — I would like to emphasize this — the children do not want to pay. On the other hand, the service provides advances for those who cannot receive the maintenance payment to which they are entitled.

It is not unimportant to know that one-third of single-parent families are facing poverty. In these families, children live in poverty. If they do not receive the maintenance they are entitled to, the risk of poverty increases seriously; hence the importance of this design.

Various proposals were submitted both in the House and in the Senate. Several hearings followed and in the previous legislature, Professor Pacolet was instructed to further investigate the problem of the DAVO. With the information from the research, additional possibilities were created.

This design goes into a number of tricky points.

First, the income limit for those who can claim a right to such an advance is raised, which also gives single-parent families who work the opportunity to effectively resort to the DAVO. Previously it could not.

Second, the person entitled to maintenance, the person entitled to the maintenance allowance, had to make a financial contribution. This contribution has been abolished.

Third, 22 million of advances will be paid out, of which 7.5 million will be collected. In the case of difficult recovery, the recovery possibilities will be expanded through various measures, including administrative simplifications. The central file of judgments and judgments will facilitate the exchange of information for the DAVO.

This also includes making it more difficult to discharge default claims in the context of debt mediation. In the end, the child who should receive the maintenance payment is the asshole of it. Furthermore, there is the general privilege on movable goods and the collection below the limits of the living wage. There has been a lot of discussion about this. The OCMWs have indeed protested, but at the same time they have also been heard by the VVSG in the Senate Committee. They themselves are also critical and say that some receive different benefits and thus exceed the amount of the living wage, but nevertheless are not held to the retention of the maintenance.

In the same investigation by Mr. Pacolet, I also found that the non-recovery of maintenance benefits is not only related to low income. Six out of ten people can pay. In this sense, we must nuance the problem of collecting below the limits of living wages. On the one hand, as an entitled to maintenance, it can also, on the other hand, it creates the possibility to claim back, also in people who have a fortune but are limited in terms of income by the living wage.

Another element that has been much discussed and focused on is the eventual withdrawal of the driving license. In fact, the focus should be on the additional recovery of the maintenance allowance. The withdrawal of the driving license is indeed the last element that may be imposed by a judge who examines and examines what is possible and what is not. To focus on that element alone is a pity.

The focus of this design is on the child who loses twice in a divorce. It is, first, confronted with the loss of parents and, secondly, with poverty due to separation. Furthermore, we believe that by raising this ceiling, the DAVO can activate. It can be an additional incentive for those who have children under his or her custody to continue working. He or she cannot be sanctioned for this and the appeal to the DAVO cannot be denied to him or her.

Through this draft, we think and hope to ⁇ a balance between the individual responsibility of parents for their children and the solidarity of society, between the maintenance payment and the provision of advances, some of which may not be recovered.

We hope that many people will be helped when this bill comes into force, after we approve it here.

I would like to remind you that 37% of single-parent families in Belgium live below the poverty line. This is an alarming finding. Too many are those families, essentially women with children, who are plunged into precariousness, especially in these times of crisis, precariousness which accentuates when food claims are unpaid.

Since its creation, which we strongly supported in 2003, the Service des créances alimentaires (SECAL) has been responsible for recovering alimony claims from defaulting debtors and grants monthly advances on child pensions.

At the time of its creation, the SECAL was therefore the main vocation to combat poverty caused by the non-payment of the aforementioned pensions. The granting of these advances is, as you know, conditioned by the level of income of the person who has custody of the children.

For several years, we have considered that due to this access limitation, the SECAL ignored the economic reality of too many families.

Allowing a greater number of people to benefit from SECAL advances by raising the income ceiling taken into account and raising it from 1,300 to 1,800 euros is the essential objective of the text that has been transmitted to us by the Senate. We can only welcome this text because, for many years, this issue has been part of our concern. It was also in the Chamber’s Finance Committee and then within the Committee of Opinion for Social Emancipation that numerous hearings took place and the debate began.

Already during the previous legislature, my group had submitted a text aimed at improving the functioning of the Food Claims Service. According to us, already at the time, this was a real priority, priority that was subsequently reinforced during this legislature, taking into account the budgetary impact it would generate. This impact was quantified in an in-depth study by the KUL. This last allowed us to submit a new text, now several months ago.

When at this end of the legislature, the groups of the majority of the Senate put the double blows to agree on the text that is presented to you today, we considered this initiative a good thing, even though we had already devoted many hours to this eminently important matter.

As we wanted, this text is intended to make the functioning of the SECAL more efficient by allowing it to recover more resources and improve its financing. In addition and above all, this text aims to expand the scope of the SECAL by raising the income ceiling taken into account for the granting of advances so that more people can benefit from it. Raising the income ceiling to allow these families to benefit from SECAL advances was therefore necessary, even indispensable.

Some will say that we could have gone further by simply removing this ceiling. To those, I will answer that it is also our duty, as responsible, of reason to keep: in order to take a measure, it is appropriate that it remains sustainable. This will be the case here.

Indeed, if the measure generates a cost of EUR 8 million, as indicated by the study conducted by the KUL, it will be complemented by a reinforcement of the recovery mechanism by the SECAL and should therefore prove to be budgetally neutral.

It is therefore a considerable advance in favour of low and middle income, which the PS group had been waiting for a long time and which fits perfectly with the bill we had submitted. Obviously – and I will be honest – the Senate text raises some questions. Questions that concern various elements that, on our part, it was not considered appropriate to introduce in our text.

As regards, first of all, the creation of a central file of judgments relating to alimony, given the situation in the field of computerization of justice, will this file be seriously feasible in the short term?

Then, will the possibility given to the judges to decline the driver’s license in the event of non-payment of maintenance claims really be an effective sanction? Is it not a discriminatory condemnation that conveys a form of prejudice towards men? Is it not a condemnation that cannot be applied to all since a part of the population does not possess a driving license? Is it not, finally, an unjust conviction which risks to penalize the maintenance debtor in a possible job search and thereby deprive him of resources that would enable him to pay his claims?

As you indicated in the committee, Mr. Minister, it will be necessary to trust the Justice in the choice of the sanctions to be issued.

Despite our questions regarding these different points, I will conclude by reminding that this text is the result of a compromise, each having had to take a step towards the other.

We must therefore support it because we know that we will help 70% of the most precarious single-parents. This is the fundamental point of this reform: work for a reduction of poverty in general and child poverty in particular.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, friends, it will not surprise you that I ask the floor on this topic. I have been honored to be a member on behalf of the Chamber from the start of the DAVO and I have been able to follow the work closely. Therefore, I can argue that I find it logical that the functioning of the Service for Maintenance Claims should be changed, in particular as regards the possibilities for the DAVO to recover the advances spent. This was not only the government’s wish – it is also expressly stated in the government declaration – but also of several colleagues, who submitted legislative proposals to amend the legislation on DAVO.

I will discuss the most important aspects of the present bill.

The income limit for applying to the advance scheme is raised to 1 800 euros, not indexed. The increase for dependent children in the amount of 65 euros per child is ⁇ ined and doubled for children with disabilities who are entitled to an increased child allowance.

The application for advance payment to be submitted to the DAVO will be simplified administratively. In the future, the applicant will no longer need to submit an invoice bill of his income tax, as the DAVO will be able to request that data directly from the FOD Finance.

The contributions of the entitled to maintenance to the operating costs of the DAVO are borne by the entitled to maintenance.

The draft stipulates that the DAVO has the same innings and recovery rights as the maintenance entitled. Concretely, this means that it will be possible to collect below the limit of the living wage, which the DAVO today cannot. Any person liable for maintenance who has a known place of residence in Belgium or abroad shall be notified to the Attorney of the King in Brussels. From that notification, the negligence interests go.

Within the Judiciary, a central file of judgments, judgments and acts granting maintenance benefits is established, as well as a supervisory committee.

The Mortgage Act is amended with regard to the introduction of a general privilege on movable property for maintenance debts. That privilege shall be placed in a favourable position for the entitled to maintenance and shall be limited to EUR 15 000.

Finally, the Criminal Code is amended by providing for the possibility for the court to punish the crime of family abandonment with the expiration of the right to send.

Dear colleagues, the liberals of Open Vld clearly support the general objectives of this bill to improve the functioning of the Service for Maintenance Claims and to better inform the public about the services provided by the DAVO. Positive elements include that the DAVO will be given more resources to recover the advanced alimony payment and that clear commitments will be made to avoid abuse. During the various hearings, it was also stated that today only 17 % to 25 % can be recovered. Of course, it cannot be that the taxpayer eventually becomes the asshole of the story.

The positive elements should not blind us. There are also some negative elements to this bill. We are almost certain that soon after the meeting of the new Chamber initiatives will be taken to improve this legislation. After all, it is the justified fear of many that there will be a significant increase in the budgetary burden for local authorities as a result of raising the income limit to be able to resort to the advance scheme to 1 800 euros, not indexed.

Questions may also be raised in the amendment of the Criminal Code to provide for the possibility that the judge punishes the crime of family abandonment with the expiry of the right to send. This does not seem to be the appropriate sanction in this case. We are curious about the real reason why this has been included in this bill.

Finally, because of the Department of Justice, we have heard the emergency cry that the establishment of the central record of judgments, judgments and acts granting a maintenance allowance will not be possible within the time limit provided in the draft law. Therefore, we already know that one of the following laws containing various provisions will determine that the date of their introduction must be postponed. We have been warned about this from the FOD Justice, but we have not been able to adjust that anymore. It was feared that the bill could no longer be approved this week because it would then have to be sent from the House to the Senate and back. We already know today, and we must also dare to admit it honestly, that the central file will not be there on the date indicated in the bill.

These three elements – the budgetary burden for the municipalities that will fundamentally have a large influence, the illogical connection with the possibility of taking away the right to send and, thirdly, the impossibility of having the central stock ready – will lead to the majority of our group approving the proposed bill. However, other members of our group will abstain, stressing that in the future we will need to rethink the three elements that we have just highlighted, but primarily the budgetary impact on the municipalities, which is not small.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question, because the problem here has been quite common in recent times.

Instant legislation is being made. The government falls and they want to push things through. Everyone from the majority then comes here on the floor to declare that they will address the matter in the next government.

We have experienced the same here, for example, with the gas fines.

Mr Van Biesen, you are talking about taking away the driving license. The press has fallen on this. All parties subsequently stated in the press that the measure was somewhat exaggerated, except CD&V, who – honestly fairly – defended the measure.

Now you come here with a certain form of tjeven regions declaring that something and something will be redirected in the next government.

Mr. Speaker, your use of words does not suit you.

I regularly suspect it.

Mr. Van Biesen, now it is again the same problem that we have experienced here with the GAS fines. We discussed the gas penalties.

That is not correct.

Something would not happen. Now we find that people have to go to the therapist because they throw a snowball.

Taking away your driver’s license because someone doesn’t pay alimony is the same thing. It is even an assault on the incomes of people who do their best to pay alimentation. I take the example of a professional driver whose driver’s license is withheld for such a measure.

I did not have the debate in the committee, which does not mean that I do not find it a ridiculous measure. It is also a flight from your party, by asserting that you will do something about it in the next government, while you are powerless to do it today.

Mr. Dedecker, you not only have the right to ask a question here every week, you also have the right to intervene in the committees. You also have the right to express your opinion on this issue.

Today, I say very clearly that the main line of this bill is really necessary. Many of Parliament’s initiatives support that DAVO be given more resources to recover the advances and that people have easier access to the DAVO. We have emphasized this here. We have outlined three elements to be careful about because we think that they are not correctly assessing the consequences. That doesn’t mean we can’t pass this law today. We have made our point clear, and it’s a pity that you, who always say you’re straight, don’t understand straight and clear points of view.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commence with Mr. Van Biesen’s comment that I can speak here. He is of the party of free speech who does nothing rather than depriving others of the word or preventing others from speaking.

Second, Mr. Van Biesen, what I want to say is that you are passing laws here, just like in the debate about the GAS fines. You approve laws here and you say that you will postpone them, while you know that there are very large gaps in them. Why do you approve them? You are in the government. Why are you not in the committee to ensure that this goes out?

The [...]

The floor is given to Ms. Almaci.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the colleagues can take a look at the poverty barometer between discussions, as well as the impact of the crisis of the past years on child poverty, which has only gone in a rising line. After all, this is the core of what we are discussing today. It is a draft law aimed at addressing the declining number of advances collected that have a direct effect on the increase in child poverty.

In 2011, the poverty risk in our country for single parents with at least one child was 22.2 %; 38 % of single mothers without maintenance income lives in poverty and a third of families with children escape poverty thanks to maintenance. This makes the purpose of the debate today clear. Nutrition is an extremely important tool in tackling child poverty.

In the present bill there are two fundamental elements. First, the increase of the income limit to 1 800 euros per month, which, says the minister in the committee, 70 % of the entitled to maintenance benefit from advances. Second, a more efficient recovery. In essence, I would like to address these two points.

It is undoubted that raising the income limit is a step forward. We congratulate that.

Green, however, has already submitted a bill a few years ago, in which we simply remove that income limit. After all, one cannot say that an income of 1,800 euros per month, increased by a supplement per child, is a quick income for single parents. It is and remains discriminatory to set such an artificial threshold.

There is an important argument used by the minister, in particular the budget neutrality. One argument that the minister himself used in the discussion in the committee is that from the study of the HIVA at the KU Leuven, which shows that spouses usually come from the same social category. In other words, if the wife’s income is higher, the husband’s income is often higher. This leads us to the conclusion that some measures to ⁇ better collection for that higher income category may still be more effective than for others, and that some of the side effects mentioned here will be even less of consideration for them.

I was the only one in the committee who questioned the effectiveness of the withdrawal of the driving license. I find it remarkable that today, after the press has written about it all, a number of colleagues suddenly saw the light. I asked the question about the effectiveness and honesty commands to say that the minister has answered that it happens in the UK. In the United Kingdom, this is an effective measure to increase the number of recovery in the case of divorce. Even in the newspaper was the reason.

by [...]

No, Mr. Dedecker, it is up to you to determine your own point of view on this.

In addition to the withdrawal of the international passport, there are two examples from abroad. The Minister would give us a comparative report with all possible existing measures. I still need to receive it, but I am confident that we will still receive it.

In any case, this legislation provides for a whole range of additional measures to allow for additional recovery. Just the element of the withdrawal of the driving license is ⁇ the most sensitive for the highest income category in terms of status. Mr. Dedecker, it is a measure imposed by a judge, as a last resort of pressure. The press acknowledges — not my words — that men are apparently more sensitive to the use of their car and are overrepresented in the figures on non-paying maintenance. It is the judge who makes the decision.

Mrs. Almaci, I can contribute to a part of your analysis. It always comes from the legislator. I would like to make a comparison with the gas penalties. This measure creates a very large form of arbitrariness, and I fear that arbitrariness. The possibility exists, while the legislator hides behind the judge and claims that it is right below the ladder to happen. In practice, however, it is just the opposite. I am afraid of that. Based on that, you were a fierce opponent of the GAS fines. Just two months later, you can see what happens. That is what I fear about such measures.

Mr. Dedecker, my answer is very simple. You refer to one element that is used abroad with results and that is imposed by a judge.

If there is one criticism of those GAS fines, it is because of the arbitrariness, because any local politician can draw up a list ad absurdum. We see the results today. There, the Greens resisted, and they unfortunately did not get support from any other faction, not even from those who subsequently said that the absurd examples should come from.

With what you say, you just endorse our position. The judge will determine what needs to be done to move to a recovery in a different way when everything that was until now in the law does not help. I have confidence in that. You have no confidence in it.

Mrs. Almaci, I would point out that we were the only ones who abstained, largely because we wondered why this bill was fully discussed in the Finance Committee.

I also referred to the absurdities that were included in the Criminal Code. We have not received support for our request to refer the bill also to the Justice Committee. I would argue that you are the only one who made comments.

I agree with you that, as we said at the time, this bill had to be thoroughly examined in part in the Justice Committee.

Mrs Wouters, my comment concerned the question of the effectiveness of the withdrawal of the driver’s license. The Minister responded very well and said that it is being applied and that we take that example.

Withdrawal of the international passport could also have been a possibility. The Minister has pledged to provide us with a list of all that is applied abroad. That list was taken care of.

Each group should consider whether this is an important step forward for them or not. I had just started giving figures on child poverty and on the situation of single parents with children in poverty in our country today.

I have asked a written question to the Minister and I would like to quote them for a moment because it shows how pronounced the situation is. “Between 2010 and 2013, the number of open files increased from 24 978 to 36 756, the number of files requesting advances from 10 240 to 12 849. The amount to be recovered in 2013 was 280 million; 74 million of which have been recovered.” These figures do not just fall out of the air. This is about the daily life of children.

Green has submitted a bill whereby we want to remove the income ceiling, because we see it as discrimination and I have just stated why. I have also argued that, to me, those high-income groups may still be the most sensitive to the new measures that this law provides for the court to make additional claims, because they are status symbols. We regret that, but we recognize that this is an important step forward, a step worth taking.

But, Ms Gerkens said it already in the committee, not everyone is reluctant to pay alimentation, sometimes one just can’t. I share the criticism – and our group has repeatedly stressed it – regarding the shift of the bill to the local OCMWs. Mrs Gerkens made that comment in the committee: it is not good to make a caricature of people who have to pay alimentation, there are those who are unwilling but there are also those who cannot pay it.

It is reasonable for the government to bear that extra cost as well. Therefore, we have submitted an amendment, not to simply delete Article 7, but to assist the OCMWs. And so I call on Open Vld, N-VA and Mr Dedecker, all those who are concerned about the OCMWs, to approve at least this amendment. We have made this call many times, but so far we have never received additional support. In any case, it would be a step forward for all those children who are currently waiting for additional alimony, while at the same time supporting the OCMWs as needed. That would be better than remembering you and not approving the bill. I think that is a much more courageous choice. Either you endorse the principle and do it, or you do not endorse the principle, but then you must confess color.

This is what we present today. According to us, that income limit is arbitrary and leaves a group of people, who can still find it hard to get along with each other, in the cold, while the ex-husband is very often in the higher category and so we should be encouraged to pay that advance.

When it comes to the instruments, we have confidence in the court. I asked in the committee explicitly why and the effectiveness. I got a response and did my homework. Our group says that we can go on with this, that we can live with it.

The third remark was not to make caricatures of those involved. Some people who have to pay alimony have difficulty. Make sure that the OCMWs do not face those extra costs and support them as well.

Dear colleagues, if these principles are dear to you, assuming the basic principle that we must effectively strengthen the functioning of DAVO in this country because it has a direct effect on child poverty, then I propose that you approve our amendments. And then we are much closer – Mr. Dedecker is right – to a more complete law instead of approving something that shows some flaws, flaws we regret.

This issue is very important to us since the establishment of the SECAL date from 2003. We have worked within the Parliament for almost four years to establish a structure and arrangement allowing, in case of separation and if the debtor does not pay the maintenance claim due for the education of the children, to advance this amount, usually to the woman, the SECAL taking care of the recovery.

At the time, we had not initially envisaged a limitation of income for the person who could benefit from advances because we considered – and Ecolo-Groen still considers – that this right stems from a judgment which determined, on the basis of the contributive capacity of each parent, the number of children as well as the quality and lifestyle, the amount of alimony due for the children. From the moment when there is a judgment and that judgment must be considered as fair, there is no reason to justify that persons to whom this maintenance claim is due do not have access through the advance system established by the SECAL.

The project that is on the table, and which we will nevertheless support, does not intend to remove the income limit. It simply plans to increase the income ceiling that allows to retain this right. This is a step forward but, in a fair manner, there is no reason to act in this way since it is known that people with the highest incomes are most able, on the one hand, to pay and, on the other hand, to refund the advances granted for them.

Another important element is that the SECAL will have the opportunity to set up a mediation mechanism to improve the capacity to collect and pay maintenance claims. This is crucial, because without it, both parents, both in need, are at risk of getting into confrontational situations.

This is what justifies our amendment and we urge you to support it. Sometimes parents who are in a difficult financial situation find it difficult to pay alimentation. If, in addition, they have to fix a mistake, that is, repay an unpaid debt, they will find themselves in situations so painful that, if they are not careful, they will not be able to take on the care of their child.

It is legitimate to demand payment from them and to assign recovery capacity to the SECAL, but it is necessary to allow the CPAS to help those people. Furthermore, the federal state must assume the financial consequences of the policies it chooses by properly financing the CPAS, which are responsible for the support of these creditors.

I take the opportunity to remind you that the calculation of alimony claims is not easy, but that we now have tools to identify the criteria to be taken into account, how the costs and incomes of individuals will be assessed and how much each parent needs to raise the child (or children) according to the distribution of the child’s (or children’s) reception, accommodation and education.

We really advocate for a widespread objective method among magistrates and a discussion with the commission that has been set up through the Objectivization Law on the Calculation of Maintenance Claims. Per ⁇ it should also be considered to extend the arrangement not only to claims for pensions for the upbringing of children, but also for alimony between spouses, knowing that in this matter human dramas sometimes occur.

That’s why I would like to speak to my colleague, Mrs. Alva.

Mr. Speaker, since it has already been touched, I would like to briefly defend our amendment in the general discussion.

The main line is indeed important, but our group has submitted an amendment to Article 7 precisely to remove one of the negative elements from the bill. The DAVO is rightly given more resources to recover advances, but this must not be done at the expense of the local authorities, as has already been cited by several speakers. The costs should not be transferred to the local authorities. The Court of Auditors has already warned in its opinion of 3 August 2012 about the deflation of costs. The VVSG has already expressed severe criticism. That criticism is justified, because the amendment in question now ensures that the living wage is no longer guaranteed and that the income can be seized entirely in the event of non-payment of the maintenance.

It would already be 43 % of the amount to be recovered, which can thus be transferred to the local authorities. The OCMWs have rightly feared that, if the maintenance liable persons are unable to pay the maintenance fee, they will come to the OCMW for financial assistance, especially if it is a matter of not being able instead of not wanting. The amendment repeals Article 7. After all, it is not possible for the federal government to transfer its responsibilities to the local governments in this way. In figures, the federal government will fine-tune the recovery of the DAVO, but that will be done at the expense of the OCMWs, who are already having financial difficulties. This is a serious mistake in the draft law and we want to correct that mistake with our amendment.