Proposition 50K0067

Projet de loi relatif à la médiation en matière familiale dans le cadre d'une procédure judiciaire.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Tony Van Parys, Jo Vandeurzen, Servais Verherstraeten

Submission date

Sept. 9, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

divorce

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 ¶

May 3, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, I would like to start my discussion with an express word of thanks to all those who have contributed to the decision-making around this bill. I promised our co-worker, who has held the pen to a significant extent and who has now gone on a honeymoon trip, that I would have her name recorded in the Acts of Parliament. A proposal on family mediation cannot start better than with a reference to someone who has left on a honeymoon trip. I would also like to thank the officials of the Secretariat as well as the Minister of Justice, represented here by Minister Daems, and the staff of his cabinet. They have cooperated in an expert and constructive way with the bill. In fact, this is no longer a bill from me as the applicant, but only from all the members of the committee. There was a lot of input from everyone and the bill has gained a great added value from the discussion. It was a good example of a constructive parliamentary debate. I would like to conclude my word of thanks with a thank you to the Chairman of the committee who has determined to lead the work so that the proposal has also landed well. This can be called the landing-Erdman. It is not my intention to explain the entire bill here in extent. We should not exaggerate the impact of this bill on judicial proceedings. However, it is important because it indicates that Parliament can give a new orientation when we reflect on the judicial procedure and the role of justice in society, knowing how over-demanded justice is and how it seeks a second breath and greater credibility. Although we pay a lot of attention to the criminal aspects of justice, with this bill we have yet again sought to draw attention to the justice as the body that intervenes in often very painful and emotional discussions that may develop during a divorce procedure. We indicate that we are aware in parliament that our justice must also know its boundaries. The judiciary must be able to reflect on its essential core tasks and to focus on the bodies and actors that are more appropriate in resolving certain in this case family-related disputes in order to seek with its support solutions in which people can find themselves. These solutions must not only be just but also be perceived as just by the people. Therefore, the proposal to include the procedure of mediation in the Judicial Code is a very important step of principle. We have debated this in the committee for a long time and we have finally made the choice that we as legislators should dare to say that the judge, the one to whom the parties come in the full fire of the struggle, should be given the opportunity to place the dispute in a much more objective context. Then one can leave the emotionality of the discussion and experts can attempt to reach solutions through consultation with the parties that are felt by everyone as fair and correct. We have long debated whether we should make mediation a general rule for conflict resolution. In some countries, this is already much further. The question, therefore, was whether or not we would incorporate mediation in general into the judicial procedural law. Following the discussion of the bill, the committee has acted wisely by seeking to regulate in the first instance the procedural aspects and the status of mediators. It is, in fact, a matter that primarily lends itself to mediation, in particular the family and emotional matters relating to divorce and conflicts between parents, children, cohabitants. The Commission has sought to provide a legal framework for this new procedure within the broader scope of mediation. The hearings have shown that there are already mediators and lawyers who have followed this training, that there are people in general welfare work in Flanders with this expertise, that there are judges who cautiously suggest the parties to look at the conflict in a serene context with the help of a mediator. This is improvisation, an experiment. The hearings have shown that it is useful to better regulate the status of mediators, to which I will return later. It is also important to clarify the position of the judges in the discussion. The judge is no longer the suffering figure who cannot take the initiative. He can now, although with the consent of the parties, take the initiative. Finally, it is necessary to arrange a procedural bypass between a divorce on the basis of certain facts and a possible divorce by mutual consent where the mediation would have resulted in an agreement between the parties. These elements have led us to register this procedure. The proposal on divorce mediation has become a proposal entitled family mediation. As Christian Democrats, we are pleased with this. We attach great importance to sustainable relationships between people. As legislators, we give the signal to consider disputes concerning the person, subsistence or property of spouses, cohabitants, children, in the context of mediation. The development and expansion of the proposal was largely inspired by colleague Giet. This is a good evolution that we immediately supported. The proposal now occupies a good place in the Judicial Code, is applicable to a wide range of conflict situations with a family character. The proposal can inspire the parties to a different solution in many conflict situations. The judgment of the judge is often a Solomon judgment but not always a judgment by which all parties can reconcile. I would like to draw your attention to a number of important elements in the general discussion, in particular the importance in the orientation of justice, a different way of settling disputes, the family context as the important first choice to consecrate in a law and the expansion of the problemology to the family disputes. The mediation procedure is characterized by a number of provisions. Through the discussion in the committee, with experts, the text has evolved positively. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this. First, it was decided that the King would fix the tariffs. Second, the mediator is bound by professional secrecy. This is an important element. Third, we have explicitly stated that mediation is only possible in a voluntary context. Fourth, the mediator must also possess a number of qualities and expertise. However, the essence of the story is that mediation in family matters is reserved for people who have ⁇ a special education. The court can then determine the context of the procedure. We look again at the communities. Also in terms of debt mediation and debt mediator status, we have looked at the communities to determine recognition criteria for those who are not lawyers or notaries. If the House approves this bill, this again means a call to the communities to do what is necessary from their competences so that natural persons, other than notaries and lawyers, can assume this role and get the necessary recognition for it. Colleagues, in the discussion in the committee, it has often been pointed out that mediation is not judicial expertise. I think it is important to emphasize this once again. We have often noticed that there is a tendency to compare the mediator with a judicial expert who advises the judge as if about the judgment and the settlement of the dispute. It is important to emphasize once again that this is of course not the job of the mediator. The mediator is someone who, with a certain professionalism, seeks to create a framework in which the parties can abandon their passions, objectivize their dispute, defend their case with reasonable arguments and try to convince each other. The mediator tries not to influence anyone in one direction or another. As a dialogue leader, he strives to ensure that the parties reach common understanding regarding the maintenance obligation, the right of custody and visit to the children, and so on. This is an important difference. In the discussions, it was pointed out that after the mediation, the mediator does not turn to the court with a sort of evaluation report. He is also not mandated to report on his work and as if to give a sort of value judgment to the judge that could influence the latter in his decision if the mediation would fail. I think it is important that we continue to make this distinction. We are not concerned here with an expert and therefore not with a procedure that is governed by the rules of judicial expertise. I thought it was important to emphasize this. I would like to conclude my brief comment with a look at the future. The entry of family mediation into the Judicial Code is, in my opinion, an important statement of this Chamber, both in the field of mediation technique and in the field of family law. We show that we want to take our responsibilities. The committee has repeatedly pointed out that we have a long way to go in this Parliament in the field of family law. We are currently working on the guardianship regime and the provisional administrator. Also the problem of the divorce procedure is a topic on which the minds are maturing in the various parties so that it should be possible to carry out an improvement of the divorce law. The time has come to think of a genuine family court where specialized judges and professionals can approach the problem of the family, the family and the possible conflicts in an expert and humane way. Ultimately, this is an important hole in our justice system. In 1995, there were more than 34 000 divorces, half of which were by mutual consent. Conflicts between persons of a non-criminal nature must be resolved in a humane, fair and equitable way so that the persons concerned can accept the judgment. In this sense, the arrival of a family court with this initiative has come a little closer. In procedural law, this may be a small step, but in the conception of our justice, so the place of our justice in this type of conflict management, it is a big step. Thank you again to everyone who has worked with an open mind and constructively.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, a few words will suffice to tell you that the PS group is pleased that a consensus has been reached during the committee work on mediation and this, primarily in the family area. Each took the necessary steps to propose a text that, in the end, convinced the majority of colleagues of the importance of providing rules applicable to all family disputes and not only as originally planned, for what arose from divorce proceedings. I obviously admit that at the beginning, I was probably the first to ask myself whether it was necessary to legislate in the field of mediation, so it is true that in my opinion, at present, the Judicial Code and the legislation as a whole already allowed undoubtedly bold magistrates to resort to mediation. But we know that boldness may not be the quality—if it is one—shared by the majority of magistrates and ⁇ they are right to be more cautious than we are in this court at certain occasions. Since it seems that for many magistrates, it was indeed necessary to decide to legislate, I believe that we have chosen the right solution and that we have reached a quite positive compromise. Indeed, current practice demonstrates that it is not only the area of divorce in the strict sense that can be interested in this alternative settlement mode but the whole of the disputes in the field of the family and this, regardless of the situation of the couple: married couples, legal or de facto cohabitants, relations with other family members. The concept of family is also evolving. Situations are more varied than a few years ago and our right must adapt to this sociological evolution. Nevertheless, in any case, any separation within a couple represents a trial and a profound feeling of failure as well as intimate suffering and anxieties. Children are often lost and they are also anxious, or even hostage. However, it is appropriate for these broken families to find appropriate solutions to maintain a minimum level of contacts, in particular according to the children. Moreover, there is not always a guilty or a fault but a fact situation that leads people to make certain decisions. In these disputes more than in other disputes, understanding and dialogue must therefore be considered as an essential basis so that the measures envisaged on the patrimonial and personal level, before or after separation, can be executed without too much difficulty and in all serenity. Mediation therefore appears in this context as an additional way to try to find solutions while allowing or preferring dialogue. Under no circumstances should it be considered as a means of privatizing justice or a means of combating judicial retardation. On the contrary, it is a complement to the judicial settlement in a spirit of collaboration and not for a destructive purpose or revenge. Mediation is simply a new space of dialogue, structured within a judicial procedure and not outside it. Furthermore, if this mediation procedure does not result in whole or in part, the judicial procedure will resume its normal course. Furthermore, it is only possible if both parties wish to do so, since without the will to succeed, the search for a dialogue solution would appear futile. Some people will always prefer that the judge plays his role of authority and resolves the dispute. This is a different, but complementary, way of managing family conflicts. These goals are fundamental for our group, which is why we have tried to find a consensus text trying to cover all family situations in our society. Thus, in order to have effective mediation and to avoid certain difficulties, we have considered and still believe that certain rules must be imposed legally. At the level of the procedure, we include: - the need for an agreement between the parties; - the possibility of confirming the agreement in whole or in part by the judge; - the possibility of re-starting the judicial proceedings by a simple request; - the possibility of requesting an additional deadline; - finally, the verification by the judge that the best interests of the children are respected by the agreement. At the mediator level, only lawyers and notaries who have completed specific training or persons authorised for this purpose can be designated as mediators. The fees shall be determined by royal decree and mediators shall be rejected as a magistrates and subject to professional secrecy. These few guidelines should address the questions and difficulties raised by practitioners. As far as we are concerned, we will wait for the analysis of the effects of this legislation before providing for any other possible application. This other application would ⁇ be the establishment of the conciliator of justice, which is, in our mind, different from mediation in that this conciliator of justice would be, more than the mediator, integrated into our judicial apparatus. This is undoubtedly the debate that awaits us in the coming years because the issue of the generalization of mediation, which we have limited here to family disputes, to other sectors of law, if not to all the fields that civil justice deals with. Some, whether parliamentarians, Mr Michel, or practitioners, such as councils of lawyers, have worked on texts in this regard in order to create a generalized mediation. It is necessary to reflect on whether mediation is the solution or ⁇ , as I have just pointed out, the conciliator of justice, obviously understood as an institution within the judicial system, would not be better than to resort to people outside the system. My answer is not yet forged in this regard. The debate is likely to be resumed before this assembly. It is with great interest that the Socialist Group will participate in it, even though I have just mentioned a preference with regard to us. It remains that this debate on mediation indirectly joins a much broader debate, namely that of access to justice. I see that it is mr. Daems now represents the Minister of Justice. I suppose he will get acquainted with my speech through the parliamentary annals. But, since he is not the Minister of Justice in the title, I can’t bother him not to show a profound interest in what is said in this tribune. I will therefore take advantage of this debate on mediation, which joins that of access to justice, to repeat that in this regard, the government statement contains many points, many advances and many reforms that can be made in terms of access to justice. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Justice and the entire government make an effort in this direction. What the people want is that it can be made easier for them to access this public service that is justice. If there are many workplaces, it is now appropriate to put an accelerator hit there.

Mr. Bourgeois, I know that you are the reporter. You came here a little late, but still my compliments for the excellent report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I apologize for not issuing a report. I had prepared it, but did not suspect that there would be no interest in the first item of the agenda. I had misestimated the course of time. In any case, I have heard that it was referred to the written report and since no comments were made, I assume that everything is OK. I come here on the tribune, but not to debit a few further statements in detail. I think the previous speakers said almost everything that had to be said. On behalf of my group and also on my own behalf, I would like to congratulate the applicants and ⁇ Mr Vandeurzen on this bill. This realises an important novelty, makes an important step towards the humanization of our right and then for a branch that is especially eligible for it: the family law, the divorce law, the conflicting family relationship. Mr. Vandeurzen, you will agree with me that this proposal has become what it is now thanks to a very good cooperation in the Committee for Justice across party boundaries. If I am not mistaken, the actual proposal was completely rewritten up to twice through amendments. The last amendments submitted by you and two other colleagues were followed by a number of sub-amendments, which ultimately resulted in a good and coherent text. I will wait for a moment at the considerations of Mr. Giet who has also paid some attention to mediation and opens the path of the legal conciliator, or the conciliator juridique. I do not know whether we should take that path, but in any case I think that there is now a very large consensus in this hemisphere to avoid the procedural events as much as possible or to resolve them through some form of mediation. This was, by the way, at the beginning a rather principled discussion: will we provide legislation only on this point or will we open the debate more broadly to the broader conciliatory or mediating task of the judge or of a third instance as suggested by Mr. Giet? The question remains open, but we agree that this idea has been acquired. Thus, we can contribute to a faster process and to the reduction of judicial lag. I hope that from this point of view everyone can fully support the proposal. I hope it will get a large majority. As I said, I had prepared a verbal report. In this context, I have discovered that the bill can be improved linguistically on a number of points. I have expressed this in an amendment, but of course it is not my intention to cause a delay here. I do not know how this is best applied, but if everyone agrees, the corrections can be made. Linguistically, my comments seem perfectly correct to me.

Here and there, there are changes. Maybe you can explain this yourself.

Article 734a, paragraph 3, provides that the conclusions must be submitted to the Secretariat. I propose to replace this by submitting. This is correctly Dutch. In that same article, paragraph 4, third paragraph, is written the case is communicated to the Prosecutor of the King for prior advice. This is almost a pleonasm. I suggest replacing this by for advice. It is obvious that this opinion precedes the decision. Somewhere else in the Code is also spoken of advice. In paragraph 4, paragraphs fifth and seventh, it is stated that the court shall act. I would like to replace this with a granted act of. This is the correct Dutch terminology. I have checked this with linguists, Mr. President.

Mr. Bourgeois, I am guilty of this. I used identically the same terminology as in the text we approved on debt mediation. If the terminology is not correct, it would be better to change it in the other text. I wanted to reconcile the texts. I know there has been discussion. Some members wanted to take the term not to allow. It was then asked for advice from a linguistic service.

It may need to be checked again. In my view, the act is to grant rather than to take. In paragraph 4, paragraph 7, of that article, I wish to replace the words for the other points by those for the other points. I think there is little discussion about that.

Attention should also be paid to the translation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the proposal we are discussing today is important and we can be pleased that it is of parliamentary origin, since Parliament always has an obvious pleasure in approving bills but also in using this parliamentary initiative power. I will not enter into the technical debate, ⁇ interesting, but which would mask the importance of the social debate that the proposal arouses. It is important that the title of the proposal is changed and that we speak of family mediation rather than divorce mediation, as the legislator thus marks his willingness to meet interpersonal situations that, legally or not, lead to rights and duties through the commitment that two persons have made to each other. On the other hand, the family has evolved in a very important way over the last two centuries. We have moved from an alliance largely patrimonial, an alliance intended to perpetuate the family, to an alliance based on love. As an example of the vision of the nineteenth century, I recall that Napoleon had, in relation to Empress Marie-Louise, extremely brutal terms by saying: I marry a belly and nothing else. Fortunately, we have moved to ideals where love really plays the major role, that is, the relationship has gradually left the patrimonial domain to build on that of feelings. This evolution has a totally positive aspect, since it recognizes and consecrates, through public institutions, the weight and role of the feelings of individuals. The disadvantage, since the union is essentially based on feelings, lies in the fact that one cannot naturally witness continuously a union equal to that of Philemon and Baucis, and that the unions that form sometimes resemble what a family sociologist calls momentary associations. Society, therefore, in this context, must take into account, measure that breaks, when the union has been concluded on a sentimental basis, are also marked by feelings, that they are often wounds, and that the problem of society consists more in trying to limit the consequences of these wounds both for persons and their descendants and in trying to consolidate unions in the phase of rupture. The evolution of legislation in this direction is a good thing. It takes into account the evolution of the family and approaches the reality of respecting the fulfillment of each human being in its interpersonal relations. It is therefore our responsibility to channel the legal and social effects that result for both the interested parties and their surroundings. This proposal is fully in line with this logic, as it allows an accompaniment in a procedure which, by its essence, has a conflicting character, which is sometimes a conflict of interests but which is also very broadly a conflict of personal injury. As the authors of the proposal emphasize, by developing mediation services in separation matters, public authorities can help increase individuals’ ability to resolve their conflicts, which can only be beneficial to couples and their children and enables the development of healthy relationships between separated parents and their children. The conflicting horizontal relationship can be replaced by a very positive relationship on the vertical plane, that is, in the relationships between parents and children. The mediator does not have to interfere in the will of the parties to end the common life, but he can make a procedure that is often experienced as a failure more harmonious and less conflicting and which, almost always, leads to disorder. A complementary merit of the proposal is the new look on separation. Even yesterday, the social judgment of a separation remained heavy, both for the persons concerned and for their surroundings. The judicial procedure has often been, in the present case, a factor in this negative judgment, due to its rigidity and austerity. By allowing mediation on a voluntary basis, it induces a much more constructive, more accountable approach for spouses and that de-dramatizes the whole. Separation is then no longer experienced as a failure, but as a finding of the impossibility of living together, bearing itself a new beginning in life for each of the spouses with, in mutual respect, the settlement of the effects of separation. Legalizing mediation also means removing the guilty character that still too often results from separation, and it is recognizing a positive fact of society. In this context, our action should be extended because too often in legislation, the negative character is still attached to separation. I am ⁇ pleased that the deadlines for de facto separation have been reduced. We must continue to liberate ourselves from a negative view of separation. For all these reasons, the PSC Group will vote unreservedly on this proposal, which constitutes a modernization of the legislation. She wants to be more human and more sensitive to reality. In this case, law follows the normal evolution of customs in our society. This is a progress that I hope will be supported by a large majority.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, it may have been – at least for the members of the Justice Committee – from the very beginning clear that the VLD was initially not very enthusiastic about this bill. Mediation is a private matter between parties that cannot be imposed by a court in any case. In our modest opinion, the original proposal was not a good thing, as the court could force the parties – though with a gentle hand – to agree to mediation. In addition, it was initially referred to divorce mediation within the framework of Article 232 of the Civil Code. This article, which deals with the provisional measures imposed by the peace judge, is incompatible with the concept of divorce mediation. De facto cohabitants were also excluded from the application of the proposal. Through discussions in the committee and amendments, we eventually reached a text with which we could agree. I would like to thank the rapporteur and the chairman of the committee, as well as the services of the Chamber, without whose efforts the many amendments would never have reached the members of the Commission on time. In a democratic society, it is of the utmost importance that the citizen finds himself in the decisions taken by the judiciary. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. In the case of divorce, where the emotions are often very high, it is even more difficult for the judge to make a decision in which both parties accept the motivation and justification. For this reason, the bill on the reform of the divorce law and the introduction of the faultless divorce, which was submitted by colleagues Coveliers and van der Hooft and myself, provided for an active mediation role before the court when there is no agreement between the parties on the consequences of the divorce. Indeed, a solution reached by both parties through negotiations can be accepted much more easily than a solution imposed ex cathedra by the court. The same applies to family mediation. When people who wish to end a relationship turn to the court to settle the consequences of that step, the solution imposed is always inadequate and almost always carries the germ for new conflicts within itself. This bill is therefore a good thing in so far as it enables the parties to identify themselves with the judicial decision, since they themselves have contributed to its creation. This bill is also a good thing because it makes clear that the function of the law is to find solutions and not to push existing contradictions between parties to the forefront. It can therefore be perfectly read together with the VLD proposal to reform the divorce law and the introduction of the faultless divorce, which is currently being translated into the services of the House. To clarify this, we will amend Article 35 of our proposal, which governs how parties reach an agreement on the consequences of their divorce in the judicial phase. In the meantime, the current proposal can count on our full support.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, everyone knows and measures how society evolves every day more toward an ever-increasing judicialization. It is in this context that, naturally, the reflection focuses on the alternative way of resolving conflicts. It is clear today that the traditional way of resolving disputes between parties, consisting of bringing the case before the judge who exercises the mission of public power and who decides, sometimes with a certain brutality and in any case in a situation of rupture of dialogue between the parties, reveals very clearly its weaknesses and its limits. The ills affecting the functioning of the public service of Justice are now widely known. Unfortunately, it is almost common to denounce the slowness of justice, judicial backwardness and the extremely high cost of access to justice. Therefore, it is understood that for us, liberals, every step, every enterprise that aims to humanize justice and make access to it easier goes in the right direction. This is why we approve the bill as amended as part of our committee work, which will now allow for easier, and within a legal framework, use of mediation in all matters relating to family law. However, I would like to make a slight reservation. I will be brief, but I think it has some importance. by Mr. Giet was speaking to the judges. If some of them are bold, he said, the majority are not. Tomorrow, all parliamentarians will also have to be resolutely bold in these matters. I feel that we can go further, as the problem of mediation deserves, in my opinion, a more comprehensive approach and not specifically limited to family law or to certain particular branches of law. I found it interesting to develop a more general reflection aimed at incorporating, in the future, amendments to the Judicial Code allowing the parties to resort to mediation in all types of disputes concerning them. I would like to address in particular the members of the Justice Committee who followed this work. I carefully read the text of the bill and wondered what is the rule stated in this document that could not apply to other branches of law, real estate law, economic law, commercial law. After doing this exercise, it is necessary to find that in reality, the text is very broadly transposable to the whole of civil law. The first step will therefore be taken tomorrow, on the occasion of the vote on this proposal. However, I believe that the debate must be resolutely continued. As a conclusion, dear colleagues, I read quite recently, in a book whose title I forgot, that justice is a civilized form of violence. I believe more than ever that mediation is an even more civilized form of violence.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, at the beginning of the discussion of the present bill as it was submitted in its original form, the Flemish Blok group fully expressed its support. After all, it was a bill concerning divorce mediation. Subsequently, this bill was denaturated, in the sense that its direction changed. The draft law on divorce mediation was amended into a draft law on family mediation. The Flemish Bloc was especially surprised at the attitude of the applicants of the original bill, more specifically some members of the CVP, when their party immediately engaged in the logic of the PS and consortiums and thus ignored that the distinction between, on the one hand, the traditional form of society - the marriage between man and woman, as the cornerstone of society - and, on the other hand, all other forms of partnership, was once again thrown away. My colleagues, do not misunderstand me. Let it first be clear that we are not opponents of any form of society, whatever the gender, sexual orientation, cultural origin, and so on, of two or even more partners. This, after all, belongs to the fundamental free choice of every human being, and it can or should not be tormented. Neither do we oppose mediation, attempts at reconciliation or friendly settlements, on the contrary. First, in the framework of personal and family law, but also beyond, concerning all possible forms of conflicts and disputes in society, we are in favor of attempts at reconciliation or at least of mediation for the purpose of a peaceful settlement, whether it be a simple neighborhood dispute or a mediation between multinational enterprises. However, due to the central position that marriage still occupies in our society – or at least should occupy – the Flemish Bloc can only with full conviction identify itself with the original proposal, the proposal in connection with divorce mediation. For all other conflicts and disputes in society, including the non-traditional forms of society or partnership, a different bill had to be submitted. Of course, this sounds formalist, but the privileged position of marriage should be preserved more than ever, both formally, substantially and symbolically, according to the Flemish Bloc. It was indeed appropriate to send out at least a symbolic signal in favour of marriage, both in the consideration and voting on this bill. However, what is happening? All parties, including the CVP, choose a different direction. In a period in which denatality in Europe takes dramatic forms, in which the United Nations saw as its solution the absurd idea of bringing as many as 135 million non-European migrants to our continent over a period of several decades, both Parliament and the entire Western society have the disastrous and counterfactual tendency to banalize marriage and family, to wipe it out under the mat, in short, to turn it into a gray mouse in the crumbling collection of societal forms of various pluralities. It may have been worthless for my discourse in the plenary session and in the committee, had it not been that the discussion of the present bill roughly coincided with the discussion on the adoption of minors, following a government bill already announced. Disproportionately much attention was immediately paid during this last debate, which had just begun, to the fact that it would no longer be possible for homosexuals to adopt a child. The Flemish Bloc, however, seems very logical, but these minority groups have powerful lobbyists and, of course, they immediately get an extensive and benevolent forum to complain about their needs, including in the press, and this in contrast to a political party such as the Flemish Bloc, which has more than 600 000 voters behind. Why am I referring to the debate about adoption? Because the party of the applicants of the bill on divorce mediation, the CVP, immediately adopted the leftist logic that prevailed in the debate on the adoption of minors, this in order to keep certain holy groups friendly. Thus, the CVP has already declared itself in both debates - on the draft law divorce mediation and on the announced adoption law - ready to eliminate, even on the fiscal level, the distinction between marriage on the one hand and gay and other partnerships on the other. In this regard, I refer to the intention of generalizing the application of the marriage quota. Similarly, the CVP immediately followed the left-wing logic of the PS, who immediately submitted a series of amendments to throw divorce mediation on a bunch with other forms of society or partnership. As a result, the important and meaningful social distinction has once again been blurred. Per ⁇ it is coincidence, but the fact that the CVP was so kindly seduced to transform the bill on divorce mediation into family mediation, at the same time that it almost fully meets the demands of the Pink Action Front and relatives, is for us much-telling. For example, the CVP puts the strike to slinger her best leg in order to be able to play the front in the left class. This leads them to the left. This becomes more and more noticeable. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the attitude of the CVP gives me mixed feelings. On the one hand, I should be satisfied as a right-wing, conservative nationalist. Flanders think and vote on the right. According to the latest polls, the national electoral ceiling of our party has not yet been reached. Nevertheless, the political civic society on the left side seems to gradually fall into the prey of overcrowding. The left-handed cattle is faced with an almost even larger herd of progressive shepherds. On the other hand, I feel uncomfortable with the attitude of the CVP. I even find them scary. This Party takes a progressive position, without blinking, in matters of personal and family law, as well as in other matters. Whether I like it or not, or my faction now likes it or not, the Flemish Bloc is once faced with the famous fact that there is an enormous amount of ideological space on the right flank of the political field. Occasionally there is a lonely tip of the type-Coveliers, who tries to score from the right, or an attentive libero of the type-Ward Beysen, who tries to recover a lost ball in the right camp. In vain, because one has already been so often tackled by his own squad sizes along the back that his calves and ankles see blue from it and the other is, in view of the municipal council elections, already put out of the squad. On the left flank, the traditional parties walk in front of each other in order to score, and they cut each other the grass for the same body parts. Meanwhile, the right flank is completely open and the Vlaams Blok can score on the running band. This also applies to this issue. Therefore, I would like to ask this question to my respectable CVP colleagues, the original applicants of the proposal. Is it really your ambition to remain brave on the invaders’ bench of the cordon sanitary, now that the left’s ideological aversion to your party, raised for more than 30 years, has managed to put yours on that reserve bench? If you answer this question in a negative way, I would rather believe the opposite, but your views on these and other issues only convince me of the opposite. Therefore, the Flemish Bloc will ostentatively abstain from voting on your bill. We are not against mediation in conflict, but we do not want marriage, the traditional form of family in particular, to be taken again from its foothold. The CVP is guilty of this. O tempora, o mores. This is how I want to decide.

I would like to thank the rapporteur for the report. Mr Vandeurzen, you should not be too modest. You have thrown flowers to everyone, but you have forgotten yourself and your fellow insiders. As Chairman of the Committee on Justice, I would like to pay tribute to you as the initiators of this debate. Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that the committee has approached the issue well by, on the one hand, working with the academic world, including with professors who teach this subject on a daily basis, and, on the other hand, listening to the field workers who know the subject and have made important observations. Recently, they pointed out that practical problems with divorce mediation are not excluded. However, no legislation is final. The present text aims to keep the mediation procedure within the financial limits. We emphasized that tariffs must be determined. I acknowledge that we have lost sight of establishing an assessment procedure, such as in the case of the experts, so that discussion can arise. The judges are suggested at the appointment of the mediators to immediately determine who and in what manner the commissions and the bill will be paid. The Government is not represented.

Mr. Erdman, Minister Daems is walking in the walkway.

In the Senate of Rome, there were walking senators who reformed the world. Apparently Mr. Daems is following in their footsteps.

Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Daems is not conducting a GSM conversation and thus violates the Rules of the Chamber, he is lunatic.

I admit that I ask questions in the conversation I heard him conducting with himself.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to emphasize that all the performance of the mediators is part of the legal debate and ipso facto should be accounted for as services not subject to the VAT system. If this were the case, the cost would rise too much. If one seeks inspiration on what is happening today by lawyers on the ground, then one considers these interventions as free of VAT in any case. This is very important in these circumstances for those involved. As far as the concept as a whole is concerned, I am very happy that one has finally come to the family mediation. With this we have once again taken the step towards the humanization of disputes that take place in the relationships between people within the family framework, but then interpreted in the widest possible sense even if some have offended it. This is an essential element of the proposal as it is presented today. Unlike many others, I have questions about a necessary step towards generalizing the mediation procedure in the context of the legal debate, but not about the principles. Mr. Michel has rightly emphasized that many of the rules contained here can be easily applied to other disputes. However, I am a little afraid that this will eventually become a cure for the diseases that prevail today in the judiciary world, unless, of course, one wants to offer alternatives to a judicial apparatus which we try to functionally improve in every possible way. If we constantly offer balances to eventually escape legal retardation, inconvenience, inertia and duration, then you give the hand free to those who continue to do so. Thus, you do not come to a repair of the situation within the framework of the judicial apparatus on its own. So I have questions about whether this can be transferred to any domain as ever formulated in certain proposals. If I determine what is happening today in the field of arbitration – and which is not easily accepted, is costly and is not much faster – then one asks whether it would not be better to enforce the decision on those different domains within the framework of the existing judicial apparatus.

Mr. President, Mr. Erdman, I can actually follow you. I also recently broke a lance for mediation, but I may have been a little too unclear or summier in it. I am not found in favour of outsourcing to third parties and private persons an increasing number of judicial work that belongs to the task of the judges. I follow you fully. I only thought about the active mediation role of the judge as it happens in the Netherlands and what leads to the resolution of disputes in der minne. This avoids further conclusion, plea, appeal and cassation. We need to continue this track. However, with your comment, I am following you. In the long run, you can outsource the entire judiciary and say it works.

I think we agree on that point, as long as the mediating role of the judge is effectively played and does not fall into the sacramental formulas that we now know in the labour process law. A second aspect was emphasized by colleague Vandeurzen and I can fully agree with it. More than ever, we need to focus our attention on family law in general and specifically on all conflict situations in family law. Mr. Speaker, within the framework of my mandate, I have asked the Secretariat to examine whether we can extend the academic assistance we have ⁇ for this proposal. We can eventually consider how we can organize a study day within the committee. On this day we can go deeper into the various ideas that are alive today and that have been expressed during the discussions. Some of those ideas were even expressed in certain amendments and colleague Coveliers was so kind to withdraw them during the discussions in order not to aggravate the debate. I find it best to find solutions as soon as possible to the daily problems facing the population, directly or indirectly, which lead to dramatic situations, with all possible economic, social, family and personal aspects associated with them. I also support Mr. Vandeurzen’s plea to work seriously on a family court, an old idea that was translated into a bill by, among other things, my former colleague, now a member of the Arbitration Court, Mr. Cerexhe. Yesterday, during the discussion of the draft law on guardianship, we could still find out that, for example, when a young person wants to complain about his guardian, such a file goes to the prosecutor’s office, after which it is transferred to either the juvenile court, if it is his person, or to the court of first instance, if it is a complaint about the management of his property. This is not a healthy procedure. There must be a uniform approach. Furthermore, the peacekeepers are also the requesting party to exercise those powers together with the juvenile judges. In any case, I congratulate the applicants and all those who contributed to the drafting of the proposal, and conclude that the SP group will convincedly approve the bill.