Proposition 50K0107

Projet de loi modifiant la législation relative à la protection des biens des personnes totalement ou partiellement incapables d'en assumer la gestion en raison de leur état physique ou mental.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Jos Ansoms, Luc Goutry, Jo Vandeurzen

Submission date

Sept. 23, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

disabled person guardianship

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR FN 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 ¶

March 21, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the bill amending the legislation concerning the protection of the property of persons wholly or partially incapable of managing it due to their physical or mental condition has been discussed in several meetings, for a long period in the Committee on Justice. The Justice Committee has discussed the

This proposition of law has been discussed several times in commission, and this on a short period of time quite long. Elle reprend le texte d'une proposition de loi déposée au cours de la législature Act drawn at the meetings of 25 April, 3 and 30 May, 12 July and 20 September 2000 and in a second phase, on 22 February, 5 March and 12 March 2002. The bill, which was submitted by colleague Goutry, together with several others from his group, recalls a bill that was submitted in the previous legislature and sought to improve the same problem. As part of the discussion of this bill in the previous legislature, a number of amendments have already been submitted. When you submitted your bill in this legislature, Mr. Goutry, you reworked it and took into account a number of amendments that were submitted at that time, and some of the comments that were formulated during the discussions at that time.

Colleagues, the bill aims to improve the law of 18 July 1991, as regards the management of the property of the mentally ill. This law organizes a flexible system of provisional administration. Depending on the situation of the person concerned, management may be entrusted, in whole or in part, to an administrator. The measures can always be adjusted. This is the difference with the measures for, for example, mentally disabled people. For them, it is necessary to organize long-term protective measures, which happens in the form of prolonged minority. The improvements that were proposed in the original Goutry bill, can be summarized in a number of strength lines.

First, many peacekeepers have the habit of appointing the same person as governor too often. The submitters of the bill wish that, in the spirit of the law, a relationship of trust between the person to be protected and his governor will be sought. Therefore, the possibility is organized to designate a trust person who will be involved in the provisional administration. He must make sure that the property of the mentally ill is also used for the improvement of his fate.

Second, the decision appointing a temporary trustee should only apply for a certain period of time. The legislation proposes a maximum period of validity of ten years. This restriction also gives others the opportunity to act as governor.

A third force line concerns the remuneration that must or may be awarded to the interim trustee.

The fourth force line is a change regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the peace judge, which provides the possibility of allowing the peace judge to make arrangements with his colleagues when the protected person transfers his place of residence to another canton.

The fifth force line concerned the fact that a number of legal systems are no longer applied in practice and should therefore be abolished. This applies, inter alia, to the regime relating to the declaration of judicial incompetence.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, as I have already said, this bill was discussed extensively in a first phase in the Committee on Justice.

All fractions have been at the word. There are also a number of amendments in ingediend, of which it merendeel past in the previous. This proposal takes into account the amendments that were submitted at the time and aims to improve the law of 18 July 1991 on the management of property of mental patients. There will now be a flexible system of provisional administration. For persons with mental disabilities, a longer period of protection is made possible in the form of an extended minority.

This proposal contains five lines of strength. Many peacekeepers are accustomed to appointing the same interim administrators too often. We want to establish a relationship of trust between the person to be protected and the administrator. Trusted persons should be appointed as administrators.

Directors may be appointed for a maximum of 10 years. Others have the opportunity to become administrators. Managers will be paid. Peace judges may enter into agreements with their colleagues in cases where the person to be protected moves his residence to another canton. Finally, this bill abolishes certain outdated legal regimes such as the ban.

The majority of the amendments fall within the strength lines of the proposal. The amendment submitted by Mr. Bourgeois and myself has the broadest scope and proposes the renumeration from 488bis to 489 to obtain a coherent system of protection statutes for persons temporarily or temporarily incapable. The chairman of the committee had proposed that a consultation should take place between the different groups in order to reach a consensus.

The discussion comprises four sensible points: the limitation of the number of mandats d'administrateur provisoire, the adoption of a contradictoire or unilateral procedure, the problem of the protection of the strength lines of your bill, Mr Goutry. I will not go into detail on the various amendments, but I would like to explain the amendment of colleague Bourgeois and myself.

This is the most comprehensive amendment because it includes a re-numbering of Article 488a to 489. The purpose of this amendment is to develop a coherent system for the various protective statutes currently applicable to the various categories of temporarily or completely invalid. This amendment was incorporated in the first phase of the discussion, but eventually the chairman of the committee — who today apologised — proposed to Mr Goutry to consult with the various political groups in order to reach a consensus on a number of fundamental issues that, after discussions in the various committees, had not led to a concrete solution. Their

I’ll give you the four big tricks. First, there was a discussion on whether or not limiting the mandates that a temporary administrator may exercise. Second, there was the problem of the contradictory procedure versus the unilateral procedure. Third, there was the problem of the protection of the person. The bill only deals with the protection of the property of the disabled while the amendment of colleague Bourgeois and myself also deals with the protection of the person. The fourth point concerned the definition of the trust person. Their

Colleagues, these points explain the period between the first phase of the discussion and the second phase, which began on 22 February 2002. Collega Goutry then submitted a revised amendment that eventually served as the basis for the further discussion of this bill. Their

Finally, I will illustrate the strengths of this amendment. The amendment takes into account the comments made. I quote from the report on page 58: “The amendment that comes forward takes into account the comments already made during previous discussions and on which a high degree of consensus has already been reached. There was no consensus on the limitation of the number of mandates of the interim managers. Consequently, this issue is temporarily left out of consideration. The main procedural reform concerns the contradiction of the hanger points of the procedure. There are contradictions at the beginning and at the extension of the provisional administration. Furthermore, the possibility of a preliminary arbitration is introduced. Anyone will be able to appoint their interim administrator. Parents of children with disabilities can also open such arbitration to their children."

The next important point concerns the figure of the trust person. This person does not have any management authority, but has the role of the link person.

The function of the trust person is defined in the bill only de facto.

Colleagues, I have also outlined the strengths of the amendment that was submitted after a certain period and which then formed the basis for further discussions. On the basis of this, a number of minor amendments were submitted. Ultimately, this amendment completely re-imposed the initially submitted bill. Person and the definition of the notion of person of trust. This fact, a certain time has elapsed between the first and the second part of the discussion, in the course of which M. Goutry has deposed the amendment n°52. This amendment takes account of the observations made, which have already been the object of a broad consensus. The discussion is continued on the basis of this amendment.

The amendment, which replaces the original proposal and has even been amended, was adopted by twelve votes and one abstention. by

It was agreed with the Minister and the Chairman of the Committee that the amendment submitted by Mr. Bourgeois and myself would be examined as soon as possible in the Justice Committee. This will enable us to create a consistent system. Finally, I would like to thank all those who have participated in a constructive spirit in the conclusion of this bill. Amendment No. 52, zoals gesubamendeerd, hat het oorspronkelijk wetsvoorstel vervangen. Het werd aangenomen met 12 votes voor in één onthouding.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to add, finally, that there is also an explicit commitment, both due to the chairman of the committee and due to the Minister of Justice who participated in the discussions at that time, to the amendment, as colleague Bourgeois and I had submitted it and which has a wider scope, in particular also the protection of the person of the disabled declared, but also to the development of a coherent system with regard to the various statutes on disability, this as soon as possible also again in the Committee on Justice. I think there can be a large consensus on this subject. Today we are faced with several separate statutes relating to individuals in this society who were somehow declared partially or entirely incompetent. So it would be good if we could reach a coherent statute.

This is my report. I would also like to thank all those who have cooperated constructively in the further development of this bill, because this is an important matter that many persons, either partially or temporarily, are faced with a situation in which it is important that society seeks to develop better and the best protective measures.

This is an important bill with a huge impact. It is of parliamentary origin and it was put to the approval.

Mr. Goutry, it is a peculiarity that your amendment no. 52 the whole bill, after enriching the discussion, replaces. That is joyful.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the Goutry bill and the Goutry law, as they will undoubtedly go through the future life, aim to make a number of major changes to the provisional regime.

The procedure referred to in Article 488a is an inexpensive procedure; it is a low-threshold procedure in which the peacekeeper adds a temporary administrator to a person who, due to his mental condition, is wholly or partially unable to manage his property.

This procedure is very frequently applied in practice and to such an extent — and that is not irrelevant to the rest of my argument — that it completely supersedes the other statutes of protection for mentally disabled persons — the declaration of incompetence, the assistance of a judicial counselor and the like.

Since the introduction of Article 488a, the number of declarations of incompetence — a legislative text that, by the way, is drawn up in horrifying terms and, in fact, is offensive to the persons concerned — and the additions of a judicial adviser have declined.

Mr. Speaker, in recent years there have been fewer than five incompetence declarations and additions of a judicial adviser

This bill introduces significant changes to the regulation concerning the provisional administration. The procedure provided for in Article 488bis of the Civil Code is put into practice so frequently that it relegates to the background the other status of protection. The number of declarations of disability and appointments of judicial councils has decreased since the entry into force of this article. In 1993, 3,366 proceedings were instituted on the basis of Article 488bis of the Civil Code. By 2000, this number had risen to ⁇ 6,000. It should be clarified that the largest number can use this procedure and that it is quick and inexpensive. The ageing population also plays an important role in this increase. in the Belgian Staatsblad. Reden genoeg — zo dachten wij — om tot een evaluation van deze wetgeving over te gaan. This is immediately for us one point of criticism on the legislation, dat naar onze mening, niet ver genoeg gaat.

The deterioration of these two procedures is in sharp contrast to the procedure 488bis which is increasingly used. From 1993 to the present day, a permanent increase can be observed. In 1993 there were only 3,366, in 2000 there were about 6,000. The evolution of course has to do with the low threshold, speed and low cost of the procedure, but also with the ageing of the population. The legislation is increasingly applied to dementia elderly persons residing in a rest and care facility.

I will go a little deeper into the amendments made by the proposal-Goutry. One of the main changes that was not initially included in the proposal but was added to it after amendment by us relates to the procedure. It will be a contradictory procedure. We find this very important and are very pleased that the majority is willing to address this. At present, the person to be protected is not a party in his own process. This results in a person who is the subject of such proceedings having to resort to third-party opposition in order to enforce his rights. This is, in my view, a violation of the right to defence. It is very important that the person to be protected itself is called and itself becomes a party. I would immediately add that the law does not impose the obligatory assistance of a lawyer. However, we had proposed this. Now it is pointed out that the person to be protected can appeal to a counselor or a trust person if he wishes to. It would, in our opinion, have been better if the mandatory assistance had also been included in the law.

A subsequent change makes it possible for a person who is still healthy in mind to indicate in advance in a declaration of will his preference over the person who would be appointed as his governor if he becomes incompetent. The same possibility also exists for parents who are appointed as temporary custodians for a minor child. They may, in a declaration of will, express their preference for an administrator in the event that they will no longer be there to act as an administrator.

The third important novum is the introduction of the trust person in the law. He has the task of assisting the protected person. It also serves as a bridge between the protected person and the administrator. He may be designated by the protected person himself or by the peace judge. He must be informed about the course of the government. Conversely, the trustee can inform the trustee about the lifestyle of the protected person so that the trustee who must subsequently carry out a personalized trustee can better align his trustee with the protected person. Their

The manager is better controlled. He must make a statement of assets and passives. He must prepare a report annually. He will be ordered to draw up a final report within 30 days of the end of his term of office. The law gives a very detailed assignment of what should be included in the report. I will not go deeper into that.

Een volgende wijziging is dat in het bevolkingsregister melding made One of the major changes is that the procedure is now contradictory. Currently, the person to be protected has not participated in the trial. This is a violation of the rights of defence. This change came after we submitted an amendment and we are delighted that the majority accepted it. It is a pity that, in the meantime, she did not also accept our request to provide for the mandatory assistance of a lawyer.

Anyone will now be able to choose, by a declaration of will, the administrator he wants to be appointed, if he is hit with disability.

The introduction of the trust person is a new element. The person of trust may be designated by the person to be protected or, where appropriate, by the peace judge. She is kept informed of the dossier. The manager will be controlled more rigorously. In particular, it will have to report annually.

The term of office is limited to ten years, but it is renewable. We were supporters of an unlimited duration.

A protected person may not make a donation or a will in favour of his administrator. This is a new provision. In addition, donation between living persons and the expression of testamentary wills will be subject to certain conditions. This bill significantly improves the status. by

The introduction of the contradictory procedure constitutes a step forward. by

We advocate for a system that allows a lawyer to be assisted, as it guarantees compliance with the law of 26 June 1990 while enhancing the protection of the person to be protected. It is the fact that someone under bewind stands. by

Another amendment is that the duration of the mandate is limited to 10 years. We have discussed this. You remained with your position. We believe that the duration should be unlimited, provided that there is strong control and that this mandate can be terminated. The duration of the government is, in principle, 10 years. This period may be extended at the request of the administrator but also of any interested party and even by office by the peace judge. In the absence of renewal, the powers of the peace judge shall be extended for three months. The law stipulates that the assets of the administrator and the protected person must be clearly separated. Another novum, not uncontroversial, is the problem of gifts and wills and marriage by persons under government.

The text approved by the Justice Committee states that a protected person may not make a donation or draw up a will in favour of his administrator. That is obvious. In addition, it provides that a protected person may only make a donation after a number of conditions have been met. For example, an expert must confirm that the protected person is capable of disposing, a resolution among the living or by testament must be made in notarial form and the peace judge should be informed of it. The protected person is also obliged, if he marries, to conclude a marriage contract approved by the peacekeeper.

I would like to give a brief review of the bill. The introduction of the contradictory procedure is undoubtedly a significant improvement of the statute. In our view, it is absolutely impossible to limit a person’s capacity to act to a greater or lesser extent without that person being a party to the proceedings. Otherwise, his ability to defend himself will be heavily mortgaged. The current regime in which a person to be protected is considered only as a person to be taken into account, for example after the submission of a petition for voluntary intervention, is aberrant, ⁇ given the fact that the law per definition covers persons who, due to their health condition, are unable to manage their property.

I have already noted that the text does not go far enough for us. We prefer a similar procedure as in the law relating to the person of the mentally ill of June 26, 1990. That law not only provides for a contradictory procedure, but also mandates the assistance of a lawyer. We have two arguments for this. A first argument is the uniformity with the legislation of 1990; a second important argument is that we consider the mandatory assistance by a lawyer to be of added value because it implies additional protection for the person to be protected. The lawyer is there to defend the person concerned, to watch over his rights of defence and to professionally ensure that everything goes out in the best possible way. There is indeed a trust person, but that person initially has a different function and is not necessarily a lawyer.

We find the legislation for a number of other aspects a gemist chance. Iedereen weet dat of procedure heel vaak wordt toegepast, even in die mate dat of gerechtelijke onbekwaamverklaringen in de bijstand door een gerechtelijk raadsman in onbruik zijn geraakt. We know also that heel vaak een beroep op die procedure is done voor de bescherming van dementerende Article 488a is often applied in the case of dementia elderly persons staying in rest homes. However, some jurisprudence rightly opposes this procedure. Some peacekeepers, in fact, argue that the law of 18 July 1991, when referring to parliamentary preparatory work, refers only to a provisional situation and can therefore not be applied to persons whose state does not allow any hope of improvement. Moreover, the internment of elderly persons in rest homes is contrary to Article 12 of the Constitution, Article 1 of the Law of 26 June 1990 and Article 9.1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Admission to an MRS where access is governed by a code is equivalent to an internment for dementia elderly persons unable to use these codes. Such internment may be prescribed only by a person to whom the law has conferred such competence. Since Article 488a relates only to property, internering falls outside the competence of the administrator or the director of the MRS. by

Our Bill No. 1225 proposes a coherent system, inspired by examples from abroad and integrating the protection of the person and his property. The advantage is that the Peace Judge can take a whole range of measures against people suffering from any dysfunction. We remove the prohibition and other ineffective procedures to replace them with a procedure before the peace judge, more easily accessible. Our proposal is widely supported and constitutes a significant legal improvement.

We regret that our proposal could not be attached as an amendment to that of Mr. Goutry. It has been mistakenly claimed that a wider reflection should be devoted to it, while it was matured reflection. bejaarden die in een gesloten rust- in verzorgingstehuis zijn opgenomen, omwille van het beheer van hun goederen.

This addresses the question of which there is a lot of discussion, in particular whether the peace judge can take such measures. In fact, Article 488a relates to the property of the person. There is jurisprudence in which the assistance provided by a temporary administrator for dementia elderly in a rest and care home must be refused. The peacekeepers rely on two arguments. On the one hand, they refer to the parliamentary preparation of the Act of 18 July 1991, which states that Article 488bis is intended for a temporary state. From this it can be inferred that the procedure cannot be used when it is clear that the elderly in question will no longer improve and even deteriorate.

On the other hand, the peacekeepers claim that the detention of elderly persons in closed institutions is contrary to Article 12 of the Constitution, Article 1 of the Act of 26 June 1990 and Article 9.1 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights of 19 December 1966 which stipulates that no one may be deprived of his freedom except on legitimate grounds and in a legitimate manner. No matter how justified the concern about the restriction of the freedom of movement of a dementia elderly may be, however, according to this case-law, a decision to be included in a RVT, the access to which depends, for example, on entering a code that a dementia elderly cannot know and can not track, can only be taken by a person who has the power to do so under a law.

Since Article 488bis relates only to the management of the property, according to that case-law, neither the administrator nor the management of a rest and care home can decide to accommodate an elderly person in a rest and care home. I think that justice has a point. The inclusion in a rest and care home is indeed a measure that affects the person of the elderly. That is, therefore, outside the scope of Article 488a.

Measures concerning the person and measures concerning the goods are, of course, virtually inseparable in practice. A donation, for example, has property legal implications, but of course also includes a personal rights component. The same applies to the choice of a place of residence. What about medical treatment? Can a temporary administrator decide whether or not to provide medical treatment? Who decides what medical action is performed on a dementia elderly? This falls outside the competence of an administrator who has only control over the goods. The protected person himself is insufficiently healthy of mind and therefore unable to make such decisions.

Our Bill 1225 introduces a fully coherent protection system inspired by foreign legislation and that extends the procedure to the person of the mentally disabled. It allows the peace judge to develop a assistance scheme tailored to the person to be protected. That can be from a full representation, for example for a person who is completely dementia, but it can also be mere assistance, for example for a gambling addict. The proposal will also allow a heavy drug or alcohol addict to be treated, of course always with the restriction that the measure requires L'absence de limitation des mandats des administrateurs ne nous semble pas une bonne chose. You understand that l'on désirre professionnaliser cette fonction mais comment fonctionner de manière professionnelle si l'on exerce 200 mandats à la fois? Their

As they are increasingly demanded, will peacekeepers have time to follow and control administrators? by

What happens if no action is taken at the end of the ten-year period? Our preference went to an unlimited period with the possibility of terminating the mandate when the administrator no longer gives satisfaction or when the interested party no longer needs protection, which would have avoided the risk of possible continuity solutions. The authors of this text evolve on a dangerous terrain by introducing the possibility of making donations and by providing provisions relating to marriage. In doing so, they affect the rights of people. Consistency requires clear choices.

I hope that we will be able to liberate time to examine our bill, which is truly necessary due to the growing ageing of the population. Older people with dementia should be protected. We missed an opportunity that was given to us. That is why we will abstain at the time of the vote on this proposal, even if we recognize its qualities. must be his door of toestand van de betrokken persoon en dat de proportionaliteit gewaarborgd moet be. Het voordeel van ons voorstel is dated of vrederechter bevoegd zal zijn voor het nemen van een ruim scala aan beschermingsmaatregelen voor personen met eender welke intellectual dysfunction.

We also immediately cancel the declaration of incompetence, as well as the assistance of a judicial counselor and the administrator in the context of an internment. These are all unused procedures, which are completely overlooked. We incorporate everything into that one, low-threshold procedure for the peace judge.

Our proposal receives very much support, both from the legal doctrine and from the practice. Dr. Swennen has done a doctoral thesis on this topic at the University of Antwerp. He supports the proposal to develop a full statute as included in our proposal. The workplace is largely behind this proposal. I refer, for example, to the 2001 Study Day, organized by the peacekeepers, who are strongly demanding parties to develop such a procedure. Finally, our legislative proposal is a big progress. All legal practitioners abhor the reading of Articles 488bis, a to k. Those who have to include that in their petitions or conclusions are always facing a huge problem. By abolishing these other overdue procedures, we can finally fully incorporate that bill into the Civil Code. Articles are released and we number the articles 489 to 513, all of which have been released.

We regret that our proposal could not be added by amendment to Mr. Goutry’s very good proposal. It should, of course, remain his merit and his bill. The argument was that more should be considered and discussed. It was too much rush, the criticism was. I doubt this very strongly. Our proposal dates back to May 2001. We spent a lot of time on it. We spoke to the peacekeepers, who organized a colloquium. We also heard the field of work and we know that a doctoral thesis was made about it. So our proposal could have been perfectly added to the proposal-Goutry by amendment.

Apart from this general criticism, we have a few minor concerns.

First, we have reservations about the trust person. The intention of the applicants was undoubtedly good. They want a guarantee for a personalized administration, which is an excellent starting point. Therefore, they prefer a non-professional governor. However, the question arises whether the introduction of a trust person will not lead to the opposite. Peace judges could see in particular an argument to designate a professional governor, since there is a bridge function with an individual, personal trust person. In this regard, we also regret that there was no radical opposition to the limitation of the number of mandates that a temporary governor can have. That was a sensitive point. We all know that there are numerous lawyers with dozens of such mandates. We do not find this a good thing. Also by the people who are dealing with the problem in the field, it was opted to reduce the mandates. We have opted for twenty mandates per governor. There was no majority in the committee. I regret this. They say they want professionalism. However, if someone fulfils 200 such mandates, the question arises whether sufficient personal contact with the protected person is possible.

A second concern is that the proposal imposes stricter reporting requirements on the administrator and also increases the number of control moments. However, the question arises whether the peacekeepers will have enough time. After all, they are increasingly asked to introduce quality control moments. Entering a rule is one thing, actually performing it on the ground is another thing. Questions rise about this.

A third consideration, we are not in favour of the limitation of the mandate to ten years. Or it is a personalised administrator who knows the person concerned well and does his work well. Then we find that he may continue his work, but after a negative check he may be dismissed. Or it is assumed that after ten years there will be an automatic renewal of the mandate. There is no reason to limit the duration of the mandate.

In addition, there is a small danger of a hiaat. What will happen if at the end of the deadline no one takes an initiative to renew? Does this result in the person under government falling without protection? Probably yes. In some cases, the three-month extension provided for in Article 488bis, f, § 2 will not resolve the problem. This means that the extension takes place under the personal responsibility of the administrator. Is the administrator not in all cases responsible for his actions and for the manner in which he fulfils his mandate? Our preference would have been based on an indefinite term, of course with the possibility of terminating it if the person concerned no longer complies or if the condition of the protected person no longer requires it. In any case, our proposal would not create the danger of a gap.

A final consideration is that the text enters into a dangerous territory by introducing the possibility to make donations, to test and to enter into the territory of marriage by binding a marriage contract with the permission of the peace judge. Thus, in fact, even if one is in principle limited to the management of the goods, one engages in the field of personal rights. Donations are, of course, property law, but also have to do with very personal affairs. It is one or the other. Either one limits Article 488a to the goods, or one follows our proposal and the peacekeeper can opt for small protective measures to a full assistance by the administrator. It is one or the other. Now the proposal is a little overwhelming on both problems.

This creates the risk of inconsistency. The person is allowed to rent, test and make donations. This, of course, means that there is also a personal rights assumption. Nevertheless, I hope that time and space will be found to work out our bill that is truly a necessity. The ageing of society is increasing at an alarming rate. If I’m right, it’s like we’re getting a quarter older every year. The population is getting older and there are more and more lightly demented to heavily demented elderly. The problem of protecting their person becomes enormous. This is not resolved by taking measures with respect to their goods. The person must also be able to fall under a protection status. However, this is not included in the bill. In addition to those smaller points of criticism, we find this the biggest point of criticism. We believe that a chance has been missed. No matter how much we congratulate Mr. Goutry — we consider this to be an excellent bill regarding the reform of the current situation — we will, in principle, refrain from giving the signal that very urgent work needs to be done on the second loop. Mr. Goutry, on behalf of our group, once again congratulations on your hard work. You have done wonderful work.

Mr. Goutry, you are the last speaker and also the meritorious man in relation to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I thank the rapporteur for the full report of the long parliamentary work. Furthermore, I would like to thank Mr. Bourgeois, on the one hand, for his congratulations and, on the other hand, for his constructive comments that we discussed in the committee. Colleagues Van Hoorebeke and Bourgeois, on my part, there is in any case the commitment to discuss with equal zeal and seriousness also the proposals submitted by you. This is a matter that affects everyone and goes far beyond political events. We are looking for better support for vulnerable people.

This proposal has a long parliamentary history. The first proposal dates from 1994. It was a bit premature and there was basically too little in it. We then only proposed a limit to twenty files per administrator, which was not a good approach afterwards. In view of the response from the sector, we made a further elaborated proposal in 1996. Then, due to the size of the proposal and the complexity of the proposal, a sub-committee was installed within the Justice Committee, which in several sessions examined the proposal. However, we also experienced disasters. Following the work of the subcommittee, the proposal was almost mature to be considered in substance in the Justice Committee. However, this has fallen into the water by the parliamentary recession in 1999.

However, we persisted and drafted a third proposal, which was submitted at the beginning of the new legislature, in October 1999. It is that proposal that has been continuously amended and revised since then. This is the proposal that is now on the table. The advantage was that we did this for a long time and that therefore it could be well consulted with the peace judges, the notaries and the people of the sector, for example Similis and other organizations engaged in the counseling of psychiatric patients. We have also started talking to, for example, people who have responsibilities in rest homes. Their

We reviewed and combined the various opinions. We have always tried to include them in our texts. We even managed to prepare a coordinated text to keep it readable and discussable. It is ultimately that text that recently reached the final line in the Justice Committee. Colleagues, I think I can say that we are presenting a mature and well-considered proposal that is generally conducted and expected. We can see this in the reactions of the last few days. Since it has been heard that this is changing, many people have expressed their expectations and asked for explanation.

They are interested in learning more about it.

Colleagues, the law of 1991, which provides for the protection of goods through a

This issue concerns us all and goes beyond political divisions. The protection of the weakest is important to us. This committee has provided constructive work.

This proposal has a long history. The first proposal came in 1994. Following the reactions of the sector, a refined proposal had been submitted in 1996 and a subcommittee had been created within the Justice Committee. Then came the parliamentary holidays of 1999. In October 1999, a third proposal was submitted from the outset. It is this proposal that we are now examining after a broad consultation with the various relevant stakeholders whose opinions have been integrated as far as possible into the texts. The proposal has reached maturity. by

This law of 1991, which regulates the protection of the property of the administrator, is frequently applied, in particular due to its great flexibility. We continued to build on this effective system that we have further improved.

A number of fundamental principles underpin this proposal. As personalized as possible management gives the protected person a central place. The Peace Judge first checks whether a trusted person or a family member is likely to play the role of administrator before addressing a professional administrator. forlopige bewindvoerder invoert, is tot op heden een veelvuldig gebruikt system dat of others has verdrongen. Het voorlopig bewind is een zeer goed toepasbaar in flexible system dat partiel of over het geheel van de goederen, voor langere tijd of voor korte tijd kan worden toegepast.

We continued onto the good system of 1991, but we also listened to what could be improved. There has been a lot of response from individuals facing dementia as it is increasingly found that management is difficult, for example due to disagreement between the children. In order to protect the property of that dementia, the peace judge is requested to appoint a temporary administrator.

The basic principles of the proposal are as follows. First, we have sought to make management as personal as possible by centralizing the protected person. The money and property of the protected person shall benefit him and him alone. The distance between the management, the administrator and the protected person shall be as small as possible.

Second, we would like to ask the peacekeepers to make good use of our proposal. It should always be checked whether no one in the family or in the immediate circle of the protected person can take over the management. For this reason, we stipulate in the law that the peacekeeper must justify why he does not do so and why he appoints a professional administrator — usually a lawyer.

If a professional administrator is appointed, this bill creates the possibility to appoint a trust person as well. This is about someone who makes the bridge, who is familiar with the protected person, who can communicate with him, who knows his needs, who has a sense with the way of life of the protected person and knows how to make that person happy. This trust person can then translate this to the interim administrator and in this way he can act as a social lawyer. Furthermore, that trust person may indicate the concerns of the protected person to both the peacekeeper and the interim administrator. This trusted person also receives a hearing right. The peace judge must hear him on his question so that he can communicate his concerns.

The trustee will also be in possession of the annual report to be drawn up by the trustee so that he can determine what the goods are, how much is available and how it can be best used. The term of appointment is limited to 10 years. After 10 years there comes a kind of mandatory evaluation moment in which the situation needs to be looked at thoroughly. Colleague Bourgeois, the 10-year term of appointment is also intended for cases where there is a transfer of mandates between peace judges. Peacekeepers who succeed another peacekeeper do not know the person concerned except from the records. In this way, everyone is obliged to re-examine the case at least after 10 years. At that point, it can also be decided to deprofessionalize management. The peace judge may discharge the lawyer who was then appointed because in the family or acquaintance circle no one could be found after this evaluation moment of his job and assign the management to someone else.

Op die manier wordt het aantal professionele bewindvoerders ook stilaan afgebouwd. Sometimes they have a lot of files. Bepaalde mensen doen 100 in even 200 bewindvoeringen. When an administrator is appointed, it will now be possible to also designate a trusted person who will have the right to be heard in such a way that his concerns can be made known to the peacemaker. by

The term of designation will be limited to ten years. The aim is to provide for a period of reflection and to ensure that the transfer to another peace judge proceeds smoothly. From that moment on, we can also opt for a de-professionalization. By allowing the interested party to express his/her wishes in advance, he/she is allowed to determine himself who will eventually, in the long run, be the administrator. This is a delicate problem for many people. The interested party may express his wishes before a notary or an investigation judge, and these will remain secret. The decision cannot be challenged in advance. Parents will be able to designate the persons who will administer the property of their children after their death. by

We have legislated very well. It must be said that this is a very important matter. We hope that this bill will provide an appropriate response to the wishes expressed by people who are facing such difficult situations.

We hope that the sector will seize the opportunity offered by this proposal to lead a better policy, and that peace judges can thus guarantee better protection.

Finally, I would like to thank for their efforts all members who have collaborated in a constructive spirit in the establishment of this text. Years can also care for a certain, geleidelijke afbouw.

It is always guaranteed that no one falls without a governor. Their

The last major force line of the proposal is the preliminary determination of will with a double effect: in the face of all of us, in the face of the person himself, as parents who can do so in the face of children. The preliminary determination of will allows that one can determine by life and well-being at a slightly advanced age himself who will ever take care of someone’s money and goods when he can no longer do it himself, for example due to dementia. A lot of people seem to attach importance to being able to record it themselves. With the increase of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia due to the ageing of the population, this problem is still sensitive among people. Their

The great advantage is that it can be done in two ways: either through the notary with authentic acts, or through the peace judge. In principle it is free. One turns to a peace judge or a notary, makes an act of will-determination and stipulates in it who is appointed as a temporary governor. That will remain secret. It remains kept in Brussels in the famous Capa Register in the House of Notaries. This, by the way, already works well for wills and other documents that are already in custody there today. The advantage of secrecy is that the decision one makes cannot be challenged in life or at the moment one chooses for someone. It remains secret until the situation arises and the peace judge must decide to appoint someone, take note of the will and then execute it, if possible of course. Their

In the second case, it is about parents who, in terms of life and well-being, can determine whom they want to designate once they are no longer there themselves to then take control of the property and money of their children. This is a widely heard comment from parents with disabled children who feel fairly safe if they can take care of their children’s goods and money on their own, but who wonder what will happen if they can no longer do it on their own. We often hear parents say that they would rather be able to arrange this themselves. If they could express their own will in this regard, they would be more calm. They would then know that they had suggested a good appointment and that can now: parents can now turn to the notary and the peace judge to say who after them should be responsible for the administration, by recording that in a will.

Mr. Speaker, I come to my decision. I think there was thorough legal work done here. We have not taken light on this as stated in the report, Mr. Van Hoorebeke. We have dedicated many sessions to this. I am pleased with this, because it is not about this matter at all. We have listened to the peacekeepers, the notaries and even the secretaries to know whether it is all enforceable and enforceable. Most have said that they are pleased with an evaluation after ten years and that we have made upgrades and refinements. It is ⁇ the intention of all who have contributed to this that this will be an appropriate answer to many questions from vulnerable people to whom we owe good protection. We have strengthened the role of the peace judge: we give him more instruments to do his work well as a family judge, close to the people. We give him that entire area of resources to choose the most suitable. He must therefore always give accountability to those involved. Their

With this bill, we have made civil law more social and user-friendly with respect to this chapter. We hope that the sector will seize the opportunity to take advantage of the new possibilities of the law. We will make every effort to translate this into human language and to inform people who are dealing with it about the possibilities. We hope that the peacekeepers will also show this. Their

Furthermore, we hope that the organizers of colloquies and congresses on this topic will be equally consistent in announcing and helping to promote the changes.

We then hope that the peacekeepers will make full use of our work in the interest of a sound and secure business protection of vulnerable persons.

Finally, I sincerely thank the Chairman of the Committee on Justice, Mr. Erdman, for the support he provided and for the way he led the debates. I also thank all the committee members and of course the rapporteur, who cooperated constructively and from a strong social concern in the processing of this bill.