Proposition 50K0289

Projet de loi modifiant les articles 42 et 51 des lois relatives aux allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés, coordonnées le 19 décembre 1939.

General information ¶

Authors

Vooruit Hans Bonte, Jan Peeters

Submission date

Nov. 29, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

family benefit

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

FN VB

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Jacqueline Herzet (MR) abstained from voting.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 9, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the Social Affairs Committee met on 12 January last and examined the two proposals of law, the one of Mr. Speaker. Borginon, Pieters and Van de Casteele, on the one hand, and our colleagues Bonte and Jan Peeters, on the other, both relating to family allowances for wage workers. These two bills aim to eliminate discrimination in family allowances for children who are respectively part of a de facto household consisting of same-sex partners and a heterosexual household. For a number of years, we have seen the increase of new forms of common life, of atypical and complex households. Social law has always cared about factual situations and has recognized, to some extent, factual households. However, it must be noted that for one-third of the family allowances, same-sex partners cannot open a right as attributees of the head of a child that is not theirs. The above-mentioned discrimination in the legislation on family allowances is contrary to Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The proposed text aims to remove the discrimination contained in Articles 42 and 51 of the Coordinated Laws of 19 December 1939 relating to family allowances for wage workers and therefore removes the condition relating to the gender difference in the head of the attributees who open the right to benefits. During the discussion of the articles, an amendment was introduced to Article 3. This amendment aims to resume the eighth of paragraph 3 of Article 51 of the Coordinated Laws on Family Benefits for Employees in the enumeration of the provisions of the same Laws. This eighth applies in particular to beneficiary children for whom a person has been assigned parental responsibility by judgment of the youth court. Article 1 was adopted unanimously. Article 2 was adopted by 8 votes against 5. Amendment No. 1 was adopted by 9 votes against 2 and 2 abstentions. Article 3, as amended, was adopted by 8 votes against 5. The whole proposed text, as amended, was adopted by 8 votes against

The proposal presented to you today was examined in the Social Affairs Committee on 26 January 2000. In his introductory speech, the author of the proposal, Mr. Geert Bourgeois, indicates the scope of the text which aims to correct a material error at the origin of the current drafting of article 53, paragraph 3, of the laws relating to the repair of damages resulting from occupational diseases, coordinated on 3 June 1970. This provision provides that in case of contestation before the Labour Court of decisions of the Occupational Disease Fund, the expenses are fully borne by the Fund, unless the claim of the victim or his rightful successors is timid or vexatory. Excuse me if I re-enter the terms of the report but it is such a technical matter that it is somewhat difficult to make the summary, but I will not be too long. However, it is apparent from the preparatory work of Article 55 of the Law of 30 December 1992 concerning social and various provisions, amending Article 53 of the aforementioned laws of 3 June 1970, that this provision is in fact aimed at temerary and vexatory requests, hence the importance of a small conjunction. The draft law submitted to the Senate contained, indeed, the words temerary and vexatory. The term temerary or vexatory suddenly appeared in the text adopted by the Senate committees, while the Senate Social Affairs Committee had not modified the text of the draft on this point. However, the intention of the legislator has been clarified in the House Social Affairs Committee. The Government has heard to restore in the aforementioned article 53 a provision which was originally found there but which had been erred by mistake by the law of 29 December 1990 concerning social provisions. However, Article 53 of the Coordination Decree of 3 June 1970 contained the words téméraire and vexatoire. The drafting of the coordination order did not make a mistake. Article 50, last subparagraph, of the law of 24 December 1963 relating to the repair of damages resulting from occupational diseases and the prevention of such damages contained the same wording. By comparison, the Labor Accidents Act of 10 April 1971, in its article 68, provides that unless the claim is timid and vexatory, the costs of all actions based on this law are borne by the insurer. This concept was established by the law of 20 March 1948. It complements, as regards the costs of proceedings, the Coordinated Laws of 1903 on occupational accidents. It was about humanising the right to social security to enable victims of work accidents to bring a lawsuit without fear of paying high court fees, including for experts and others, and being condemned to pay the costs. The judge can only condemn expenses when the person incorrectly claims to be a victim of a work accident, without finding that his request is timid and vexatory. In accordance with the letter of the Act of 3 June 1970, the victim of a occupational illness or the person who believes to be eligible for compensation under that law could therefore be condemned to the costs more quickly than the victim of a work accident, which appears to be incompatible with the principles of equality and non-discrimination (Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution). The proposed text therefore aims to replace the coordination conjunction or the coordination conjunction and Article 53 of the aforementioned coordinated laws of 3 June 1970 in the case of temerary and vexatory requests challenging the decisions of the Fund for Occupational Diseases in the field of occupational diseases. If this text is adopted, since it constitutes a procedure rule, since it relates to the imputation of judicial costs, it will come into force immediately and will therefore be applicable to ongoing proceedings, in accordance with Article 3 of the Judicial Code. I would like to pay tribute to the author of the text, Mr. and bourgeois. During the general discussion, the Minister of Social Affairs and Pensions endorsed the proposal. One of my colleagues, Mr. Peeters, asks to check whether, in the rule of application of court fees in the head of the beneficiary of social benefits, there is no distortion between the other regimes and the branch we are talking about. It should be recalled that in matters of social security, by derogation from the common procedure law, where the costs are borne by the deceased party, the judicial costs are borne by the bodies responsible for the enforcement of the regulation and not the beneficiaries of social benefits, except – we return to the terms of the proposal – in the case of a timid and vexatory request by the latter. Both articles were adopted unanimously. I will add a personal comment. We welcome this correction. Mr. Bourgeois, you have done useful work and the Parliament will ⁇ follow you since the text has been adopted by the commission. This proposal will restore equality between the procedures applicable in social law, those relating to occupational accidents and those relating to occupational diseases. Social and legal security will be greatly improved. Access to justice for victims will be facilitated. It is a matter of humanising the procedures, in particular with regard to social law. Our group will therefore adopt this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the PSC cannot subscribe to the bills that are now subject to the vote of the assembly for several reasons that are, for us, fundamental. I will explain them in three points. 1 of 1. The proposals start from a postulate that a child is equal to a child, and aim to eliminate discrimination. The New PSC has ⁇ supported this principle for a long time. We would unreservedly support a proposal of law based on this logic if it settled, in a global way, other discriminatory situations. For example, the situation of the first child of the self-employed – these bills do not provide a solution in this case – or the situation where no family allowance is paid due to the absence of titles to these allowances in the head of the parents or the person to whom the reconstituted right is attached. This last case affects more than 2% of children in our country. Giving a gift to homosexuals and not to self-employed in such circumstances reflects, for us, an ideological party-taking, which we cannot admit. The social security system, and in particular that of family allowances, is based on a fragile balance. Special regulations of this order are likely to challenge this fragile balance. We therefore advocate for a comprehensive settlement, eliminating all discrimination, whatever, and established on the basis of the family allowance recognized as a right of the child, of all children. It is of course not in our intention to want to refuse family allowances to children of homosexuals, but it is the individual right of the child to family allowance that must be provided. However, this is not the case in the texts submitted to us. 2 of 2. The PSC acknowledges that in relation to different forms of communal life, a number of rights and private factual situations, such as housing, contribution to household burdens, etc., must be respected. But we cannot admit that the legislator encourages the education of children by homosexual couples. It cannot be consecrated by the norm a situation in which the child is confronted with the difficulty of creating the essential distinction between man and woman. Irreducible sexual differentiation remains one of the fundamental anthropological data to which the education and development of the child is attached. To date, there is no example where the State has encouraged an initiative challenging this basic anthropological data. We therefore believe that the authors of the proposal, inspired by a libertarian ideology, play with fire and that an additional step is taken towards the pure and simple adoption of children by homosexual couples. This is a thesis that we will not accept and that we will continue to fight. 3 of 3. This initiative ends discrimination, which is obviously not a bad thing in itself. But, I repeat, we cannot admit that through a partial legislative modification, we address, in a almost anodine way, societal problems that are fundamental and deserve a real debate. We find that so-called pragmatism increasingly tends to replace the norm. We want to draw the attention of Parliament and Government on the implications of certain legislative initiatives that endorse localized and limited facts by bypassing substantive debates. We call for a return to substantive debates and global solutions to the problem of discrimination. This is not the case with this proposal; therefore we will not be able to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Speaker for delivering a very detailed, comprehensive and nuanced report. Actually, I do not need to add so much to this. I also thank Minister Vandenbroucke, who is represented here by his colleague Demotte, for his support in the committee. I would also like to thank my colleagues who unanimously approved this bill in the committee. Mr. Speaker, I know that you love remarkable matters in this hemisphere. This may be the shortest bill ever. In fact, it aims to replace two letters in the Law on Occupational Diseases. The word or is simply replaced by the word and. At first glance, this can be denigrating, but it is nevertheless an important bill. There was no other way to make this right than a law change. I would like to present this bill in bird flight. The former Code of Civil Procedure and the current Judicial Code provide that the costs of the court are borne by the losing party in a dispute. This was also the case for social matters and thus also in the Labor Accident Act of 1903. After World War II, for social reasons, the legislature rightly found that this was an excessive disability for victims of work accidents or people who consider themselves victims of a work accident. It was then included in the Labor Accident Act the provision that the costs are always borne by the employer or his insurer, except when the claim is delayed and reckless. In 1963, the same provision was entered into the Occupational Disease Act, which was normal and consistent. This law was coordinated in 1970. Later the fate struck. I have looked at what all happened to this article in the Occupational Disease Act and I dare not put the whole relay here because it would be a deterrent example of reverse quality of legislation. The legal evaluation and the quality of legislation we are currently working on must be implemented urgently. This famous article, which included a correct provision, suffered an accident as a result of an amendment through a program law in 1990. The whole provision has, of course, been removed. The warning legislator discovered this in 1992. The government wanted to correct this and has submitted a draft law in this regard. However, in the Senate, the text of this bill has been changed. They were then made of thirsty and reckless thirsty or reckless. The worst thing had not happened yet. I will save you the continuation. In successive publications, one has managed to change this famous phrase from article to article. As a result, the people of the Legistiek Service did not even know whether my bill was related to the third paragraph of Article 53 or to the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 53. There is now more or less a consensus that it is about the third paragraph of Article 53. Let me explain why this is important. If it is stated in the law that only in the case of an undue or reckless case the costs are borne by the Occupational Disease Fund, then this constitutes a discrimination against the law on occupational accidents and against what we all want. In fact, we want that only when the claim is both due and reckless, the costs are to be borne by the plaintiff. Thirsty and reckless means that one must be truly malicious, that one must be faithful to evil. In the case of a claim that is incurring or reckless, the requirement is not so heavy. Anyone who acts in a light-sensitive manner, without thinking or against a advice, can then be condemned to the costs. These costs can be very high. This usually involves expert expenses. A person who has suffered from a occupational illness or believes to be the victim should be able to go to court under the same circumstances as a person who is the victim of an occupational accident. Despite the pericles that have occurred with this law, this has always been the intent of the legislator. I would like to thank you in advance for approving this very short bill.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I think the present bill fully fits into the federal government agreement, which aims to gradually adapt social security to the development of the various forms of society. At the same time, this is a first step in the equality of children, regardless of the situation of the family in which they are raised. More and more children are growing up in atypical families. It is the task of the legislator to ensure that children are not punished for this by the government. Of course, other discriminations should also be eliminated for the VLD. I refer here to my own argument during the discussion of this proposal in the committee, where I advocated the equalization of the family allowance for the first child of a self-employed person. Mr. Poncelet also spoke about this. There is no age allowance for the first child of a self-employed person. I have heard that the Flemish Bloc has now also become the defender of the self-employed. It is indeed necessary to take action in this area, but I heard from the government that it is working on it. However, I regret that members of the opposition link the present bill to the taxation and the existing discrimination between married and cohabiting persons. Not only does one have nothing to do with the other, but on the contrary, there is also discrimination in terms of social benefits. I refer to the problem of survival pensions. Moreover, it is a little hypocritical of the CVP faction, which is not present here, to make it now its battle point. These discriminations occurred in the post-war period, a period during which the CVP has always been in power but because of its rather negative attitude towards other forms of society has refused to adapt the legislation to the changes that took place in society. Nor should the complexity of the law on family allowance, which the opposition in the committee also raised, be an excuse for not implementing this legislative amendment. I would like to point out to the members of the opposition, and in particular those of the CVP and the PSC, that the legislation on family allowances was not at least complicated by the halving of the age allowance for the first child that was achieved during the previous legislature. I believe that the present proposal meets an existing need and is a first step towards eliminating discrimination on the basis of social forms. On this basis, the VLD will surely approve this bill.

First of all, I would like to thank the reporter for the summary but correct presentation of the discussion in the committee. However, as the applicant, I would like to give some additional explanation on the actual origin of the bill. I think there is a timely, precisely legislative proposal, based on a broad consensus that we have seen here in recent years to eliminate a number of discriminations between the various forms of family in this country. It was mainly impulsed by Mr. Luc Willems, a former CVP colleague, and Mr. Renaat Landuyt that this discussion was brought here. This led, among other things, to the recognition of legal cohabitation, but also inspired us in the past in the Committee on Social Affairs to eliminate discrimination existing in a number of areas of social security. I remember the discussions on the elimination of discrimination in the framework of unemployment regulation. I also recall the abolition of discrimination between married and cohabiting persons, on the one hand, and in respect of homosexual relations, on the other hand, in the regulation of the minor injury on which colleague Delizée and I had at that time submitted a bill, which has now been transposed into the legislation. During the last legislature, there was growing consensus to screen all branches of social security for discrimination in order to adapt our legislation to the new social reality and the forms of society that we have seen emerging over the past decades. In that regard, I share the surprise of the previous speaker in connection with the CVP’s position on this bill. The attitude of colleague Poncelet also surprised me somewhat. I would like to comment on the criticism of this bill. It is true that there are other discriminations. It is obvious that each group in this Parliament has its own opinion on the future of child benefit schemes. We will continue to discuss this issue in the Social Affairs Committee. However, this argument is not in question here. It is about the abolition of punctual discrimination in connection with child benefits, depending on the form of society that people choose. A second argument that greatly surprised me was the argument of the cost price, a point that the CVP apparently suddenly worries. The question is what disruptions in the child allowance scheme this will lead to. The exact figures are known. This is about 26 million francs annually, which is 0.02% in relation to the global budget of the child benefit schemes. It adorns the opposition that it is so concerned about the government budget, but also that argument cuts little wood in this debate. I would like to briefly respond to the second point of criticism of Mr. Poncelet. He argues that the motivation of the applicants testifies to a very liberal view of social forms. Thus we approach the core of the matter, in particular, to what extent a political government should engage in the choice of the society of the people. Can a political government seize the right to determine what is the right form of coexistence? My vision is that this matter belongs to the private choices of people. The government does not have to interfere with this. Consequently, it seems obvious to me that discriminatory aspects in legislation, for example concerning homosexual relations or cohabitation, should be eliminated as soon as possible. That was exactly the intention of the proposers of this bill. It is apparently also the intention of the majority of colleagues, which seems to me a favorable sign for the mood of tomorrow. Finally, I want to send a clear message to the government. In my opinion, as a result of the legislative amendment in question, a number of derivative discrimination problems could arise. Therefore, I call on the government to use its executive power to eliminate this discrimination as well. After all, the effect of this legislative amendment could sometimes be that the provisions of a number of royal decrees lead to a number of twists between the various forms of society. I suspect that the majority who supported the bill proposed that the lat should be placed equal. The Government may thus be asked to monitor this and to be consistent in this regard by possibly updating the relevant royal decrees.

The rights of the child cannot leave anyone indifferent. In our increasingly complex society, the traditional family has gradually changed. Despite our desire to keep this family as the first place of reception and life of the child, as the first place of education, it is necessary to find that various forms of family coexist at present: monoparental family, recomposed family, children raised by their grandparents, by host families... Every child, regardless of the socio-professional situation of those entitled to family allowances, should be entitled to the same rights. I will not address here the difference that still persists in the regime of self-employed workers; this point is not on the agenda for now.(Intervention of a member). Yes, but how many bills have I not seen pass, emanating from the time of the PRL and that have never been adopted by the former government? It is important to put the pendula back on time and my ex-independent fibers really aspire to the different diets to be harmonized. This point is not on the agenda but rather the regime of wage workers, where discrimination still exists with regard to the notion of couple. We should not make a value judgment on the type of family that takes care of the children, but rather let us be guided by the best interests of the child. The latter has probably already suffered a lot of disturbances, whether after having experienced a separation or having found himself within a recomposed family with all the forms it can take. Children are at the center of our concerns. It is her education, her training, her well-being, her housing, her food, her health and her future that encourage us to grant her what is necessary for her development. Let us return to the discussion we had in the committee on the individualization of social security rights. This problem is studied in different environments: academic, associative, social, in the female environments. Even if the future and the changes that are being announced cannot envisage a different organization of our social protection, I shout caution, because there is a risk of precipitating people, and ⁇ women, into precariousness by abandoning derivative rights. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that this problem ⁇ deserves a thorough study, because social changes take place at all levels and that women are increasingly entering the labour market, which will allow them to establish their own social security. But, too brutal changes are forbidden in order to avoid the risks I have highlighted. Each day suffices his punishment. The proposals that are being considered today will be approved by the PRL FDF MCC group.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, today we are expected to conduct the discussion on eliminating discrimination in the calculation of child allowances between children from a real household whose partners are of the same sex and children from a heterosexual family. Let it be clear, colleagues, that eliminating the discrimination based on the sexual orientation of the child allowance tractors is not a priority for the Flemish Bloc, but that does not mean in any way that we want to maintain the existing discrimination. However, we believe that there is a much greater discrimination in family allowances, and in that context I think, for example, of the children of self-employed persons, who are victims compared to the children of employed persons. Already during the discussion of the Government Declaration of 15 and 16 July 1999, we noted that it was ⁇ regrettable that the Government Agreement did not mention anything concerning the elimination of a number of existing discriminations against self-employed persons in terms of child benefits. I know that it is painful, Mr. Anthuenis, and of course, with great pleasure, I put the knife again in the wound, but in the government agreement there is nothing specific about the child allowance for self-employed. However, there is discrimination in this area. Paying parents receive a monthly allowance of approximately 2700 francs for their first or only child, while self-employed parents receive barely 800 francs. For the only or youngest child, an age allowance is granted to employees of approximately 900 francs as soon as the child reaches the age of six, of approximately 1 400 francs if the child reaches the age of twelve and of approximately 1 700 francs when the child reaches the age of eighteen. In the case of self-employed persons, this age allowance does not exist. Mr. Minister, allow me to ask you the current question when this discrimination against self-employed will finally be eliminated. In that sense, it is ⁇ cynical that a government led by liberals eliminates the existing discrimination with regard to child allowance for alternative forms of society faster than the discrimination with regard to self-employed persons. Liberal colleagues, I am now addressing myself in particular to you: do not blame us if we explain the yet another liberal voter fraud to your independent voters. There are no illusions in this regard! Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, allow me to place the discussion of these bills in a more general ethical framework. The Flemish Bloc continues as a family party in the first instance for the traditional family consisting of a woman, a man and possibly children. In that sense, it is ⁇ symbolic to assert that the CVP faction shines by its absence. Every time we note that, once the elections are approaching, the CVP feels called to draw the family card – nowadays in a slightly vague formulation called the family. Although, ⁇ the absence of the CVP this time can be explained by the fact that yesterday she was flown back by no less than the Christian-Democratic students about her attitude in the committee. The Flemish Bloc remains consistently a family party. For us, the institution of civil marriage retains its value. Therefore, the Flemish Bloc resisted strongly at the time when the legislature introduced the legal cohabitation of unmarried partners through the law of 23 November 1998. We are slowly at a social slope, in which the value of civil marriage is sought to be extracted through all kinds of almost equal legal constructions. Our ongoing advocacy for the revaluation of the traditional family does not mean in any way that the Flemish Bloc would have no eye for the social reality. Studies have shown that more and more marriages are running on the rocks. Another study was conducted in 1998. Two researchers, commissioned by Child and Family, followed 346 Flemish families with children for five years. That study showed that other conclusions can also be drawn; in terms of family composition, there is still a remarkable stability. Nine out of ten children up to six years old still live in a classic family in Flanders. Father and mother are the biological parents and they are also married. The mass divorce apparently happens when the children are older. The recognition of a social reality is one thing. The perpetual faith and the promotion of traditional marriage is another matter. Courageous politicians can be expected to do more than just pursue the social reality. They must have the courage to give people a lasting social ideal, even though we know that many people, for various, well-understood reasons, cannot meet that ideal image. Furthermore, the Flemish Blok fears that the adoption of current legislative proposals in the future could be the backdoor to give alternative forms of family, consisting of partners of the same sex, the right to have children or to adopt. This possibility is not yet provided in the law on the introduction of legal cohabitation. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the elimination of the discrimination of the child benefit receiver on the grounds of sexual orientation is not a priority for the Flemish Bloc. A number of evil spirits will seize this fact to stigmatize the Flemish Block. A number of evil spirits will try to misrepresent the Flemish Bloc as a confessional party, which has continued to stick from misplaced puritanism in sexuality experience in the Middle Ages. They will erroneously attempt to depict the Flemish Bloc as a primary anti-homosexual party. On the Flemish Blok position regarding alternative relationships with partners of the same sex, the wildest rumors run around. I would like to use this discussion to clarify this. First, the sexual orientation of people is not actually a political issue. It belongs to the private sphere of each individual. Anyone who can support the party program of the Flemish Bloc is welcome in our party and can be active within our ranks. The Flemish Bloc chooses to defend the traditional marriage. Think of our struggle to eliminate the tax discrimination against married people. We have always proposed traditional marriage as an ideal, social norm. This does not mean that we would consider someone who deviates from that norm to be inferior. We would not look at him or her. With regard to homosexual or lesbian relationships, this means the following: the Flemish Bloc ⁇ ins that people who have such an alternative relationship with a discrete lifestyle can impose much more respect than with the exhibitionist attention raised by the left and the media. For us, human integration in society is not a problem. Equivalent institutionalization in addition to marriage or family is excluded. This view was, by the way, the explanation for the Flemish Bloc’s opposition to the social contracts for same-sex partners. I hope to have put the points on the i. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude this discussion with a core summary of our position. The elimination of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation of the child allowance receiver is not a priority for the Flemish Bloc. This government has already announced that it does not intend to do its job of generally increasing child allowances. This government has already indicated that it does not intend to introduce a compensation for the home-working parent. This government, like the previous one, is not in a hurry to eliminate the tax discrimination of married people against other forms of society. This government really refuses to work on a number of family-friendly measures that not only enjoy the support of the Flemish Bloc but are also proposed by the Bond of Large and Young Families, the largest Flemish family movement. This government is doing a priority work of removing a number of existing discriminations in the child allowance system for alternative families. For the Flemish Bloc, this is incomprehensible and of the good too much. The Flemish Bloc will not approve the proposed legislation. Our political priorities relate to family-friendly measures. The Flemish Bloc is the requesting party for a global debate on the problem of child allowance and other family support initiatives. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I repeat that the Flemish Bloc will not approve the proposed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, with some misunderstanding, I listened to Mr. Bultinck’s speech. He completely mistakes the history of the present legislative proposals. As an opposition member, I would like to emphasize that this majority does not give priority to the problem. Both legislative proposals were drawn up in the previous legislature. In 1996 I submitted a bill on this subject. After the re-submission, I called for a quick agenda in the competent committee. Since the committee had little to do with it – the majority, by the way, does not provide drafts – my proposal was quickly addressed. Mr. Bonte did the same and submitted his 1997 bill again. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, a large majority was found to eliminate discrimination in the law. Moreover, discrimination would never have passed the test of the European Court of Human Rights. I want to correct a big misunderstanding. Discrimination has not so much to do with heterosexual couples, whether married or not, and homosexual couples, but rather with two kinds of children. Children of cohabiting or married parents receive much child allowance, children of cohabiting homosexual parents receive less child allowance. I am a Flemish nationalist and as a Flemish nationalist I stand up for all the Flemish, for all the people of my people. Some comments — I think, for example, those formulated by the Flemish Bloc — give me the impression that standing up for the common interest, standing up for all the Flammers, should be limited to those people who are Catholic, who are married and who are preferably white. I refuse to make a distinction between people who, according to a certain party, are of the good kind and people who are not of the good kind. I want to treat everyone equally, regardless of their beliefs and lifestyle.

Mr. President, I would like to justify Mr. Borginon. His number is something too cheap to be correct. I have said very clearly that the elimination of this discrimination for the Flemish Bloc is not a priority, but that this discrimination should not continue. In the long term, this issue can be discussed. At the moment we are against it. We have always been consistent as a traditional family party. We remain this too. Mr. Borginon, this is the fundamental difference between you and me, between your and my group. At least we have the courage to be consistent. This is somewhat more difficult in life and this sometimes hurts. However, I have never said that we do not want to eliminate this discrimination in the long run and that we want to take a primary anti-gay stance. These are the kind of games that academics and politicians should not play if they want to be intellectually honest. I do not take this anymore. We are consistent in this matter.

Mr. Bultinck, I am pleased to hear that the Flemish Bloc agrees with us that this is a discrimination that needs to be eliminated. You have clearly emphasized that you do not approve of this, just because it is not a priority for you. This is the only reason. I take records of this. I will use your statements with great pleasure in all kinds of discussions in which I will be attacked by Vlaams Blok representatives with regard to this position. I am afraid that your backbone’s argument does not match yours. I want to remove some other misunderstandings. In order not to have to approve these bills, for example, it is used as an argument that there are still large, important matters that need to be realized in the area of family allowances. I am a requesting party for an extensive debate in this Parliament on the fate of family allowances. We have been asking for this for decades. I am surprised, therefore, that those who use this argument, especially the Christian Democrats, have long been able to give an incentive to conduct that great debate. I find that the argument is insufficient to not work away with something that is a discrimination in the legal sense of the word. Some also referred to the fact that there are certain discriminations, such as those between employees and self-employed persons. I totally agree that this is a very important issue. Just from a legal point of view, the term discrimination is not entirely in place. There is an unequal treatment that originates in the different financing of the two systems. It is clear that a future decent system of family allowances must end this inequal treatment. However, it is not discrimination in the same sense as the discrimination that we eliminate here today. This text will be adopted tomorrow. I will be happy to claim the co-paternity of this bill and will fully support it from my group.

I can now speak on behalf of the Socialist Group and not in my capacity as a rapporteur. We look forward to seeing that this text will soon be adopted by our assembly. We would like to congratulate all the authors of the proposal. I would like to react to the intervention of Mr. Poncelet because I think his position is nonsense. To say that one does not want to eliminate one discrimination because there are others seems to me nonsense. For me, the important thing is that there is less discrimination. As it has been recalled, these are initiatives that date back to 1996, 1997. It could, of course, be decided to postpone them to the third millennium, to 2002 or 2003. Today, as part of the process of reviewing the laws, the text arrives in committee and in plenary session. It is now that we have to decide. There is no reason to postpone this. The other issues have been discussed in the committee and are acted in the report. In the field of social security, there are other discriminations. These documents will be reviewed in turn. And we also know that behind a proposal there is a budget impact. Budget cost is one of the elements of the decision. by Mr. Poncelet, who was deputy prime minister, knows this well. This has to be taken into account, even with some room for manoeuvre. I would also like to highlight one thing that was recalled by Mr. Borginon and who is included in the report. I will take the example of two sisters who, after their respective divorce, raise their children together. It is also a discrimination that this bill will end. These are situations where there is no moral judgment to be made. Then Mr. Poncelet spoke to us, as his colleague Viseur had done in commission, of fundamental anthropological data, to finally bring a moral judgment on homosexual de facto households. Listening to these two interventions, it is necessary to see that the new PSC remains fundamentally a back-guard party.

Mr Delizée, the Presidency notes that the proposals date from 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. The most recent dates from November 1999. We will vote for them very soon.

I can be very short. My colleague Frank Vandenbroucke expresses his agreement with this bill and confirms that the budgetary impact is 26 million francs.