Proposition 50K1444

Projet de loi modifiant les articles 1er et 24 de la loi du 20 juillet 1971 sur les funérailles et sépultures, notamment en ce qui concerne la déclaration de destination des cendres.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

May 23, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

cemetery death municipality

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 ¶

Dec. 18, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the draft law provides that, if the deceased person himself was incompetent or did not make a written statement, one of the relatives may decide that the ashes should be poured out in a place other than the cemetery, or that the urn may be taken with one of the relatives. According to his representative, the Minister agrees that the regulation on the ashes decision should be improved, but is of the opinion that the will of the deceased should be taken into account. The minister says to behave according to the wisdom of the committee.

The discussion went as follows.

Ms. Grauwels is not a requesting party. However, it may agree to introduce a transitional period for those who have not been given the opportunity to draw up a will. Mr. Frédéric asks what is meant with relatives. According to him, there is little clarity and nothing is determined about the ashes resolution in case of conflict between different relatives. This view is shared by Mr Charles Janssens, who asks whether disputes between equal survivors can be settled by means of an implementing decision. Mr Marcel Hendrickx agrees with the principle but wants a clear regulation on the existing legislation and the conditions to be determined. He declares that he cannot agree with the present bill. According to Mr Cortois, this bill deals with a social problem. Given the numerous debates in the Chamber, he regrets that the preparatory work would be lost due to the regionalization of the matter from 1 January 2002.

The representative of the Minister explains that the survivors under the law are the persons who take over the funeral. It does not necessarily have to be a relative of the deceased. In case of conflict, he refers to the court of first instance.

Mrs. Pelzer-Salandra considers this a very delicate matter and asks why one wants to handle this matter so quickly at all costs.

Finally, the amendment No. 1 submitted by Mr Hendrickx. According to him, crematoriums can only be established on the grounds of a cemetery or on the grounds of a cemetery. This results in the fact that sometimes very short distances from each other require different investments. The amendment aims to enable agreements between the intercommunales and the municipalities to allow the shared use of the existing infrastructure.

The Minister’s representative asserts that the Government agrees with the amendment. In the votes, Article 1 is adopted by 5 votes for, 2 votes against and 3 abstentions. Article 1a, the amendment no. 1 is adopted with 6 votes for and 4 votes against. Article 2 is adopted by 4 votes for, 3 votes against and 3 abstentions.

The amended bill is adopted by 4 votes against 3 and 3 abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, the way we want to chase this bill in extremis is not pleasing to us. In our opinion, this is not very meaningful.

During the meeting of the committee for domestic affairs last Wednesday, this bill was put on the agenda in extremis, allegedly at the express request of the chairman of the House.

At our request at the aforementioned committee meeting, to stop discussing this bill, we rejected. Although the Greens were also reluctant about this discussion, the majority succeeded in addressing it late Wednesday evening. In the committee it was noted that this was inappropriate, since from 1 January 2002, that is, within two weeks, this matter will fall into the competence of the provinces.

The Lambermont Agreement agreed to transfer the entire legislation relating to the lower governments to the counties, and therefore it seems absurd to us to attempt, barely a few days before the removal, to remove that legislation.

Also for ethical reasons, it seemed appropriate for us not to deal with this bill anymore. After all, even beyond the language boundary, different opinions can be established on this subject. It would therefore be desirable that each community settles this matter taking into account its own views on the matter.

To our great surprise, Mr. Speaker, when we entered this hemisphere for the plenary session of last Thursday, we already found the report of the meeting, which had taken place a few hours before, on our banks. I immediately turned to our group leader, since I do not think that it is part of the plots to begin the discussion of a bill already, barely a few hours after it was voted on in the committee. The deadlines provided by our Rules of Procedure must be respected.

Gerolf Annemans, my group leader, made you aware of this at the time, Mr. Speaker, so that you could not do other than postpone the discussion until today. Mr. Speaker, we cannot get rid of the impression that you have borrowed yourself for a flight forward. I do not know what forces are behind it, but it is apparently the intention to hunt the arrangement on the trap by the Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, the previous proposal on the asbestos destiny of Mrs. Leduc, which was adopted six months ago, did not please us. We found that the arrangement went too far and we abstained in the vote. I must honestly confess that I would have personally voted against, but for the sake of collegiality in the Flemish Blok group I joined the abstinence.

The draft that is now outlined, colleagues, goes far beyond the previous scheme. That is unacceptable. The draft stipulates that the survivors, if there is no will-of-will of the deceased, can decide what to do with the ashes of the cremated. Who those relatives are is not defined in the bill. So it can be anyone. In the committee, the representative of the minister said that those who took care of the funeral are considered survivors. In practice, it can be anyone. It does not even need to be related to family members. In addition, a problem arises when the “survivors” do not agree on the destination of the ashes of the cremated. We find this inappropriate, Mr. Minister and colleagues. That is fused with the remains of a human being, which, however, must be treated with the greatest respect and the greatest respect.

In an attempt to keep the arrangement, which is already too extensive for me, still somewhat within the standards of decency and to respect human dignity and respect for the deceased, I have submitted an amendment that clarifies that the survivors must be the adult children, insofar as those children agree on the destiny of the ashes of the cremated. A notary must establish that mutual agreement in order to avoid marking with the ashes of the cremated. That would be an allegation of the respect that should be applied to a deceased.

I hope you take my amendment seriously and approve it. If you do not agree with our amendment, we will reject the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, you may remember that the CD&Vfractie — although there were various opinions within our group on this subject — approved the previous bill.

Experience has already taught us that the law as it is now applied is not actually a good law. There are a lot of things about asbestos. Sometimes it happens that when one is confronted in the crematorium with the fact that a will of the deceased is needed, that will of the deceased is found suddenly after several days. We therefore fully agree that the existing law does not comply and that the text may need to be adjusted.

Colleagues, the present text will only worsen the state of asbestos destiny and the serenity errond. This bill, which has since become a draft, has been dealt with too quickly. There must be sufficient time to consider this matter thoroughly and to consider how the text can be best adapted. Since this matter belongs to the jurisdiction of the Regions from 1 January, the case may now be dealt with in a current acceleration.

In addition, we are pleased that the amendment we submitted has been approved. It is more specifically about the fact that crematoriums are in a situation that is contrary to the law. The law stipulates that in the place where the crematorium is located, a columbarium, an urn field and a scattered grassland must be present. The crematoriums do not have that, and they do not need to have it, since these facilities already exist at the cemetery, which is 1,500 meters away. It is very strange that there is a double investment with community funds. We are therefore pleased that this amendment was approved by the committee.

What is the attitude of the CD&V in this? Since our group presupposes the serenity around the events, we cannot approve the text on asbestos destiny as it now presents. Our group will vote against.

In respect for the deceased, I will try to bring some clarity in what has been agreed in the committee.

Indeed, the term "neighbors" was used and the minister present then stated that it was the persons who arranged the funeral. The problem is, of course, that some people are obliged to pay for the funeral. The question is whether they are the same people. After all, we must avoid those responsible for the arrangement coming into conflict later with those who have to pay for the funeral. It would be very painful if there were disputes about this.

Per ⁇ the minister could also add the element "payment" to the term "regulating", which would already solve a lot.

I think I have understood that the Senate text is coming.

Our committee approved it.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, on the previous bill, as it was then proposed, the vote was very divided. I myself voted in favour of the bill. The vote was not only divided in our group, but also in others. The proposed amendment will also be voted divided. I myself am convinced that, if we follow this proposed amendment, it will give rise to many family divorces, which will eventually be settled in the courtroom. This way of working contrasts sharply with the serene atmosphere that is common for a funeral or corpse delivery.

There will also be many practical problems. For example, who will bring the ashes? The amendment speaks about survivors, but there are many survivors who have no demonstrable links with the deceased. Who will get the promise? What should happen if the deceased had relationships, or family ties, or friendship ties, which are no longer mentioned when the funeral is arranged? What will happen to the ashes if the keeper of the ashes dies? Regulations should also be made in this regard.

It does not seem to us to be wise to approve this amendment quickly for the reasons I have just mentioned. In my opinion, it would be wiser to spend a longer period of reflection and transfer this power to our colleagues in the regional parliaments.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, last Thursday, Mr. Tastenhoye drew the attention of our group, and thus also of mine, to a text from the Senate that was eventually scattered, but which proved to be very important. The way one is treated after death is the last thing that one can decide. That is not insignificant.

The funeral is also the last testimony one can give of his religious, philosophical or political views. Too often, people who have dedicated their lives to a particular cause at their funerals are placed in a completely different context, because the relatives were ashamed of or totally disagreed with the views of the deceased. We all know examples here, in whatever camp we stand and whatever ideas we may attach. I think that respect for death and for the dead is something general human. I must not tell the Christians present here that burying the dead is one of the works of mercy.

Today, however, I would like to address the people who, for whatever reason, appeal to liberality. It does not matter what kind of liberality, for one can confess to a certain liberality for all sorts of very different reasons. Freelancers should know better than anyone that in a society where they have been a minority for so long, it is important to stand up for their opinions for the last time when they die. What we are incorporating here as an amendment to the first law regulates exactly the opposite. The concept contained in the foregoing text was already strange to me in terms of legislative technique. Who are those relatives? Who has the priority: the spouses, the children, the grandchildren, the grandchildren or the grandparents? How will this be arranged?

It gets worse when you read the report. The minister says survivors don’t even have to be families. They are the people who take care of the funeral. Anyone can decide what will happen to the ashes after our death. The only requirement is that the funeral be arranged.

I repeat my call to the free-minded. It is important that you decide for yourself that your choice should apply. If your choice is not expressed, the general standard must continue to apply. This is often the case in legal terms. This should also be the case here. Man himself testifies to his views. If it does not, it is treated as the general norm in society determines it. I think that is the only wise approach.

Furthermore, the present text is completely worthless at the legislative level and can lead to very serious controversies. This has been stressed more than once.

A society without respect for the dead is not worthy of that name. A society without respect for the individual and individual freedom is not part of our Western traditions. You may have other views on this. Per ⁇ Prime Minister Verhofstadt has already made a big turn in that regard. Let us uphold these two important traditions and therefore reject the present text with conviction. After all, there are good reasons to do so.

Mr. Minister, I have read that your representative conforms to the wisdom of the committee, but we will listen to you.

I assume that Mr. Tastenhoye would like to intervene first on the article.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to replicate what Mrs. Grauwels said about my amendment.

She says rightly that my amendment can still lead to quarrels and family fat. I agree with her. I wanted to limit the damage. I wanted to clarify who the relatives are, although I do not agree with the philosophy and content of the bill. I think it goes too far. I wanted to limit the damage by providing that the survivors concerned may only be the adult children of the deceased, if they agree. In addition, the mutual agreement must be recorded in an act by a notary.

Mrs. Grauwels, I have only tried to limit the damage, although I am well aware that the whole bill is not good. I therefore share your opinion that it is better to postpone this whole discussion and let the topic sink to leave the next year to the wisdom of the regional parliaments who can then decide on it with honour and conscience. This draft law to hunt through the Chamber, I find disrespectful.

Mr. Speaker, I am the holder of a Senate-initiative bill, the assembly of which you pointed out that it was composed of prominent jurists, very attentive to the quality of the texts. In the current state of legislation, we have experienced a number of difficulties that have so far been solved by the interpretation I have given of the text. by

Obviously, a problem arose in the event of an unexpected death or if the person concerned was no longer able to record his last wishes in writing. According to the interpretation given, a medical certificate may be replaced by last-will written, provided that the doctor attests that the deceased was no longer able to express his last wishes in writing due to his state of health and that he indicates, in support of statements made by the close relatives of the deceased, the destination that the deceased intended to give to his ashes after his death. At least this is the interpretation I have given to the text so far.

At the end of a discussion where, indeed, all the observations and objections raised this morning were developed, the Senate considered that it was necessary to deepen the issue. Thus, the author of the initial proposal introduced the text that was adopted both in the Senate and in a House committee. by

Since we have a lot, and rightly, asked about the notion of relatives, I am able to provide you with a technical indication, This notion of relatives is known in our law, precisely in article 25 of the law on funerals and burials. The latter specifies, when it comes to determining the indicative signs that may appear on a burial, in the absence of expression of will on the part of the deceased, that it is the relatives who take care of it. by

How has this article of the law been interpreted? The people who assumed responsibility for the funeral as well as the maintenance of the tomb were heard, since these are indicative signs. Because there are situations where the deceased has neither successor, neither heirs, neither relatives or allies to assume this responsibility. And there are others where certain people, bound by bonds of affection, have assumed this responsibility in tribute to the memory of the deceased. by

I add that the author of the proposal, as regards minors, was quite clear. Indeed, it indicates in the text of its proposal that, in this case, it is the parents who must replace the defective will of the deceased minor. by

This is, Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to clarify with regard to this proposal. As I did in the Senate, I rely on the wisdom of the House.

Mr. Speaker, in the discussion of Mrs. Leduc’s original bill, we warned the Minister that the text, which has since become law, could never function properly because it was not sufficiently accurate as regards the form requirements to be observed.

Colleagues, I note that they are now trying to remedy a few imperfections of the law through an emergency strike. I also note that here – apparently with the cooperation of the Chairman of the Chamber – in all sorts of ways attempts to prevent the Communities and the Regions from taking on this issue the task which has been theirs since the recent state reform. For this, apparently all tricks and techniques are permitted — or not permitted, but they are used.

Mr. Speaker, I have cooperated to put this point on the agenda and I now regret it a little. Now that I have seen how this issue was discussed — or rather, how it was not discussed in terms of content — in the committee, I think that the topic deserves a better treatment. At least the matters must be legally clarified. Mr. Minister, it is not possible that you cooperate with a regulation that is technically and legally completely independent? You say that “neighbors” is a concept that we all know. That is indeed right. But the question is: which relatives? In what order? Who can ask the question? Who can ask the question instead of someone else? And whose vote will be decisive?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not entirely clear. It is said that the survivors can make the request, but I repeat: which survivors are in question, and in what order? The establishment of such a arrangement almost ⁇ means that its practical application will create difficulties for this ⁇ delicate matter. In times when the family is discouraged and doesn’t know how to get things properly arranged, she can’t count on a clear law. I think that is shameless.

It is said that there must be a written request from the deceased. In what form should this be done? Is any piece of paper, dated or not dated, sufficient?

Quid if one finds a document and the day after in the bottom box one with a different version, then how should be acted? Mr. Speaker, if the formal rules are not refined, the rule that we are discussing now can also not work. Parliament is limited to proclaiming a number of major principles, according to the credentials of the government currently in power. Whether those principles are applicable, even in sensitive matters, is of no importance.

Mr. Minister, I am addressing you directly. If the relatives have a voice in this case, what relatives are we talking about, since the term may include a large group of relatives? In what order should we place those relatives? If the deceased had children, will the children come before the nephews and nephews? I think we in Parliament are entitled to your opinion on my questions related to a text to which you have participated. Imagine, colleagues, that some relatives make a request in this regard, while relatives who ⁇ ined a closer relationship with the deceased have a different opinion on it. Who will solve this problem?

Could you make it more clear, Mr. Minister? In the first discussion of the draft, I asked you the same questions. You answered me that there was no problem and that I was not aware of the normal procedures in such cases. With such a response, we should have put it. Well, I still do not know the procedures. I would like to know, Mr. Minister, what forms a written application must meet and what should be done if there are conflicting written statements.

I am surprised that Mr. Tant has not yet filed a bill with the aim of amending article 25 of the law on funerals and burials as regards the interpretation of the notion of "neighbors" since according to him this definition, which is legal, lacks clarity.

I repeat that relatives are not necessarily successors. As soon as there are successors, it is the succession that takes care of the funeral and all the consequences that depend on it and this in respect of the order of parents and allies, in respect of the order of succession.

There may be no successor, no family member, and a friend takes care of everything. There is neither more nor less here than what was in Article 25. The way to express his will depends on civil law, Mr. Tant — I do not think you are a lawyer, but you have almost become a lawyer because I have observed that you often handle this matter with talent. It is simply an act under private seing, written by hand, dated and signed. When there are disputes — and it is the same in inheritance matters for a will — it is up to the courts of the judicial order to settle. I give you the interpretations that are made of it.

I know that you still hold the Minister of the Interior responsible but, in this case, I did not exert any pressure. I let the matter go on the parliamentary level: the Senate has spoken and I argue in front of the House. I did not ask for the benefit of the emergency. However, it is true that, from 1 January, we will no longer be competent, hence the logic of saying that before 1 January, both Chambers must have had the opportunity to speak out.

Congratulations to Mr. Hendrickx for its amendment. I had submitted this amendment myself during the consideration of another proposal. At the time, I told him that if he took it back in the form of a bill, I would support him. He has taken it back in the form of an amendment and I confirm my support. This is a very good text, Mr. Hendrickx.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for defending the text and the explanation he provided. For some interpretations, we will have to rely on common law. This can, of course, give rise to controversy. I know few democratic laws that cannot give rise to controversy. In addition, it testifies some fair play to the Senate that we are dealing with the text today. The observation that the Communities are competent in this matter from 1 January 2002 is correct, but we should not use that argument against our colleagues in the Senate. That is why we will adopt the text today.

On the written request, the Minister made some clarification. However, he did not answer my question quid when one finds in one case on the first day a written proof of the willingness of the person concerned to have his ashes preserved by some of his family members and quid when one finds the following day a dated and thus legally complete request to act differently. Should this problem be resolved by judicial means? Their

(Mr. Hugo Coveliers nodded affirmatively.)

Imagine that, due to the imperfection of the Parliament and the fact that we have not done our work properly, families are confronted with procedures they have to conduct against each other, while the person concerned is still in the corpse. I wish you a lot of luck with this.

Furthermore, the group of relatives is more or less clear. The question, however, is in what priority order they can act. These questions have not been answered. This is poor legislative work.

I have always regarded you as a good lawyer. I assume that your concerns are no longer the same.

I am also surprised that the SP.A group leader, whom I have always regarded as a skilled lawyer in the Chamber and in the Senate, is now covered in silence. I know Mr. Erdman. He knows when to speak, but he also knows when to be silent.

Mr. Tante, that is a gift.

Mr. President, not to mention, Mr. Erdman seems to have his reasons today.

Mr. Tante, you also know when you should listen, because I just asked a question.

Mr. Tante, that is true. Mr Erdman just spoke.

Mr. Erdman just asked a question, but I too.