Proposition 53K0573

Projet de loi modifiant, en ce qui concerne les coparents, la législation afférente au congé de paternité.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Nahima Lanjri, Stefaan Vercamer
Ecolo Zoé Genot
Groen Meyrem Almaci, Eva Brems
LE Catherine Fonck
MR Valérie De Bue
Open Vld Maggie De Block
PS | SP Yvan Mayeur
Vooruit Meryame Kitir

Submission date

Nov. 17, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work work contract parental leave sexual minority paternity leave

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Steven Vandeput (N-VA) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

March 17, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

In the absence of the rapporteur, Mrs Christiane Vienne, I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the bill that is now in motion and that grants ten days of maternity leave to lesbian mothers, fills me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I’m happy because it finally helps the world’s discrimination against couples who couldn’t take care of a child together during the first years of life. On the other hand, I am a little sad because it took so long before we could help this discrimination out of the world.

It is not surprising that almost all parties had submitted a bill on this subject and it is a good thing that common sense has triumphed and that a joint bill has been drawn up. It had slightly more feet in the earth than originally thought, because once one begins to think about the application of our legislation to non-traditional families, one is faced with fundamental legal issues that call for an adaptation of family law. So far we do not want to go, because that would lead us too far. This is not the case in the Social Affairs Committee; for this we have the Family Law Committee.

Therefore, we have clearly stipulated in the bill that we consider the current arrangement as provisional in anticipation of further reforms in civil law arrangements concerning co-parenthood.

Our first concern is that the mother-in-law of a child born in a lesbian form of society, just as a father in a heterosexual relationship has the right to get ten days of birth leave. Since the descent relationship of the co-parents cannot be demonstrated, a demonstrable social relationship with the natural mother was opted for. Because we believe that the relationship must show some stability, it was decided to register three years as a criterion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, not only a tree, but a whole forest can be set up on this issue. Basically, I would like to limit myself in my presentation to the expression of relief that the issue is finally settled, after a lot of talk over and over again.

Fortunately, there were bodies that didn’t wait for the legislation to be amended by also granting paternity to lesbian mothers. Let me take as an example the government regulation. Flanders was the leader in this area, but also the then Federal Minister of Public Service, Mr Vanackere, has taken advantage of the opportunity to clarify the interpretation of the regulation through a circular.

I hope that with this proposal we have not only eliminated discrimination but have also triggered a general change of mentality. We then opened civil marriage and adoption to same-sex couples. Then we also need to regulate the consequences related to having children in a wider context. It is obvious that Open Vld will fully support this proposal.

We look forward to the adoption of this text. It will put an end to discrimination denounced for years by gay and lesbian rights movements. Indeed, the so-called paternity leave was accessible only to the person whose filiation with respect to the child was recognized. The National Labour Council had already issued an opinion in 2003 that “legal provisions create a discrimination against same-sex couples.”

Our society is undergoing profound changes and new family structures, such as single-parent families, recomposed families and families with same-sex partners, deserve equal treatment in all areas of our law. This should be taken into consideration whenever the legislator is invited to take a stand on a subject or on a bill.

The Parliamentary Working Group initiated by our colleague Yvan Mayeur, under the former legislature, met several times, because the problem was not simple and could not create new discriminations, for example, with regard to a worker whose filiation with a child is recognized.

A priority order, if I can express myself this way, had to be fixed and we ask on this aspect that the Minister quickly take the necessary regulatory provisions so that the rights are guaranteed in practice.

Finally, as specified in the committee, the birth leave for co-parents is provisional in anticipation of further civil law reforms; I think in particular of the problem of adoption by homosexual couples.

Congratulations on your first speech at this meeting. (The applause)

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Fernandez Fernandez has been Secretary of State and, even in this capacity, she has already spoken to the House!

At present, the worker has the right to be absent from his work, on the occasion of the birth of a child whose filiation is established in respect of him, for ten days to be chosen by him within four months from the date of the birth.

This leave, commonly referred to as “paternity leave”, is accessible only to the father of the child. Therefore, it is not accessible to a coparent or a same-sex partner. Same-sex couples are discriminated against. The National Labour Council has repeatedly pointed out this discrimination.

Today, the MR is happy to end this discrimination. Every parent can now enjoy a ten-day leave on the occasion of the birth of their child.

The child can be surrounded by both parents from the first few days.

We would like to highlight the work done in the previous legislature. He made it possible to present, this day, this consensual and successful text while knowing, of course, that the debate remains open for further reforms in the matter.

Finally, we can welcome the unanimous vote in the Social Affairs Committee on this proposal.

Did you ask the Prime Minister to be present? There are still questions to be asked.

The prime minister came and he had to leave. I will ask him if he intends to return or if we should ask for the postponement of the questions.

When will he come back? Next week ?

Sometimes he said that the Secretary of State could take his place if he didn’t come back. I will see where it is.

I understand very well that the Prime Minister has many concerns. He attended and followed the debate on Japan here, and also answered all questions on the subject. There are two questions from Mrs De Block and Mr Dedecker on the smoking ban and two questions from Peter Vanvelthoven and Steven Vandeput on the financial situation of the municipalities. You said later, and I can understand that the Prime Minister will be away for a few hours, but then he will come back. I’ve seen him here, so he’s come back, but if I look closely, he’s gone back.

I understand the situation, but it would be useful if the Prime Minister answered those questions. If it does not happen now, then we must choose another moment. Maybe you can contact him. We will be together for a while tonight, and he may be back in half an hour or three quarters. I apologize for interrupting the speaker. Then we may be able to slow down the debate, if it is round, and between two bills, let the prime minister answer. It would not be elegant that the colleagues who have asked questions cannot ask them. If that is possible.

I will ask the vice president to replace me and I will go to take the usage contacts.

We will continue with the discussion of maternity leave. I think that everyone thinks it is natural that at the birth of a child the father gets a paternity leave of ten days, as regulated by us.

That obviousness, however, does not exist in holebikups, specifically the meemother. When a child is born, the mother-in-law cannot claim the right to paternity leave – we have called it a maternity leave. In fact, the regulation provides that there must be a descent relationship, which, of course, does not exist with the mother-in-law.

In 2008, we submitted a bill on this subject. Several other parties also did so at the time, referring to a 2003 NAR opinion stating that this could involve a discrimination that we want to effectively investigate.

When submitting that proposal, we have chosen a pragmatic approach so as not to immediately provide for a whole scheme for parental care, parental care, and so on. We thought that we should try to do this pragmatically from the point of view of the child, that it is important that that co-parent, that co-mother can be there as a support for the mother.

We thought that the conversion of paternity leave would be very simple, but we took more than a year in the previous legislature to work out this technically.

We think it is a very small group of people. There are no or few figures about this, but I refer to domestic adoptions by same-sex couples, where it is about 200 to 250.

Despite the fact that there are so few people, we had to find that a lot of time was spent avoiding possible abuses. For example, we had to regulate the way in which it is determined who is a mother-in-law.

We have brought in the legal cohabitation. We have also taken as a criterion the effective registration and stay together for three years. We referred to the adoption leave regulation. We have also ensured that, if adoption leave is taken subsequently, this is deducted and no cumulation is possible, and so on.

Ultimately, although this proposal may seem minimal, it is still a step forward in this scheme. We have said together that this discussion is not the end point. There will ⁇ be a need for regulation of parenting, also independent of descent, in which, in addition to that biological parenting, the necessary arrangements are provided for caregivers, including co-parents in relations between persons of the same sex.

It is a commitment that we made at the time in the committee but that we also want to go further and that will ⁇ have a discussion in the committee for Justice.

Mr. President, Mrs. Becq has just recalled a number of exceptional important points. As we discussed in the committee, we will support this text. I think this is an important step forward, first of all for children. Indeed, the first moments after birth, the strengthening of the bond between child and parent, especially within today’s plural families, are indispensable elements for the growth and education of the child. This text goes in the right direction.

Let us not forget that on a legal level, this text does not prevent the need to move forward so that the legal ties between parents and children can progress.

Today we are discussing a bill that we have debated for a long time. In the debate led by Mrs Becq, all parties have attempted to find a solution to a gap that is actually incomprehensible.

A father today, after the birth of his child, has ten days of leave with maintenance of salary. This is a right embedded in social security.

Those ten days are important to give parents breathing space in a busy period, administrative and with new life, but also and above all for the attachment to each other and to the child in the new situation.

Only partners of the same sex as the biological parent, this is only about women because only women can have children, did not have that right so far.

With the re-submission of several legislative proposals, in 2009 a working group was set up, again led by Mrs Becq, where a compromise was reached. That compromise was also served again and that is what we are discussing here today.

This has indeed required a lot of work. I would like to expressly thank Mrs. Becq for this, as it was not easy. We have worked hard together to find our way in all those legal sides and angels. This has succeeded. It may seem banal, but it wasn’t obvious.

By approving this bill later, I hope that this will happen unanimously, we work out a gap in our legislation. We will resolve the gap by making maternity leave gender-neutral. A mother-in-law is just as old as a heterosexual father is of his child.

A woman who has just become a mother-in-law also needs days of leave and ⁇ proximity in those moments after the birth of the child. The attachment, the joining, the warmth is also important there. That is what it is about. That is an important step.

Let us immediately look at the future. We work a gap away here, but the next step is, of course, the recognition of the newborn child by the married mother-in-law. This discrimination still exists.

One hopefully will be given 10 days of leave later, but then all those midwives, all those partners, must adopt that child in a long procedure that brings with it legal uncertainty and in which until the time the adoption is completed they also have no legal relationship with that child. This is also a gap. This is also an absurd situation.

Hopefully, that is my wish, by solving this gap in the broad compromise we have found, we can take the next step towards solving that situation by ensuring that mymothers can recognize that child, married or unmarried, just as unmarried fathers today can recognize their child even before birth.

Only then can we talk about true equality and only then can we say that the gaps in our legislation have finally not been made gender-neutral but sexuality experience-neutral. That is something we must strive for.

So I thank all the colleagues for the compromise that comes ahead and I also say immediately that the work is not finished. Let us now take the next step, it is possible.

Mr. Speaker, I will not make it long because most of it has already been said and it is not intended to be repeated. The fact that the proposal was unanimously approved in the committee also means that we are all with the nose in the same direction. Our party will also approve this bill because we are happy that this unlawfulness is being helped out of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly explain the position of my party, as we were unable to determine our voting behavior in the final committee meeting.

It is of course that – given my party’s position on the law on the opening of same-sex marriage and gay adoption, on the one hand, and our party’s priority choice for the male and female family, on the other hand – it is evident that we are never a party asking for the key to the right of adoption or the right of descent.

The traditional family remains for our party the cornerstone of society and in the ideal situation children are raised by their biological mother and father. We therefore go against the politically correct statement that gay and lesbian couples would have a right to children and that the state should make arrangements to meet that right. There is no right to children for my party. Children have the right to a father and a mother.

The present bill is, of course, a consequence of the aforementioned legislation that makes almost everything possible in the field of family composition and descent law. Furthermore, the fact that the so-called co-parent cannot demonstrate descent with respect to the child cannot be solved simply by a simple proof of partnership with the parent for whom the descent is established. Finally, the applicants also say that the proposed regime of birth leave for co-parents is only a provisional regime pending further reforms in the civil system of co-parenthood.

In my opinion, it would have been better for my party to arrange everything in a general balanced and consistent context. For these reasons, my party will abstain.