Proposition 54K0538

Projet de loi modifiant le Code civil, le Code de droit international privé, le Code consulaire, la loi du 5 mai 2014 portant établissement de la filiation de la coparente et la loi du 8 mai 2014 modifiant le Code civil en vue d'instaurer l'égalité de l'homme et de la femme dans le mode de transmission du nom à l'enfant et à l'adopté.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq
MR Philippe Goffin, Philippe Pivin
Open Vld Egbert Lachaert, Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

Oct. 28, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

surname adoption of a child descendant civil law consulate family law equal treatment civil union artificial reproduction parental authority

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

LE DéFI VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) 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 ¶

Dec. 11, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by making the report which is not very long and, if you allow it, I will continue with the intervention on behalf of my group, which will not be much longer.

The bill examined by the Justice Committee in these sessions of 12 and 18 November, and then of 2 December because it was the subject of a second reading, puts the law of 5 May 2014 establishing the filiation of the co-parent in accordance with the law of 8 May 2014 amending the Civil Code with a view to establishing the equality of man and woman in the mode of transmission of the name to the child and to the adopted.

Some technical adjustments have been made. The transitional regime of the law of 8 May 2014 is completed. A solution is provided for Belgians who are domiciled abroad and who could not make a declaration in accordance with Article 12 of the Act of 8 May 2014. Career consular posts are now entitled to receive this declaration. Finally, the filiation of co-mothers is recognized.

The text was voted unanimously.

On behalf of my group, I would like to congratulate myself first on the substance and then on the form.

In essence, we first welcomed the speed with which the majority responded to an interpellation by my colleague Stefaan Van Hecke on the problem of declarations in our consular posts. It was important to make this right effective for all. In this same logic, we also applaud the advancement of the right of filiation of co-mothers.

The vote on this text does not, however, close the debate since, to our satisfaction also, an appeal for cancellation is pending before the Constitutional Court on, in particular, the provision that provides that in case of disagreement or in the absence of choice, the child bears the father’s name. My colleague, Muriel Gerkens, had been moved at the time at this tribune, denouncing the inequal treatment in fine, even though the aim was precisely to restore equal treatment. We will be attentive to what the Constitutional Court will say. Until then, we will support the amendments in this sense that have been submitted in particular by Ms. Lalieux.

On the form, the text was subject, at the request of my group, to a second reading which allowed to improve the legal quality of the text significantly. In addition, all Commissioners appreciated and acknowledged the well-foundedness of this provision.

I therefore invite you, dear colleagues, to take advantage of this new opportunity to improve the quality of our legislation.

Ms. Khattabi has already mentioned this, amendments have been submitted.

As speakers I note Mr. Maingain, Mrs. Lalieux, Mrs. Becq, Mr. Brotcorne, Mrs. Jiroflée and Mr. Van Hees.

Collega’s, ook mevrouw Jiroflée has daarnet haar maidenspeech gegeven. (The Applause)

I will speak to you from my bank.

Madam Lilly, there is a problem with the sound. I invite you to come and speak from the top of the hall.

First of all, I would like to say that I agree with Ms. Khattabi. Indeed, it was important to directly change the law on the transmission of the double surname so that co-parents could also immediately have access to this law, which was not possible in the previous legislature as the law had not yet been voted in the Senate. This very quick correction is therefore welcome, and it is so much better!

At the same time, the PS group put forward two amendments, an amendment that had been voted in the Justice Committee and that was deposited by the MR in the person of Philippe Goffin, the current chairman of the Justice Committee, to say that by default, that is, if the parents do not want to decide on the name of the father or the mother or the double name, it would be the double name that would prevail.

This seemed to be important to avoid a veto right of the father. Unfortunately, we have not reached an agreement and to prevent this law from being passed, while it has been waiting for 14 years, we have amended the law, as have the senators.

But there is an opportunity to find a logic to already respond to the Institute for Equality between Women and Men, which has appealed to the Constitutional Court.

So, to follow the opinion of the State Council, dear parliamentarians, let us amend this law and vote together on this amendment, as well as the second to allow direct access to co-parents. We will show that it is possible to allied the opposition and the majority on ethical decisions that affect the family. I appeal to the whole Parliament to vote on these simple amendments, which in the previous legislature had obtained a majority.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to intervene briefly to clarify one thing. We did not vote for this law in the previous legislature. We then cited, among other things, the argument that what the purpose of the law was, namely to eliminate discrimination, was not achieved. We have said that we did not want to conduct the debate in essence but that we wanted to wait for the decision of the Constitutional Court, where this issue was raised.

However, this does not prevent us from agreeing with the proposal that is being voted today and on which we have collaborated. After all, it contains a number of corrections to the name legislation and at the same time regulates the new law on the automatic recognition of the mothers, which also contains elements of the naming.

This bill allows, among other things, Belgians living abroad to use this scheme in a simple way. Even parents who come to stand alone can use the transitional arrangement of this law, and in addition, mother-in-law may now use the legislation on double naming in the same way. At the same time, a number of technical adjustments are planned.

There is a legal reading and a political reading of this bill. The legal reading that can be made of it is that it improves a text that was voted in the precipitation at the end of last legislature. We had the opportunity at the time to say that this precipitation would cause problems. I also recall that at that time, some of my colleagues who are sitting today in the Chamber, Mr. Delpérée and Mrs. Matz, had submitted amendments which are partly taken back in the text that is proposed to us tonight to adapt the legislation, proof if it is that the text was poorly fitted and poorly appreciated.

If the effort that is being made is interesting, you will understand that politically, we maintain our consistency with this text and that having not adopted it last April, we will not do so at today’s vote, and we will maintain our abstinence.

This allows me to come to the amendment submitted by the PS, with which, as a person, I have little difficulty. Again, I think that we will sin by precipitation under the pretext of ⁇ advancing a text in a less discriminatory sense. Indeed, because we have said in our legislation that in the absence of choice, it was the name of the father that imposes, there is a risk of seeing an instance, such as the Constitutional Court, tell us that we have made choices that are not justified, which are, on the contrary, discriminatory. I don’t think we’ll be able to resolve the problem tonight, because we need a serious discussion in the committee and serenity to address the issue.

Madame Lalieux, you tell us that the text you submit – I did not have the opportunity to verify it – is exactly similar to the one you submitted to the committee during the previous discussion.

I am not convinced. I think that the text you propose us brings, in germ, new difficulties that justify that, if we receive your amendment, we will discuss it at least in a committee, which will allow us to discuss also Mr. Mr. Amendment. by Maingain. This article, Madame Liliou, if you read it correctly, ...

The [...]

But it has not been accepted and we are now trying to get it through.

On the occasion of a judgment of the Constitutional Court or before if this is the will of the commission, we will be able to discuss it. But today we can ⁇ not approach your text in the state, because you say: "in the event that there is no choice of the parents, that there is no agreement between them, it is by office the father's name that is imperative." And you propose that in the event of disagreement or in the absence of choice, the child bears – and this is where, in my opinion, the problem lies – one of his father’s names followed by one of his mother’s names. You somehow anticipate the second generation where someone who already has a double name becomes the parent himself and must make the choice of the double name for his child. Here you re-introduce a choice. You say that the parents of this child will have to choose between the first or second name of the father, the first or second name of the mother, but if they do not come to an agreement again, because this hypothesis can be considered, then we end up with a situation that is not settled.

I think we need to give ourselves time to discuss these issues seriously in the committee. If these amendments are of interest, they justify that they will be dealt with otherwise than quickly at this plenary session, which is why on these amendments too, Mrs Lalieux, our group will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I signed this amendment with pleasure and enthusiasm and I regretted very much that we could not go to the end of the approach.

Mr. Minister, you know very well that the object of the bill proposal today under consideration simply aims to make this law applicable so that people are not, in the end, penalized by a text that is not quite well written and contains some shortcomings repeated, in addition, in a very precise way by the rapporteur.

The position of my group is very simple. There may be differences. You must be able to say it. This should be discussed, as Mr. Brotcorne said it. Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court that is expected, as chairman of the Justice Committee, I really want to organize a debate. But let us wait a little. As I have done in a committee, I therefore invite you to vote on the text of the proposal so that people are not waiting for a provision and are not penalized by a text that – let us acknowledge it – is not quite good.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to thank the colleagues who supported the bill in the committee.

It is a law that no one is obliged to do anything. Choosing the name of your child has become possible. What we do today is to open that freedom of choice also to the memoors. The legislation will enter into force on 1 January 2015. The mother-in-law will also be given the option to choose a double name or the name of the mother-in-law. The legislation is being amended today.

I would like to thank the colleagues who supported the initiative. I hope that they will vote in the same way. That is the content of the bill. It is nothing more than what I just said here.

Also in the consular posts, which were not mentioned in the previously adopted bill, one as a Belgian will now be able to use the possibility of choosing the name of the mother, the double name or the name of the father. This is also included in the bill.

Finally, I call on everyone who has voted in the past for the name legislation. You need to know what you are engaged in. I hope that among the colleagues who voted yes then, a yes also remains a yes and that one does not change his opinion because of the oatmeal.

Mr. Speaker, the debate that led to the adoption of the law of 8 May 2014 was one of the most passionate, vivid, and enthusiastic debates in Parliament. At the time, I had finished my speech by saying that it was a faulty legislative work. The proof, we take it back. And we risk repeating it again in a few months if – what we can assume – the Constitutional Court challenges the fact that this law creates a false equality. I had demonstrated it at the time. Let us bear in mind, in the 21st century, the fact of writing in a law that the power of the last word belongs to the man in a couple to determine the name of the child as long as there would be no agreement between the parents, is frankly not a major advance on the principle of equality between male and female. This is the opposite, it is really the denial of the expected effect.

I share the goal of saying that the principle of the law of 8 May 2014 is extended to couples who are not heterosexual. I have no problem with co-parentality, it is a question of denial of discrimination. But we do not resolve the substantive question and you will be forced to resolve it because the Constitutional Court will, in my opinion, bring you there.

I recall that the Council of Europe and our Institute for Equality of Women and Men, in an opinion of 13 June 2012, recalled an essential principle: if one wants perfect equality, only a rule imposing the transmission of the double name is exempt from possible sexist stereotypes or pressures from one member of the couple on the other and reflects the principle of duality and equality between parents that characterizes parental authority and/or biological bond. I am a supporter of the Spanish system in which, by the very effect of the law, the child has the double name. It is equality, it is recognition, in the 21st century, of the fact that a child has two parents!

We should not allow everyone to choose according to their moods or their relationship of strength within the couple.

That is why, with Mrs. Caprasse, I again submit an amendment that will ⁇ make consensus because it is the equality that everyone must respect, which restores what the Institute for Equality of Women and Men has recommended to us. This may at least have the merit of ⁇ bringing down an appeal before the Constitutional Court, given the disappearance of any interest in acting, to save time in the legislative and judicial work and, above all, to finally give the desire to parents to behave in a strict relationship of equality towards children.

It is also likely that we will then avoid having to see the failure of the law of 8 May 2014. Indeed, recent statistics show us that the choice of a name is not a matter of a choice of parents; it is simply the legal order that must impose itself. But this legal order is the law that must organize it and not the false freedom that the law of 8 May 2014 wanted to establish.

Dear colleagues, for the PTB, the bill that is submitted to us today goes in the right direction. It complements a law of May 2014 that, in itself, was more or less in the right direction, as it reduced the inequality between men and women, between parents.

However, it cannot be avoided to express reservations because this proposal retains what was left of inequalities in the law of last year, and in particular the father’s veto right, reproduced in this new proposal.

Since then the PTB expresses approval, but with reservations and the appeal currently during the Constitutional Court expresses well our mixed opinion.

I had not seen you, Mrs. Jiroflée. I will fix it.

Mr. Speaker, that is good. You do not have to worry, I will keep it very brief.

Our group considers – and also found during the previous legislature – this law a ⁇ large step in the right direction. The repairs we have now added to them make them even better.

There are two major discriminations in the law. First, it is the fact that in case of disagreement, it is ultimately the father who has a veto right. To remedy this, Mrs. Lalieux has already explained a number of things. A second major discrimination that we think continues to exist is the fact that two fathers remain completely out of scope and are absolutely not mentioned. A gay couple with adopted children is actually outside here.

In order to do something about this, it is very important for us that we first regulate the legislation on surrogacy in a very good way. Our group has submitted two proposals for this. We are very positive about this bill, but in this light I would like to immediately also make an appeal to all of us together, beyond the party boundaries, to bow over that law on caregiving motherhood. Then the world will look much more beautiful.