Proposition 54K0697

Projet de loi modifiant la législation en vue de l'instauration d'un statut pour les accueillants familiaux.

General information ¶

Authors

N-VA Sophie De Wit, Sarah Smeyers, Goedele Uyttersprot, Kristien Van Vaerenbergh

Submission date

Dec. 9, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure family law child child protection child care parental authority juvenile court

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP VB

Abstained from voting

PS | SP PVDA | PTB

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 9, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Mrs. Özen, by Mr. Van Hecke and Mr. and broccoli.

They all refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, this proposal aims to establish a civil status for family hosts by allowing them to exercise certain attributes of parental authority. Those who are forced, for various reasons, to welcome a child into their families now benefit from a slightly clearer legal framework. Nevertheless, when rights are granted to family hosts, it is obvious that this cannot be done at the expense of the original parents.

Therefore, it is necessary to find a balance between the two parties, while of course keeping in mind the best interests of the child, which must prevail. In this case, this goal is not fully achieved. Indeed, the proposal lacks clarifications on the use of certain terms, which, therefore, does not allow sufficiently to frame the rights granted to hosts. Similarly, key concepts remain vague. We had ⁇ this in the committee, Mrs Van Vaerenbergh, at the time we were talking about "daily decisions" that will now be made by family hosts. This notion has not found a definition, as does the “right of residence” which they will exercise. It will be up to the case-law to determine more precisely what these concepts cover.

Furthermore, the text does not explain the duties that family hosts will have to assume as they enjoy rights with respect to the child. The proposal also establishes a situation that is likely to trigger a conflict of loyalty between the two families in the child.

In committees, we submitted amendments that responded to these concerns, but unfortunately they were swept away from the back of the hand without any debate being conducted. Similarly, while several field actors — notably from Communities whose competences are interested in the bill — have expressed their desire to be associated with the reflection, this has not been made possible.

A number of questions are still pending. When a part of parental authority is delegated and certain rights are granted to actors such as family hosts, it is not normal that the parents of origin remain fully presumed responsible for their children. This essential question goes hand in hand with the status of family hosts. It is regrettable that the majority did not want to take the effort to settle it.

This also applies to matters relating to the proceedings of the dispute of parental authority. They did not find a clear answer. While the issue of civil status was not a priority, it is regrettable that few initiatives are taken by the government to allow family hosts to benefit, for the child they are hosting, from a series of specific holidays or certain tax benefits that they enjoy for their own children. These are, however, aspects that impact the lives of the hosts and of which the majority would do well to grasp. I was told that this would be the case, but it is a shame that we did not do it in the context of what we are currently dealing with.

If, under international law, the removal of a child can only be taken as a last resort and this measure must be as temporary as possible, certain circumstances justify the removal of the child from his family in order to grow up in a peaceful and fulfilling universe. It is also regrettable that the majority does not address the economic and social weakness of families, which can sometimes be the source of an investment.

On the contrary, it is known that the explosion of atypical and precarious jobs and the excessive flexibility of work are factors that weigh heavily on the lives of families. Structural measures must therefore be put in place, so as to favor the living conditions of the families in which the child will grow up.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we can be very pleased today that, after decades of talking about it, we can finally give caregivers a statute that governs their rights and duties without prejudice to the interests of other stakeholders. The statute is extremely important as we remove the uncertainty that still prevents potential caregivers from taking care of children who are temporarily unable to live with their own family or independently. For many nursing children and nursing guests, this is a good solution because in a nursing family they find the security, warmth and structure they need for their development.

Nursing has increased greatly in recent years. Currently, 5,616 children, young people or adults with disabilities live in foster homes in Flanders. Nevertheless, we still cannot answer two out of three questions about a foster family positively, as there is still a shortage of foster families. Approximately 500 children or young people are not in a foster family every year. We hope that the statute will still take candidate-pleegoders over the bridge to take on that task.

Moreover, today, because caregivers have cared for a child for a long time, they do not participate in decisions, which often leads to practical difficulties. Often it is advisable that caregivers make certain decisions.

As I said, we have been talking about the statute for decades. We have already gone a long way with this legislative proposal. We submitted it in 2014; we held hearings in Parliament; we obtained opinions; we held a first reading; we obtained the opinion of the Council of State and there was consultation with the Communities. This was necessary because nursing is largely within the competence of the Communities. The statute remains to the federal level. Furthermore, the bill is in line with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and with the recommendations of the Council of Europe.

Therefore, I think that we have worked very carefully and that in the end we have come to a very balanced whole that takes into account the interests of all stakeholders involved, both caregivers, natural parents and caregivers.

What will change specifically with the bill?

First, from the first day, plea parents will be able to make daily decisions and make urgent and necessary decisions, for example, about the child’s haircut, sleeping with a comrade or an urgent medical surgery. The caregivers will be able to decide for themselves. This seems to be an obvious thing.

Secondly, starting from day 1, they will also be able to make agreements with parents to exercise more powers, for example with regard to the choice of school or the religion of a child. If they do not agree, they can turn to the court after having cared for the adoptive child for one year and the court will then judge, always in the best interests of the child.

We have long debated in Parliament about the competent court. In the end, we reached a compromise and chose to give jurisdiction to the family court, as it is the natural judge to judge on parental responsibility. If the juvenile judge is asked for youth protection measures, he will judge.

Finally, another important point changes with this bill: a right to personal contact arises when foster care providers have cared for a foster child for one year, so that the contact with the foster child is not abruptly interrupted when the foster care ends.

Those very important points can really bring a change in the lives of foster children, foster caregivers and natural parents. We have taken a step forward. Our work is not yet completed, Mrs. Özen. For example, we need to provide for the introduction of parental leave for parents to make parental care even more attractive. Alleszins means a step in the right direction.

I would like to thank everyone from the majority for the constructive cooperation with regard to the bill. This also applies to all opposition parties who will later support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, here is a matter that has taken time to mature since its first discussion since it dates back to March 2015. The status of family hosts is a delicate subject that deserved a positive reflection on the concerns of the actors, associations and entities concerned. A fair balance must be found between the interests of the child, the interests of the family of origin and those of the family hosts in the context of a placement.

How can foster parents make it easier to frame the integrated children in their home, to make the outcome that this integration into the family, which already has its own way of life, can be done while guaranteeing the parents of origin the place that must remain theirs? I think we found that balance.

It was reminded that it was also necessary to play with the competences of the federal state and the Communities.

I would like to return to one point in particular. An amendment has been submitted and it introduces the idea that, prior to the placement in the host family, a dialogue must take place so that an agreement can be reached between the parent of origin and the host family to determine how parents will exercise their right to personal relations with their child during the placement. It is obviously essential that the child ⁇ ins this connection and dialogue with his family, which he is supposed to reintegrate one day.

The law that we are going to vote for now provides that dialogue must be carried out mandatory, and this with the intervention of the competent body in matters of family welfare. In order to mitigate the unequal character of this dialogue between people who do not necessarily have the same socio-cultural and financial level – I mean here the placement due to great poverty – ATD Quart Monde drew our attention to the fact that it was essential that parents be shouldered by a person of trust. Determining how the dialogue will actually take place and how the parents of origin will be supported are competences of the Communities. This still needs to be realised, but I have no doubt that they will be receptive to these legitimate concerns and that the realisation will be done in the most appropriate way.

Maintaining the contact between the parents of origin and their child, according to their real wishes and their concrete possibilities, is therefore an essential element that will ensure that the parental bond will not be broken.

The MR group is pleased that this bill finally gives a clear status to family hosts, which facilitates the daily management of family life of family hosts or, should we say, of the host family. We hope that this status will call for other vocations.

First and foremost, I would like to apologize to Mrs. Becq. She had to be present in the investigative commission of Kazachgate.

On behalf of our group, I would like to say that we consider this a very balanced proposal that creates legal certainty for both parents, caregivers and the child itself. The statute for parental care is a good thing. This eliminates a number of uncertainties. We hope to draw more candidate-players across the line.

We call on all relevant authorities to properly inform everyone about the new legal provisions and, above all, to work on a tailor-made scheme that benefits the children who are welcomed in a foster family.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, ideally we would not have to approve the proposal. By doing so, I do not want to undermine the work done by the colleagues to reach this text. I mean by this that ideally there should be no children whose care at home cannot be guaranteed. Unfortunately, young people are sometimes in difficult educational situations. At that time, accommodation must be sought elsewhere. Fortunately, there are very often careers willing to catch those children.

If I am well informed, this is no exception. On average, there are about 5,000 children in our country. That is a significant number. It is absolutely not an easy task for healthcare professionals, whether or not in consultation with the natural parents, to ensure a good framing of young people who often come out of a very difficult situation.

Therefore, it has been rightly sought for a statute, so that more certainty can be offered to those who are facing that not always easy task. This question has existed for a long time and has absolutely not occurred in deafness, not even in our group.

I am addressing my colleague, Sabien Lahaye-Battheu, who has been in the field of matter for a long time. He has repeatedly submitted our bill. We have done that again in this legislature, in good cooperation, and together with our colleagues we have come to the integral solution that is on the vote today.

We didn’t go ice overnight. I hear colleague Özen just say that the definition we present today, which should bring more legal certainty, would absolutely not be clear, which is the reason for her group to abstain or even vote against. We will notice this later. I was somewhat surprised by this, because in a first move it was attempted to really formulate a very strict definition, with the right to material retention on the one hand and the right to legal retention on the other. The material preservation goes immediately to the zorgouders, the legal preservation goes over time, if there is no immediate sight of a return to the natural family, gradually from the natural parents to the zorgouders. That was a difficult exercise, because when one takes a number of examples for the mind casuistically, it turns out that it is not so easy to draw up a strict definition that is applicable in all circumstances. The State Council also decided not to do so, and so we have wisely returned to the situation we know, where natural parents no longer live together but jointly exercise parental authority.

As regards the content of the present bill, I can agree with the excellent explanation already given by the colleague. It is almost like at home that we have wanted to arrange. We hope that in many cases the caregivers can very often and hopefully as soon as possible return to that environment, that there can be a contact with parents who have cared for them for a while, that everyone knows what to stick to and that the life for those who come out of a difficult situation, thanks to the new legislation, however, becomes a little easier. That is our contribution.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I was only able to attend the hearings, which took place some time ago. Meetings were held prior to the committee’s work. My colleague Stefaan Van Hecke followed this case well in the Justice Committee. He has worked well with members of the Ecolo-Groen party, so that we can follow and reflect together on this matter.

Even though I did not participate in the work and find myself in front of the finished product, I wanted to thank the members of the Justice Committee, who took into account all the testimonies of representatives of families deprived of their rights for a while, representatives of host families, caregivers, lawyers, etc. You have greatly improved the proposed basic device. We can congratulate the quality of parliamentary work done.

There are questions and difficulties that a federal law will never be able to satisfy. The most fundamental difficulty, which no legal arrangement will ever be able to face, is the double loyalty of the child, indefectible first to his original parents – it is impossible to ask a child to betray his original family, whatever its defects – and then to his host family which allows him to live in good conditions. This situation is inevitable. Any measure of accompanying these children and families must incorporate this complexity in order to ease the weight and to best meet the rights and quality of life of that child.

The accompaniment of these families of origin is necessary because they are necessarily in a more difficult situation, of weakness, compared to the host family, which is a good family. The family of origin has gaps, due to which the custody, accommodation and education of the child are removed for a period of time.

These host families and those families of origin will need to be accompanied, ⁇ even more, by organisations approved by the Regions and Communities. In this regard, I consider that your responsibility is great. You must work with the Ministers of the Communities and Regions to ensure this support when the law comes into force.

We also all have a responsibility to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated by the Communities and Regions to support the services that will have to support these families in these difficult situations of negotiating a convention.

This agreement, i.e. the interactive definition between the two families of the rights that the host family will be able to assume instead of or in consultation with the family of origin, will only have real value if both families know how to talk to each other. It may sometimes take several months to ⁇ this because the injury of being removed from your child is difficult to heal.

It remains the question of the duration of one year or two or three, at the end of which the absence of an agreement gives the host family the opportunity to acquire a wider range of rights. I know that this deadline concerns some associations, especially social workers who work alongside the most fragile, the poorest families, those with the lowest capacity to be heard or to assume their role. We must keep this question open. I am unable — I think we are all — to say if a year is a too short period, if a three-year period is preferable, too short or too long given the situations experienced on the ground.

I hope that the effects of this law, its application and the feelings of families can be regularly evaluated. If family accompaniment is done correctly, this question should not arise.

When it is known that part of the success of this law depends on the quality of the accompaniment, which emerges from the competence of another level of power, it is difficult to have certainties or requirements at the federal level. That is why we need to work together in the coming months.

We will therefore support this law and try to evaluate as best as possible its implementation.

That said, I cannot help but link here with the need to fight against poverty, to fight against the socio-economic weakness of a whole series of families.

It is clear that this aspect is not included in the bill under consideration. However, if we participate in the deterioration of the living conditions of the weakest families, some of them will find themselves unable to assume their role. Tax measures, time and vacation availability measures must therefore also be taken to help these families fulfill their daily role.

I therefore hope that this government will agree to supplement this arrangement with far-reaching social and employment policies.

Finally, I questioned many actors in the sector that I know because, in a previous life, I had the opportunity to attend the host families. Workers in the family placement sector have told me that it is important to find and retain host families once they have agreed to enter this approach, knowing that today host families are facing increasingly difficult situations due to the deterioration of the socio-economic situation of many home families. According to them, it would also be interesting to offer a framework that allows to mark the way to establish the relationship between the two families as well as how the service of accompaniment or family placement can come to fit into this relationship.

The unequal position between the two families is a point that remains to be monitored, but we will continue to follow and evaluate the situation to see if changes need to be introduced in the law. In fact, a law can always be changed to get better.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Proof of whether it is that one can work in a justice commission, remaining oneself and sometimes asking the right questions.

Madame Van Vaerenbergh, for many years, has been trying to find a status for family hosts, because they are asking for a legal status to allow them to live more easily, more serene the reception of the children who are placed at their home. For many years the legislator has been examining, retreating, not daring, because the balance is difficult to find between what these host parents want, the interest of the child concerned by the placement and the need to understand also the interest of the parents of origin (biological parents), while knowing that the placement always aims at the well-being of the child, with the possibility, if it is in accordance with his interest, to reintegrate his family of origin.

Therefore, it is important to be cautious because if, in the statutes, one changes, too radically, the state of persons or the rights that go hand in hand, this can sometimes lead to situations that are not happy.

So, yes, Mrs. Van Vaerenbergh – I said “no” three times before, so I will try to say “yes” three times now – this text has had a somewhat difficult, somewhat chaotic course. Let us recognize him! Between the original text and the text on which we will agree today, there is a world of difference. I think the authors will recognize it and admit it.

We had to be quite cautious at first. Terms such as “feeding parents” were used. Terms were used that no longer had meaning elsewhere in our Civil Code, such as "material custody right", "legal custody right". The community dimension of the project and the file was omitted. I think we were well inspired to request both hearings and, above all, to send the text to the Council of State, since this allowed us, upon the return of the Council of State, to see appear a much more acceptable text, clearly better written, which made the share of things among the interests I just recalled.

This status is actually expected by family hosts. To play this game is to accept a child who is not his and try to give him the best environment, being confronted, on a daily basis, with difficulties arising when signing a bulletin, signing his agreement for a night with a friend or for a trip abroad during a weekend, or even enrolling a child in a holiday internship. If one is systematically stopped by problems of that order, it does not make things easy. The law we are proposing today will allow us to come out of these situations of non-right, to simplify procedures, to recognize the place of the host parents and to facilitate their lives, as I said.

It is important to remind and clarify to this tribune, as part of our work, that biological parents (of origin), of course, retain the competence to make important decisions relating to health, education, training, leisure and religious or philosophical choices, except, says the statute, in cases of extreme urgency. In this case, there will always be a possibility to resort to a judge who will appreciate. The bill also mentions, in its article 387quinquies, and this seems to me essential, the importance of parental authority, the respect of the basic principles of education, the supervision of the education of their child, and the right, during the placement, of course, to maintain personal relations.

What is interesting in the text is that family hosts and parents of origin can agree and settle with each other all the provisions concerning the reception by a convention. This convention is free, but framed by the bodies competent in matters of family welfare. This is the European dimension we were talking about. This agreement may not exceed the duration of the reception established by the placement or reception bodies. It may be approved by the family court if necessary. I think this is an excellent provision in the bill. This possibility of convention promotes communication between families. Imagine that if there is better communication, the child’s interests are thus better served.

The intervention of the competent bodies in the field of family welfare also allows to be reassured about the guidance of parents who do not always benefit from the capacity to draft this type of convention, so that their minimum interests are still taken into account.

However, like Ms. Gerkens, who mentioned this at the moment, I have a certain reluctance that I have developed in commission. It was the youth aid professionals and field workers at ATD Quart Monde who drew our attention to this situation. Both in the Convention and in the new Article 387cties, there is a question of delegating certain important decisions within the scope of parental responsibility after one year. This somewhat annoys field practitioners from representative organizations such as ATD Quart Monde.

It is difficult to assess whether this delegation should be expanded. We can also be pleased that in the text, from now on, we are talking about “delegation” and not “transfer” of parental authority. This terminology is much more appropriate. Can it be considered that after one year of placement, an extension of the scope of the competence or parental authority granted to the host family can be decided? Should there be a deadline or not?

In a committee, I had submitted a first amendment aimed at removing the deadline; and then, a sub-amendment aimed at establishing the deadline to three years. This suggested that there were more guarantees. I will today – with your group, Mrs. Gerkens, if you wish, and I hope, with other groups too – re-depose the amendment setting the three-year deadline.

I explained this in the committee, the scope of the provision applies as much for the voluntary placement as for the placement that can be qualified as involuntary. The code and texts already provide provisions that enable solutions to be found.

Finally, I will vote in favour of this proposal. Let me explain my reasons. The issue is important. We have spent years trying to find solutions. The solution is here! I think it is worth trying to explain to all those who would still have reluctance the reason why, despite these reluctance, we will end up voting the text.

In the event of a voluntary placement, the host family can already, today, address the youth court to determine the extent of its rights on the child. Should there be a deadline? The question is asked. When placement is not voluntary, there is also in our current legal arsenal the possibility of palliating the absence of the original parents. Parental discharge exists. The more coercive system has the advantage of avoiding a direct confrontation between the host parents and the home family.

The bill provides that in the most serious cases, family hosts always have the possibility to appeal to a court. In my view, the existing laws and the present text contain tools for extending parental authority after one year. Such an extension would ⁇ allow some to appreciate our present work to its just value.

I come to my second fear. Despite the improvement of the text, which has been allowed through committee discussions, resorting to the judge – whether it be the family court or the youth court – may be a little too simple. A greater judicialization of certain cases is not always the best formula. In short, we will see what will emerge from the application of the law and, if necessary, its assessment.

Finally, I will address parental responsibility, which is referred to in Article 184 of the Civil Code. You don’t mind me, Mr. President, but that’s it. As a commissioner, I pointed out in the form of a bump that it is often said to the most precarious families, who are not able – at least temporarily – to educate their child properly and who sometimes have to resolve to place it, that they are deprived of certain attributes of parental authority while remaining responsible for their child if the latter commits a nonsense. Therefore, they are advised to make sure, to the extent possible, because they will continue to respond to the actions performed by their child.

I felt that such an attitude was neither very consistent nor very normal. Therefore, I consider that, for the temporary duration of the placement, the responsibility should be relocated to the parent-in-law in order to clarify this situation. The representative of the Minister then told us that such a possibility would be or would be the subject of wider negotiations. I therefore believe that the slight reluctance that still inspires me reading the text will then be eliminated.

Despite these little reluctance and thanks, above all, to the evolution of the text, to the even imperfect balance between the well-understood interests of the child, parents and family hosts, our group will vote for this text. He is delighted to facilitate the lives of families who offer welcome, love, time, energy and finance to children in trouble. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that the ultimate goal is always that this child can return to its original family environment. We will vote on the text.

Mr. President, Mrs. Caprasse and I will vote on this bill. I would like to congratulate those who took the initiative and contributed to its drafting and completion, which takes into consideration not only the opinions of the State Council but also the relevant professional circles, including the partners of family welfare in the various Communities. As it has already been said, when parliament is struggling to follow those who bring real expertise, legislative work can be of quality.

I am very pleased with the name given to the families that will be welcoming. The somewhat outdated term “feeding parents” was avoided, even though the intention was praiseworthy and honored the host families. This is a major advance of modernity. You responded to a recommendation from the Council of Europe calling for a legal status for host families.

In terms of recognition of the social, affective, economic role of host families, this is a major innovation. I sincerely congratulate the authors and all those who contributed to the drafting of this bill. It is all the more interesting as you have been able to go beyond what unfortunately too often characterizes relationships between parents and host families, namely a conflicting conception of relationships. Too often, professional intermediaries had to play the role of conciliators. Certainly, we must not exclude their role, on the contrary – you have also recognized the need to associate them with the elaboration of an agreement between parents and the host family – but you have clearly favored the consultation, mediation, participation, understanding and, finally, the conclusion of an agreement between parents and family hosts.

This is even more interesting as it completely changes – and it may change other institutions, such as adoption – the relationship between biological families and protective families the time needed for their intervention. I believe that this opens up a very interesting reflection on the complementarity that is beneficial to the protection and interest of the child between those who should be partners. This concept of conventional partnership seems to me to be essential in the arrangement you have developed. I look forward to this because I believe it will open new perspectives in relationships between multiple partners that surround a child in exceptional circumstances, when he can not rely on his only biological family for his education and personal fulfillment.

I am sorry, but this may have been discussed in the committee and then I did not read the report correctly. I was rather in favour of the obligation to submit the convention for homologation to the court. First because I believe that this would have forged a jurisprudence that would have been very useful in how to develop this conventional relationship between parents and family hosts and that it would have guided the work of specialists and lawyers or other stakeholders who must guide parents. This would also have provided legal certainty and possibly avoided controversies in the execution of the convention, the court may sometimes re-qualify terms or provide useful clarification. The experience may lead us to re-examine some aspects.

The tax consequences were not addressed in this bill. By the way, this is a real workplace because a new balance must be found in terms of obligations and tax deductibility according to the ratio of responsibilities or interventions between parents and family hosts.

Honestly, I am positively impressed by this legislative advance which I think is entirely innovative in our family law and which will ⁇ be the subject of very intense study by specialists in the field.

I would like to point out that there is a small legal correction. This will be my modest contribution to the development of this proposal.

In the articles of the proposal, for the approval of agreements before the family court, Articles 1250ter/4 and 1250ter/6 are referred, for example, to Article 8. Paragraph 2 of Article 9 refers to Article 1353ter/6 of the Judicial Code. There are no provisions of Article 1353ter/6. This is Article 1253ter/6. This is a small pen mistake, but this correction should be made to ensure the consistency of the legislative text.

Thank you Mr Maingain. Can I ask you to give us the legal correction you are talking about, so that we can be sure? (with the consent)

I will be brief. First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for this bill. He is very pleased that the House votes today.

I would like to make three remarks.

First, the definition of rights is not entirely explicit. Nevertheless, I believe that the State Council has justified the undefined nature of the rights on the basis of the judge’s assessment; this answers Ms. Özen’s question.

Secondly, the Communities have taken a large part in the preparation of this bill. Several meetings were held in the Office of Justice on the subject. It is important to emphasize this, just as it is important to say that the purpose of all this project is the return to the original family. However, this return to the family of origin and how it will be carried out are the competence of the decree authority. In this context, I can only emphasize the importance of the work of the Communities in the implementation of this law.

Third, the law of liability is important but, for now, we have preferred not to insist on this point as it calls for a comprehensive debate that is better conducted in the context of the recodification of the law of liability.

Before I conclude, I would like to emphasize that I very much appreciate this proposal.