Parliament yesterday started debating wide-ranging amendments to the Civil Code focused mainly on succession, and the removal of discrimination in respect of children conceived and born out of wedlock.

Justice and Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg explained that one of the main amendments gave greater freedom to married couples in the way they drew up their will.

To date married spouses who had children could only bequeath each other a quarter of each other's property and the rest could be enjoyed only in usufruct.

This limit was now being removed and there would be no capping of how much one could leave his or her spouse as long as the legitim (henceforth referred to as the reserved portion) was respected. The reserved portion would remain unchanged at the value of one third of the property of the deceased when there were up to four children and half when there were more than four children.

Thus spouses who had one child could leave up to two-thirds of their property to each other and a third to the child.

The surviving spouse would not only have a right to continue to live in the matrimonial home but would also have the right to preference for its purchase.

When a married couple had no children and one of the spouses died without a will, the surviving spouse would inherit the property of the deceased rather than divide it with the family of the deceased, as was currently the case.

Dr Borg said he wanted to stress that these, and most of the other provisions of this bill, were not retroactive and would only apply to the inheritance of those who died after this bill became law. The bill would however apply to children born out of wedlock when their parents were still alive.

The wording of the law, he said, removed the terms "legitimate" and "illegitimate" and there would henceforth not be discrimination in the law between children on the basis that they were born out of wedlock or in wedlock.

Thus the reserved portion would be due to all children whether conceived or born in wedlock or conceived and born out of wedlock, divided in equal shares between them.

Dr Borg observed that 569 babies were born out of wedlock last year, 14.6 per cent of the total.

Similarly there could be no discrimination in the law on the basis of those born within one marriage and those born within a second or other marriages. Nor could there be discrimination between children on the basis of adoption.

All the children of the testator whether born in wedlock, out of wedlock, or adopted may receive by will from the testator.

Dr Borg said that the bill introduced new provisions on the partition of an inheritance. In terms of the bill, when, after 10 years passed, an inheritance would still not have been divided because of disagreement between the heirs, it would still be possible for the majority of the heirs to sell their property after court authorisation.

Dr Borg said that to date when a person was born out of wedlock and the father was unknown, that person assumed the surname of the mother. However, at present, the natural father could, at any time act to acknowledge the child, whereupon that child assumed his surname. Now the bill provided that the father could still apply to acknowledge the child at a late stage, but such act of acknowledgment, involving the change of the child's surname, could only take place if there was no objection by the mother. When there was an objection, the father had to go before a court for that recognition to take effect.

Dr Borg also pointed out that at present a widow who remarried could use her maiden name or the surname of her second husband but not of the first. This meant that she would have a different surname from children born in the first marriage. In terms of this bill, she would henceforth be able to combine the surname of her first husband with that of her second.

The bill also included provisions for annotations in the acts of birth of unmarried persons who changed their sex, following approval by the courts, and a new identity card would be issued accordingly.

But, Dr Borg stressed, a person who was born a man and changed his sex may still not marry a man, and vice versa.

Opposition justice spokesman Anglu Farrugia described the bill as important and progressive. He said the opposition did not have major differences but intended to move amendments to refine it.

It was important that children born out of wedlock enjoyed the same rights as other children.

Dr Farrugia said there could be cases where a man had a child out of wedlock from a married woman. In this case, the child assumed the surname of the married woman's husband. In such cases who would initiate the case for the acknowledgment of the father?

What would happen when the mother of a child born out of wedlock objected, out of spite, to an application for the acknowledgment of the child by the father?

Once a child born out of wedlock was acknowledged, what duties would the parents have?

Dr Farrugia said he agreed with the bill where it removed discrimination against adopted and other children. Adopted children should have the same rights as those born in wedlock, including the right to inherit. He augured that procedures for overseas adoptions would be speeded up so as to benefit hundreds of couples who were eager to adopt.

Turning to sex changes, Dr Farrugia said changes to an act of birth should only be allowed once. Once a decision was taken, it should not be possible to reverse it again.

Dr Farrugia welcomed the fact that children born out of wedlock, once acknowledged, had the same rights as those born within wedlock.

He augured that this would forever end mentalities which acted against children born to unmarried mothers, such as in schools.

Dr Farrugia said he agreed with the amendments which would allow spouses to bequeath more to each other than the quarter allowed at present. It was not right that, in terms of current law, the surviving spouse, usually the wife, ended up receiving less than the children, even when such children no longer respected the parents.

He also felt that the law should be more specific on the reasons which could exclude children from the reserved portion (legitim). Those children who did not respect their immediate family should not expect to be given respect after the parents' death. Allowing this would only serve to erode the value of the family.

Dr Farrugia said it was unfortunate that properties worth millions of liri were unused because of inheritance problems. This was dead wealth. This bill provided for a period of 10 years after which a property which remained undivided may be sold by the majority of the heirs upon authorisation by a court. Perhaps one should consider a period of five years.

Dr Farrugia also welcomed the provisions of the bill providing that wills unica charta had to be written in such a way that notaries would be able to show the heirs the portion of the deceased while keeping the portion of the surviving spouse secret.

Near the end of his speech Dr Farrugia referred to the preference being given to the surviving spouse to purchase the matrimonial home and called for greater protection to the surviving spouse not to be evicted from the home.

Dr Farrugia also argued that members of religious orders should have the same right of inheritance as their brothers and sisters.

Earlier in his speech Dr Farrugia appealed to the minister to intervene to solve serious problems in the administration of the courts in Gozo.