Proposition 50K1007

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre et la loi du 12 juillet 1976 relative à la réparation de certains dommages causés à des biens privés par des catastrophes naturelles.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 11, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

natural disaster damage insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Ferdy Willems (N-VA) voted to adopt.
• Vincent Decroly (Ecolo) abstained from voting.
• Richard Fournaux (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 ¶

March 19, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Contrary to our previous intentions, we refer to our written report.

Mr. Speaker, I also refer to the written report, because the discussions we will begin will ⁇ take on the arguments we have raised.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear friends, I will try to be simple and not academic, saying the essence of my thought.

As I said in the committee, we have been talking about this matter for a long time. Several ministers were concerned about this: both Mr. Wathelet, Mr. Di Rupo, Mr. Demo by yourself. I am convinced that if it took so much time to reach a result today, whatever it is, it is because, at some times, the political will was lacking but also because, obviously, this subject is difficult. The aim of this bill is to make life easier for people who, at some point, are victims of a natural disaster, rather than imposing additional difficulties on the legal, administrative and, of course, financial levels. If everyone agrees on the goal, it is not the same with the question of how to ⁇ it.

Mr. Minister, I am not afraid to say — I speak here personally — that I am disappointed with the result. Even if I consider this to be an indisputable first step, I believe that the big debate on the solidarity of all citizens, in the case of all Belgians, in the face of such phenomena has not really been resolved.

The question arises naturally in these terms: how far should we go in this solidarity? In my opinion, in order to be able to resolve this debate, it was necessary to answer preliminary questions. The first was about the form. What kind of consultation was or should be organised with the Regions in order to establish a coherent law at the federal level? The other questions were related to the substance. On the one hand, what was really meant to be covered as risks? Was it necessary to cover all risks, all possible or imaginable natural calamities, or was it necessary to select a series of catastrophes, such as floods, flooding, rock falls — does this seem to happen? What kind of solidarity mechanisms do we want to implement? When we look at what has happened in different European countries, we realize that the solidarity mechanism is not always the same from one country — or even sometimes from one region — to another. In some cases, there is more segmentation, in others there is less, both at the level of pricing and the areas concerned.

I consider that the result of your work, Mr. Minister, is to come up with a bill that I will no longer call “natural disasters” but rather “inundations” because this is the first element you wanted to encounter. I’m not going to be disappointed because I know what it’s like to have my feet in the water. But, to avoid misleading the citizen in the way we, parliamentarians, or you, ministers — or all those who discuss this topic — communicate, we must avoid talking about a bill on “natural disasters”. This was seen, at least at first, as a little more restrictive.

The predominant impression is that a bill should absolutely be voted by the House before the elections. Some arguments are for, others are against. Among the positive arguments, at least something is done. Even though some think that this is not perfect, one first step is at least taken and one first step accomplished. Among the negative arguments, one can say that we may have acted too quickly to vote absolutely before the elections. As always, the truth lies between the two and the future will tell us how we should have worked.

For me, the major questions that remain unresolved are these. When will the implementation of this bill actually take place? As you know, it all depends on how the Regions will work to establish the map.

Mr. Minister, in terms of communication to the citizen, you know how difficult it is, in politics, sometimes to manage the effects of advertising. Even when the opposition makes a proposal, the population thinks the law will apply a few days later. It must be very clear to the citizen because it is sometimes difficult for him to manage these advertising effects.

Today’s vote will ⁇ make certain risks related to flooding assured, but in order to know the full and perfect application of the law, the map of the Regions will need to be established and approved. In this regard, Mr. Minister, it is important – remember the debate in committees – to ensure that the methods of mapping and flooded areas are the same in all regions of the country. It would not be necessary that in Flanders, for example, one follows a logic of basins or even of more extensive territories while in the Walloon Region would prevail a logic of areas actually flooded "at the centimeter near", on the occasion of the last major floods that we have known. Finally, we risk that a Belgian citizen, depending on whether he resides in one or the other area where a different method of mapping has been carried out, does not enjoy the same rights and is not subject to the same obligations. That would of course be very dangerous. Furthermore, I’m not sure that the insurance companies responsible for taking over the follow-up of voting for such a law today would be satisfied or support this way of seeing things.

What about places that are not taken back in flooded areas? I showed it to you, Mr. Minister, for a region like mine, but I know that this is not just a local problem, many have talked to me about it. Obviously, it is realized that even with the mapping as it is currently managed in the Walloon Region, a series of precise places where even small floods, mud floods, small floods, etc. took place. They are not used in flooded areas.

Given the above, we will again know a problem in the enforcement of the law. What do you do with those places out of map? Will your law be amended later? I would be curious to know your opinion on this. In fact, what about the possibility of talking one day about the problem of other natural disasters? I have experienced rock falls in my area and I know that this is also the case in Andenne, the municipality of Mr. by Eerdekens. I know of a merchant who unfortunately had to file his balance sheet because of a rock falling on his store. These are very concrete events that are still not covered by insurance. For this, we will maintain the fund of calamities, accompanied by all the complications that we know. Is there currently a consensus within the arc-enzyme parties to, in the next legislature, whether in the majority or in the opposition, take the time to go a little further in this law and make improvements, in particular to cover other forms of natural calamities?

Mr. Minister, I know that you have personally held many consultations with the insurance sector. The written report also cites the companies present and I have no doubt that many contacts have taken place within your service. Were these contacts carried out on the basis of the original text that was much wider than the one we will vote for tomorrow? Were there any new contacts based on the new text? Can we know what these people think?

Many parliamentarians want to know what will be the exact cost for the citizen of this type of insurance, at least in the risk areas. Mr. Minister, you gave a few verbal estimates in the committee but, since then, and I know that you have been personally involved in this case in the last few weeks, have you been able to go a little further in the numbers?

Finally, I confess that I did not read this law in all its details, but we had discussed in a committee the problem of the possible right of appeal of insurance companies against a series of authorities both private and public and specifically with municipalities and regions on what could be called a possible lack of forecasting. Companies could use this argument to hold public authorities accountable, which should reimburse insurance companies for compensation granted to victims.

Mr. Minister, I remember that you were, if not shaken, at least very aware of the problem and you asked at the time to dig a little into this subject, namely whether the law could provide for possible remedies for insurance companies and therefore also impossibilities. Have you been able to move forward on this topic that I find very important and delicate, including for regional and municipal finances?

Mr. Minister, one reproach that is very often addressed to us is the following: "It is good to criticize or to find that what has been done is not perfect, but what would you have done in our place if you had this responsibility to manage?"We think that it might have been necessary, despite all, to try to set up what I would call a "great insurance, all natural disasters included". In order to finance it, we think that it would have been necessary to establish the principle of total national solidarity among all Belgians, even to provide for a very large segmentation, two-order segmentation.

The first, financially: fatal, the more you reside in a risk zone, the more you pay, and vice versa. I have always said it in battle, Mr. Minister, the one who lives at the altitude 100 in Forest will pay a little less than the one who lives in Dinant on the edge of Meuse.

However, in our opinion, the segmentation could be done in a second way, and you referred to it in the original text, Mr. Minister, namely at the level of the amounts compensated. It could be imagined that in areas really at risk, the amount of intervention of the insurance company is placed to compel each of the insured, owner or tenant, to take the minimum measures to avoid too large damages and also to limit the invoice to the insurance companies and, consequently, the total amount of premiums that should be collected.

We looked at things in this way. It may still be possible to do so when the law will eventually need to be evaluated and revised.

I must acknowledge that whatever system or option you choose, the positive element of your bill, in addition to making a first step towards this concept of risk insuredness, is all the work that revolves around the pricing office. Even if a law had to be passed to create the pricing office – one could imagine it, since it was possible until now and without your law, to insure with certain private insurance companies for these risks related to natural disasters or floods – the very fact of having this office will ⁇ help create a more objective relationship between insurers and potential victims.

So I have to admit that this element is quite positive.

That is all I will say and I am delighted to have intervened on this project which, as you may doubt, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, interests me at the highest point.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I have to tell you that it is with an unhidden pleasure that the reformist movement welcomes the conclusion of the bill on the well-known theme of natural disasters. Even though it is expected to enter into force within a year or two, this project is still a big step forward towards access to insurance for all and faster compensation for flood victims.

Certainly, you will agree, the bill that is submitted to us today is far from perfect. It contains in fact a few unknown at least fundamental since at the moment, Mr. Minister, we are unable to assess the exact scope of the law. To do this, we will have to wait for the mapping of the flooded areas that the Regions are still doing and which, according to the information you have communicated to us in the commission, would be finalised only in more or less a year and a half. Following the establishment of this mapping, the extent of solidarity can also be determined. Indeed, we cannot yet know whether solidarity will be limited to those living in flooded areas or, on the contrary, whether it will be extended to the entire population. This will depend on the density of the population living in the risk areas.

Although we do not deny these scams in any way, we are nevertheless intimately convinced that this bill must imperatively be voted by Parliament as soon as possible. First, because it has been years since the Belgians have been waiting for such legislation, Mr. The firefighters recalled it recently. The problem is indeed not new. This was not only discussed in the previous legislature, but also in other legislatures.

The present project was submitted on 11 December 2000, i.e. more or less two years ago, and it is today that it is about to be achieved. I think this simply proves the difficulty of legislation in this area. As another reason in favor of a quick vote on this bill, I would also like to mention the fact that even if the whole bill cannot come into force soon, it is not the same with regard to the famous pricing office that this bill establishes. Indeed, this famous office, created on the same scheme as the car insurance pricing office, is responsible for allowing everyone to subscribe to an insurance by putting the premium at the reach of all exchanges. As you can see, the office will be of collective interest as it will be accessible to everyone, both people living in risk areas and people who are offered too high premiums. It would therefore be a shame to deprive the citizen of access to insurance by refusing to vote on this bill.

In conclusion, I would like to add that it seems to me that it should not be seen as a failure to limit the scope of the law to flooding. First of all, because in the case of earthquakes, for example, the damage caused is so significant that they justify, in my view, the maintenance of national solidarity through the catastrophe box. Secondly, because flooding is the catastrophe that has hit Belgium the hardest in recent times and there is an urgent need to legislate in this area so that in the future, victims can be compensated significantly faster. The Wallonian government has shown us the example and has taken, under the impulse of Minister Charles Michel, a series of decisions aiming essentially to compensate the disaster victims within a period of two months against the usual waiting period, which everyone knows, of two years for compensations from the calamity fund. I think now it is our turn to act and show our solidarity with the disaster victims by voting this bill.

As a result, the Reform Movement fully supports the flooding bill. We are convinced that the measures envisaged will have positive effects, both on access to insurance and on future compensation for citizens victims of floods.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear and courageous colleagues, this bill leaves me a bitter taste for how we had to conduct the work and whose case has evolved. I really feel that we will have to put this work back on the table in a year or two.

We came to the conclusion that the Disaster Fund was too slow and compensated the victims too little. Therefore, it was necessary to find a faster and more efficient formula, hence the idea of resorting to private insurance rather than using this public fund. Indeed, in the field of damage assessment, the expertise of insurance companies is wider and faster. In addition, they also offer a possibility for faster financial intervention, especially since the time limits for insurance intervention provided for in the bill are relatively strict.

The initial project concerned all natural disasters, damage related to terrorism, demonstrations and strikes. Insurance is compulsory for all in the whole country. The use of the Disaster Fund was ⁇ ined for real disasters, more serious than disasters, for supplementary intervention to that of insurance, for insolvencies of insurance companies and for persons with too low incomes to be able to secure the payment of this obligatory insurance premium.

During the work, we realized that it was necessary to know the flooded areas. On the one hand, one cannot generalize an insurance cover without knowing the risk shares. On the other hand, a segmentation will necessarily occur on the part of insurance between persons more or less exposed to different risks. We also realized that the regions were still nowhere in the analysis of their mapping, and therefore risk areas.

We therefore decided to postpone the follow-up of the project review and to resume the work as soon as the identification of the areas would be completed. Then we realized that, for the identification of these areas, we would have to wait until 2004 for one of the two Regions — I mean the Flemish Region — and until 2005 for the other Region. It was obviously a bit long, especially since during the new floods that had hit many citizens, at the beginning of January, the prime minister had committed to promising the entry into force of flood insurance by the end of the legislature — I think we were still talking about natural disaster at the time.

We had to assume this somewhat untimely statement of mr. Verhofstadt, who was, however, aware of the difficulties we knew. Finishing a coherent project depended on the identification of areas. Now, in the face of this population waiting for the rapid implementation of an insurance, it was indeed difficult not to do anything. Something annoys me in the choice we made, but I participated in this work and I will therefore support this project. What actually annoys me is that I’ve announced to people that they’re going to be covered by insurance against natural disasters, and more specifically against floods, while in reality, the only thing they’re going to get is a pricing office. Everything else will come into effect, we don’t know when. I think it would have been better to tell them the truth, namely that we still need a whole series of information, that we must work in collaboration with the Regions, that we develop a pricing office so that those who are exposed and for whom it is therefore interesting to ensure, do not have to pay too high premiums, and that for the next, we will do it together, in knowledge of the cause. But this is another option that has been chosen.

Furthermore, throughout our discussions, I had the unpleasant feeling that the dimensions “responsibility” and “prevention measures” were ultimately secondary. Whether during the discussions on the articles, on the acceptance or rejection of certain amendments — some of which were submitted by us — I had the impression that it was above all not necessary to get lost in discussions, for example, on the reduction of impermeabilized surfaces, on rivers, on haches, on all these elements of physical geography. However, individual behaviors, the behaviors of communes and regions must be moved, things must be changed. People must be held accountable in one way or another, where they are, so that the damage decreases over time and that this insurance eventually intervenes only in the most limited way possible.

This is a dimension that, in my opinion, was completely forgotten during the discussion. The subject is complicated, because competences are shared between municipalities, regions, individuals and the federal, but it would have been interesting to go deeper into this, especially since, in the law, the maps are developed by the Regions. Furthermore, criteria must be identified and agreed on them. They will also need to be scalable according to the measures that will be taken in the Regions. Therefore, in establishing these criteria, these dimensions will, in any case, have to be taken into account. by

In addition, in France, the authorities have opted for a disaster or flood insurance system that covers all French citizens, wherever they are located. Insurance companies warn authorities because they can no longer insure certain areas if they do not take measures to drastically reduce the risks. In the matter, there is a game of co-responsabilization between the actors, a game that is made possible by this approach knowing also that, in parallel, a part of the money that is destined to insurance also serves to help departments in taking preventive measures. by

This dimension would have been interesting to follow, but the mechanism we voted for will only come into effect in two or three years, we will have the opportunity to return to it and deepen the terms of this project.

Therefore, the decision was made to restrict this project only to people who are in flooded areas, for which insurance is mandatory, and this only covers flooding. At first, we can limit ourselves to this measure. On the other hand, if it is extended to the entire population, we risk seeing the premiums increase. We also know that insurance companies, a few days before the vote, complained about their liquidity, their profit margin to intervene, especially in the field of fire, the area to which flood insurance is linked. Therefore, we could actually fear that this flood coverage would be used to increase fire insurance more than necessary.

This is what interpels me because I wonder to what extent insurance companies will be able to fulfill the tasks that are expected of them, from the moment they concern only those people who are really at risk of being flooded, since this concerns only people in flooded areas.

Therefore, I am concerned about the establishment of exclusion mechanisms. In my opinion, even if there is a pricing office, things are likely to collapse at some point, because coverage may be too important for insurance companies. These are not organisms that I complain about and whose health I absolutely want to preserve, but our whole system, as developed, is based on them.

In the mechanisms and measures we have adopted, we provide that buildings that are built 18 months after the identification of the areas and that are located in risky areas, floodable, not only will not be covered by the calamity fund, which intervenes in a complementary way, but also that insurance companies will be able to exclude them from their scope.

At the same time, the reason of being of the pricing office is to ensure that no one is excluded from the scope of insurance. There is therefore a contradiction, which could have consequences when implementing the planned measures. by

Moreover, it cannot be conceived to allow persons to settle in a risk zone or not to take the necessary precautions to protect them from risk, while they will benefit from the solidarity of persons participating in insurance financing. The dossier will need to be reworked in collaboration with the Regions and municipal administrations, so as to ensure that we stop authorizing the construction of buildings in areas known to be floodable. This is the most important message that should have been given by the tool that is flood or natural disaster insurance, the objective being to limit the frequency and importance of these damages, and to avoid them.

If a first step has been taken, through the pricing office, all the work will have to be done again once the risk zones have been determined, for the definition of the criteria and measures to be taken. Along with the identification of areas, I hope that the Regions will also have made progress in defining the measures they will take to prevent risks from persisting and people from putting themselves in a risk situation. Finally, I acknowledge that some speakers have said that it is necessary to limit as much as possible the possibility for insurance companies to turn against municipalities, provinces and regions in order to prevent them from eventually having to assume too large repair coverage.

During the committee work, we did not accept this request. I think it is important not to enter this dynamic if we want to force all stakeholders to take the necessary measures to avoid floods.

On the other hand, the measures to be taken must be clearly defined to prevent the insurance from turning against a public authority that has done what it was supposed to do. It would be unacceptable, while we want to avoid floods, to allow public authorities to show laxism. They must take their responsibilities like each of us, of course.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, it may not be a coincidence that we vote a text on floods this week. At the end of the week is World Water Day.

I would like to draw your attention to a press release that brings innovative news. In the future, floods can be predicted. Overmorning, a system, developed by a Belgian-British consortium, will be put into operation, which at Aminal's request has developed a prediction and warning system that allows for prediction of floods. This would allow the government to know in good time which streets will be faced with water overflow, so that more preventive actions can be taken than before. It is a pilot project that should be applied in the entire region of Flanders from 2004. It is worth noting, because it is an instrument in the arsenal of policy measures that we will need to keep the whole problem of flooding in control. In Flanders, years and years of discussion were needed that eventually led to the Decree on Integral Water Management. I say finally, because it realises the trend break that is necessary to control the water problem.

What we discuss here today cannot be disconnected from it. What is more specifically important to us in the integrated water management is that a water test will be installed that proactively, therefore also preventively, will point out to citizens the real risk of building or living in a flood-sensitive area and will even no longer allow building or living there. The Flemish government is committed to establishing a purchase permit in order to discourage living in those zones. This is the only solution to flooding. Furthermore, it has been shown that where sufficient waiting pools have been realized, the number of floods has decreased considerably.

Other initiatives to prevent floods are also found in the establishment of the Water for Development Consortium. I will not go further into this, but I will mention it for a moment to say that no matter how good the bill will be, it will never be enough. We are talking about insurance here. As with any other insurance, flood insurance should ideally balance risk coverage, risk sharing and solidarity. However, the basic principle of any insurance should be to ⁇ the broadest possible risk distribution, in other words, solidarity in the form of a basic premium for all. We believe that we should also make such arrangements for flooding.

There are two good reasons why we cannot vote the bill in this form yet. Hopefully it is a step forward.

Why not ? One, if we want to realize something, then I think it should be a mandatory insertion in a fire police. However, the fire police itself is not yet compulsory. I think this should be one of the next steps. We know a second reason. A number of colleagues have already entered into this. The basis for correctly calculating solidarity is not known. This is the famous delimitation of the risk areas.

Contrary to the rapid succession of flooding, few real studies have been conducted to date that actually map the flooding behavior. Therefore, there is a need for adjustment and there is a lot of work in the regions. Computer models are made up of the most effective and adapted measures to avoid or at least reduce that discomfort. In the Flanders region, dozens of models of water-flow and precipitation research, various measurement networks and other statistical research have now been brought together, and we hope to have fully mapped everything by 2005, by 2006 at the latest.

This bill leaves a large disaster fund. We must admit that the disaster fund has never had a good reputation. A form of collective insurance will ⁇ provide a better answer. This can then, in addition to basic solidarity, best be done through differentiation and for this we need those risk zones. We have also pledged — and not only our group, I think there was unanimity on that — that we can only agree to this bill when we know that its entry into force will only happen when the risk zones are known. Collega Gerkens also referred to the only effective point that we vote here today, the tariff agency.

I cited it in the committee, but today I read in the newspaper that there would already be speculation, that there are project developers who in accelerated risk still want to build in the risk areas. I would like to point out again the risk that lies in that period of eighteen months before the entry into force, Mr. Minister. Apparently, it is a period that is used by speculators to build in zones that would be absolutely better free of construction because they should be reserved as water-saving pools or places where the water should be gathered.

According to the industry, the tariff agency would be needed for 10% of the population because according to them, 10% would not be able to subscribe to insurance. That is, of course, still a guess as long as we do not have those areas yet. Regarding the tariff agency, I regret, however, that our amendment, which attempted to incorporate an element of prevention in the application or use of the tariff agency, was not adopted.

In fact, we wanted to apply a minimum code of good practice in water management, which is now increasingly imposed by the different levels of government. After all, one must avoid building on it loosely and subsequently run a too high risk to get an insurance and end up at the tariff agency. That seems to me literally smoothing with the crane open, and that we must avoid at all costs.

We can only decide what we started with. This proposal is a step forward, a small step in a whole of both federal legislation and a policy for integrated water management and spatial planning. As already stated, in a consultation committee we will hopefully be able to work complementarily in the short term, so that the coordination is maximum.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to comment on one point. Also during the debates, members of the majority, including you and colleague Gerkens, acknowledged some weaknesses in this bill. However, you always accept that by saying that it is a first step. I do not understand that well. We have a system that is not the best. Everyone has criticism, but it is a rule. Now we replace that with something that is only sister and so, but is a first step. I think this is a ⁇ weak signal for those who have been in misery. They expect a better arrangement. However, the majority’s answer is, “It’s a first step.” I think this is a ⁇ weak signal for those who are in trouble. They are now offered an alternative of which everyone acknowledges the weakness, but which is said to be a first step.

I understand that, and for me, that is precisely the definition of a first step. A first step indicates that there are next steps to follow, but that work is being done. I admit that if there is another flood tomorrow, with this bill the problem will not be solved entirely. There will still be a disaster fund. I think you agree with me about the essence. There has been an accelerated number of floods over the past few years. Years ago, it was decided to work on an insurance against disasters. The need for it has become more compulsory. We can no longer keep this silent. The imperative nature of the floods has led the regions to work at an accelerated rate to delineate the risk areas. In that respect, I believe in it. If it were not voted today, the compulsion would be much less to work to a certain deadline. We need that deadline because we have stated that no royal decree with cards is not the basis for good flood insurance legislation. Probably we will continue to differ in this regard, but I think that sometimes — not only for floods, but also in other matters — one must be satisfied with a first step, if one admits that it is a first step. One should not throw sand in the eyes of people by saying that from now on there is an insurance. I think that the Minister — it has also been pointed out by other colleagues — has an important responsibility in the coming days how this will be communicated to the population. They must clearly know what they are about and what they cannot count on yet.

That is my decision. This bill may provide an adequate answer, but the collective responsibility remains. We see that collective responsibility today not translated into collective solidarity. Why do I emphasize this collective responsibility? This is a series of mistakes made in the past by various governments. There is a problem of climate change. I don’t think that we can wipe out all that under the mat and now only continue to focus the insurance on the places that are defined as risk areas. I hope, Mr. Minister, that a next minister — whoever it may be — will complete that bill to such an extent that we can really speak of flood insurance.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, the text submitted to our vote today has changed considerably since the start of the discussions in the Economic Committee.

The first change is large-scale: The project only retains floods, no longer includes earthquakes, storms or terrorism.

Initially, that is, before you have the maps of the risk areas, a pricing office is created and there is no mandatory link between fire insurance and flood insurance. The floods experienced in Belgium and the damage they caused required the establishment of long-term measures to respond to the distress of the disaster victims. Therefore, I appreciate the fact that we have been able to find a solution capable of solving, in part in any case, the difficulties encountered on the ground.

As soon as the cards are available and on the double condition that the above-described system has not been satisfied and that the cards are sufficient to ensure solidarity, a mandatory link between fire insurance and flood insurance in risk areas, an optional link between fire insurance and flood insurance outside risk areas and an accessible pricing office, both in and outside risk areas.

Furthermore, the Disaster Fund continues to intervene for flooding in the first phase and ceases to do so in the second phase, both in risk areas and outside them.

In the first phase, solidarity will be assured by the Disaster Fund and the pricing office where those who cannot find an insurer at a reasonable price can address. In the second phase, only the pricing office will continue to intervene.

As a reminder, this pricing office fixes a premium and designates an insurer while the loss, i.e., the difference between damages and premiums, is distributed across the entire market.

The decision to activate the second phase will obviously depend on the meeting of the conditions of solidarity, otherwise one might ⁇ consider that the Disaster Fund continues, at least in part, its current role. I have to tell you that this is a question that makes me a little tricky in the framework of the terms of application.

Nor should this law be a pretext for insurance companies to restore their financial situation by increasing premiums for risky compensation.

Furthermore, it should not be necessary for the municipalities or other public authorities to be compelled to reimburse the compensation paid by the insurers.

From a technical point of view, the project results in the imposition of minimum conditions in fire insurance contracts, in the general interest of both the consumer and the insurance sector.

First, these minimum requirements fall within an area not harmonised by European directives, namely the insurance contract law. They pursue a clear objective of general interest and aim to protect consumers by offering relatively extensive flood coverage. They are not discriminatory since they apply to all contracts relating to goods located in Belgium, whether or not those contracts are concluded in Belgium.

They are also objectively necessary. The importance of potential sinistries and the risk of anti-selection require a very broad national dissemination of coverage.

These minimum conditions shall be proportionate to the objective pursued. They concern only simple risks, i.e. mainly private housing and not large industrial and commercial risks, which leaves a great deal of freedom for insurers.

Finally, they do not double use with the rules of the country of origin, since contract law remains within the competence of the different national legislators.

We should also emphasize that, despite the generalization of insurance contracts, many citizens do not find themselves there when it comes to contracting an insurance or making its cover play. The high technicality and the manner of liability of insurance contracts are there for many.

We must therefore continue and amplify the move initiated to improve the protection and information of consumers, so that they are more actors than customers. The insurance sector offers some examples of flagrant and inadmissible inequalities between, on the one hand, consumers and, on the other hand, service providers. The appeal to insurance still too often encounters obstacles that force the insured to struggle to receive the benefit of the contract he has signed in good faith.

I will conclude by recalling the difficulties we have encountered in achieving a text that is acceptable for the majority of the committee members. However, I am pleased to find that the bill incorporates the consumer protection approach that is expensive to the socialist party’s policy. We therefore advocate for a prompt establishment of the pricing office, which is an essential tool in ⁇ ining sufficient and necessary solidarity between the insured.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the bill we are discussing today and that the majority will approve tomorrow is a ⁇ bad thing. This draft law on natural disaster insurance has itself become a disaster. This bill should confirm the authority of Prime Minister Verhofstadt, who has promised a new law on natural disasters before the elections. No one gets better from this law, on the contrary. People are poured sand in their eyes. People are being deceived. This law gives a false signal; it suggests that if there are new floods tomorrow, people will be able to enjoy a better compensation arrangement than today. Nothing is less true. Whoever faces a flood tomorrow awaits an illusion. The new law is an empty box, which may not apply until 2005. I still hear Mrs. Loenens say: three years. It may not be until 2006.

The day they will apply, people will be waiting for a new illusion. They will have to insure their risks themselves, and they alone, against who knows which premium. In the face of the current scheme with the disaster fund — a scheme that everyone criticizes — everyone goes backwards, initially everyone who has been affected by a flood and everyone who will still get waterfall. Later, however, in secondary instance, everyone will pay — I will explain that later — without being self-insured.

The message in this water damage scheme is: everyone who has ever been hit by a flood and everyone who is at risk of being hit by it will have to pay for his own misery. There is no solidarity, while at the moment there is solidarity in natural disaster insurance, even through taxation. This bill eliminates solidarity. It is like making health insurance pay only by the sick. Here only those who have been affected or may be affected by a flood will pay their misery. The sufferers and the future sufferers must pay themselves, and they alone. All that image alone, which the government creates with this design, is unacceptable for us. That liberals support such an image, I can still understand. However, the fact that socialists and Greens approve of this total lack of solidarity is extremely surprising.

We have a lot of criticism about what is going on here. One of our criticisms is that the new scheme does not contain any prevention mechanism. I have already understood from the speeches of several colleagues, Mrs. Gerkens and Mrs. Laenens, that they actually find this important. Whether the regions conduct good water management or not, the insurers and the federal government will pay if there are floods. All instruments for water management are at the West. We believe that no regulation or law can be made regarding flooding without involving the responsibility of the Regions. We are convinced that it is politically the right choice that the government, which is responsible for preventing flooding, is also responsible if it goes wrong.

The draft law does not contain any incentive to encourage the regions to do something about the problems. Let us then agree on the following. Floods must be prevented first and foremost. Everything must be done to avoid damage. A compensation scheme is only necessary if it does not end well. Here we tighten the car for the car. Their

The government has not chosen the option of prevention. She has chosen to put the existing disaster fund in the background and to allow compensation for flood damages through the private insurance companies. For our group, this track was not the best. However, we also did not reject them in advance. At the beginning of the discussion of the draft law in the committee for business, we therefore stated that our voting position would depend on the text that would eventually be submitted to vote. Their

Let us analyze the design and the trajectory that the design has taken in the committee. A year and a half after the submission of the bill, Minister Picqué asked for the advice of the Regions and we heard the Regions in the committee. The insurance companies and the insurers had heard before. The third group were the academics. We really wanted to hear them too. They could have made the debate objective. They could have indicated a set of technical provisions. They were ultimately not heard because in the end everything had to go quickly. It might have been a bit more miserable. Their

The insurers asked during their hearing that the bill would not come into force before the risk areas were defined. The Minister of Economy also acknowledged that the delimitation of the risk zones was essential in the context of this draft. The Minister has repeatedly stated that it makes no sense to discuss the draft without the advice of the Regions on the delimitation of those risk zones. That advice still does not exist. The draft was repeatedly pushed forward by the committee. This was done by the committee at the request of the Minister. It was only after the floods in the back yard of Prime Minister Verhofstadt during the turn of the year that the draft was scheduled for discussion. Their

Why is natural disaster insurance needed? Today, almost all insurance companies offer an earthquake insurance. Those who have a fire police today are automatically insured against damage caused by storms, attacks and labor conflicts. Currently, there are insurance companies that offer flood insurance. Why should there be another law? CD&V needed a legal initiative to help everyone get flood insurance at a reasonable price. In the private insurance market, there is the following. Those who take little risk easily find an insurance and find it at a reasonable price. Those who are at high risk of flooding risk not to find insurance or find them at a very high price. This is called segmentation or risk selection. In order to counter this, CD&V supported a legal initiative. Their

Minister Picqué apparently had the same idea. He was in favour of a single global legal system for storms, floods, overflow of sewage, earthquakes, attacks and labor conflicts. He called it globalization. Everyone was at risk somewhere. In this way there was a ground for solidarity. Our surprise was great when the government submitted an amendment to disconnect the risk of floods from the risks of storms, attacks and labor conflicts.

These last risks were taken out of the design. Our surprise became even greater. The government also removed the earthquakes from the draft. Thus, one of the basic ideas, namely the globalization of risks, was effectively and definitively released.

It was strange to see how the members of the majority continued to defend every turn the government took. However, the members of the majority should empty the cup to the bottom. Flood insurance would be mandatory only for people living in a risk zone. It would no longer be imposed on everyone. In this way, the government completely broke with its initial draft. Initially, it was a natural disaster insurance, which takes the form of a mandatory extension of the fire police. Initially, it was a more or less solidary-funded policy, which would cover any risk related to the property. Eventually, we came up with a flood insurance, which would only be imposed on those living in a risk zone.

I repeat it again. I do not understand how certain political parties can accept this evolution. I do not understand.

Who will pay all this? Who will pay how much? An insurance company has taken the effort to map the risks itself through research assignments. According to him, only three percent of the territory is not insured at a reasonable price. The same insurance company estimates the damage burden annually at 150 million euros. Will three percent of the population have to receive an annual premium of 150 million euros? What will happen? There are a number of pistes and hypotheses.

The first hypothesis is that the government will not determine the risk areas on technical grounds. She will record them based on the affordability of the insurance. Several statements by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Economy point in that direction. What does this mean concretely? We have seen a few cards in the committee. One card showed Dinant. There were several neighborhoods designated, which had been flooded a few years ago. The area was very limited. We also saw the map of Antwerp. On the map of Antwerp, there are two types of areas. On the one hand, there is the zone with recently flooded areas, a rather small zone; on the other hand, there is a zone with floodable areas, which covered all Antwerp. The minister did not want to say which of the two cards it would be. However, the minister showed that the flood police would become unpaid, if it would be opted for the limited delimitation. He also did not dare to defend the extensive boundary.

In any case, the law itself does not provide any guarantee. The law does not provide criteria for defining the risk areas. The consequences of all this for people living in a risk zone are dramatic. If the policy defines the risk zone strictly, then the flood insurance will double the price of the fire policy. If the policy defines the risk zone broadly, then many people, who technically do not live in a risk zone, will still have to pay a substantial surplus price.

In other words, the limitation of risks becomes a purely political decision. It will not only take into account the technical details. It will also take into account the affordability of the policy.

Mrs. Creyf, I think you take a little walk with the truth by presenting things here. It was clearly stated that criteria should be established on the basis of which those risk areas will be identified. You know as well as I know that there are several maps that show what the natural flood areas are, what the recently flooded areas are, and what flooded areas are. These criteria should specify the extent to which maps will be prepared to design risk areas, taking into account both naturally flooded areas, recently flooded areas and potentially flooded areas. I think it’s important to say that because you now give the impression that it’s all going to be a political decision. It has been sufficiently clearly stated that the criteria, which must be drawn up in such a way that solidarity plays for the entire federal country, must be the same and that the development and methodology may be different in Flanders and Wallonia. It cannot be that in Flanders and Wallonia one will be based on other maps.

I would like to answer the following.

First, there must be criteria, but you know as much as I do that they are not. Meanwhile, colleagues, the regions are already preparing to designate risk zones according to their own criteria. A working group is currently working on this, but those criteria do not exist. Second, there will always have to be a political decision that weighs whether we will restrict those areas, even if criteria are set. Afterwards, when one decides which zones are or are not risk zones, one will still have to decide whether one takes the narrow or the broad interpretation.

If you remember the map of Antwerp, you know that in the middle there was a dark blue strip representing the heavily flooded areas. In addition, there was a wide red strip and a pink strip. This can be mapped for each area. If one succeeds in defining those areas on the basis of uniform criteria, then the political decision will still have to be made whether we choose the narrow or broad zone. That is exactly what I want to point out. This will be a political choice with ⁇ severe consequences for the people who will or will not fall under it. I think of the financial consequences and the consequences for the value of property, but I will come back to that later. There will always be a political decision.

That was the first hypothesis I put forward.

I will partly overflow in your sense. If we only talk about flood insurance, it will necessarily only cover relatively limited areas and the solidarity will be less. In any case, regions will have to identify flooded areas systematically, flooded areas more frequently, and flooded areas unless measures are taken to avoid it. by

I think that the criterion of "payability", as the translation says, will automatically be present. If the premiums are too high because the areas are too small, this type of decision will necessarily be politically difficult to take. There is a risk of expanding the areas. If they are expanded, the covered risks will probably also need to be expanded or, in any case, the notion of "preventive measures" will need to be introduced. It is clear that someone who lives in a place that is never flooded will assume solidarity only if measures are taken so that others are not flooded systematically. I think we will face this issue when the risk areas are identified. Expanding them would increase costs.

In this sense, I say that we took it too early. I would have preferred that we merely vote for the pricing office and that we come back with everything else later. In fact, we must assume a political commitment that was made by the Prime Minister, who had promised measures by the end of March 2003. But I think this work will have to be resumed. I feel that this formula will need to be automatically improved as we will be faced with zones, "payability" and therefore ⁇ taking into account broader preventive measures and a broader risk coverage.

Colleague Gerkens, I think you actually repeat what I call the first track. The decision will be made not only on the basis of technical criteria, but also on the basis of political criteria. Will we define it narrowly or define it broadly? If we define it narrowly, then some people will have to pay a high premium. If we define the wider, then the premium will be spread over more people, but then there will also be a lot of people whose property never floods, but whose property will still be in a defined risk zone. This has far-reaching consequences. The political choice that one will have to make at a certain moment will therefore have great consequences for the people in terms of the premium and in terms of the value of their property.

That was the first hypothesis I made.

What you say is of extreme gravity because on what will the cards be based? They will be based on objective criteria for possible flooding. We must not get out of this debate. Listening to you, you might fear that at some point the Regions will begin to develop their maps in order to allow “payability”. We are not asking for this in the regions. They are asked to make maps that objectively demonstrate that there is a risk of flooding. Let us not now believe that the areas will be drawn according to the insurance base that will allow compensation, otherwise we stop everything.

No, Mr. Minister, that is not the case. The regions draw down the risk areas, but as you have seen with the map of Antwerp, there are three levels in the risk zones, let us say degrees of flooding: the blue, red and pink strip. The Provinces will designate those areas, but then there must be a political decision. There will be a royal decree and in that royal decree the risk zones will be defined. The question is, when the federal government defines the risk zones, what risk zone will it take? Will it determine the narrow or the broad? This will be a political decision. That is the first hypothesis I formulate following the fact, as I have said, that ⁇ 3% of the population will have to collect an annual premium of 150 million euros. Their

There is a second track. The insurance companies will not offer any coverage. Anyone living in a risk zone must or will have to go to a tariff agency, but then a large unknown appears. How will this office work? Will she have a tariff determination, a break-even in mind? Then, of course, we are not a step further, because that implies that the prices of the fire policies will roughly double. Will the insurers work with losses and who will bear their losses? Well, to that question, the design does not provide an answer. But the insurance companies, as colleagues Gerkens and Laenens have just said, have an answer. They are clear: it will be all those who offer a fire policy in Belgium who will pay in the first instance, so the insurers themselves, and therefore ultimately all consumers who have a fire policy. In other words, even he or she who lives five high in Brussels would see his premium increase. This person will not understand why. It will not be transparent.

The [...]

Mr. Minister, I would like to point out the consequences of your bill.

This is not a contradiction, absolutely not.

I hope that these discussions have taken place in the committee. I would like to remind you that there are only members of the committee in this homicide!

Mr. Speaker, although it has been discussed over fifteen meetings, there are still points on which there is no clarity.

( ... ...

Beware of the fact that while you are here, others will speak in other places, in your place.

Do not forget the general assembly of the section "Hout si Plout".

The reasoning is as follows. If you have to collect a premium of 150 million euros from 3% of people, then it will not be possible. In other words, the insurers are also not charitable institutions: they will have to tell that in a different way. Where are they going to tell those stories? Firefighters of everyone. Over time, in a second phase, everyone who has a fire police will see their fire police increase, because the insurers will have to get their collection from somewhere. They will not be able to do that with the small percentage of people living in a risk zone. So where will they get that? In the larger group of people who have a fire police. In that sense, everyone will pay in a second phase, but it will not be transparent. In addition – and I think that’s actually the worst of all – everyone will pay a higher fire policy in the long run, but without any coverage against flood risk.

I don’t want to be ⁇ cynical, because I find you interesting. In fact, you now say that there is a choice between two things. Or they open the door to a general increase due to the high risk. You immediately pay everyone. Or one does — that is the case in your reasoning — indirectly pay. Now that I am a consumer, I still prefer to introduce some sort of threshold, a delaying manoeuvre, a segmentation, responsibility, rather than directly opening the door where everyone has to pay without knowing why and how much. I don’t want to be cynical, but if I have to choose, even in your mind pattern, then I actually prefer the choice of today.

First of all, I am not the one who chooses. I point out the consequences of the choice you make. You reject all solidarity. There is no solidarity! As a result, a limited number of people will have to cough a lot. I’m not saying what I choose, I’m asking what the result would be. The result will be that the insurers will collect their premium, their incasso, their commission, their reserve for if something happens, in a different way. Where will they get that? Anyone who has a fire department.

Then you ask what choice you have. You can indeed choose. You can initially introduce a solidarity for everyone, but in which you are also insured, colleague. The insurers have at some point proposed to increase the premium of everyone, including those who do not live in a risk zone, by 5 euros. Well, if for those 5 euros I am also insured against flooding, then I prefer that over an indirect, non-transparent mechanism in which I will have to pay 5 or 10 euros more for my fire policy, without being insured for the risk of flooding. Then I give you the choice you would choose?

I think that the consequence of abandoning, of exhausting any solidarity in the long run has perverse side effects, no doubt. The experts estimate the premium increase that everyone will have to pay indirectly or in second order, so also those who do not live in a risk zone, at 4% or about 10 euros per policy. So in the second order, everyone will pay 10 euros per policy, without being insured against flooding. However, if you ask for 5 euros in solidarity from everyone in advance, everyone is also insured against flooding. That’s the choice I just explained.

The government’s solution is Kafkaian, I think. Afraid of an increase in the premiums of the fire police, Minister Picqué has shortened the solidarity, but in the meantime it is clear that the increase in the premiums for the fire police will be for everyone anyway. It is a premium increase for fire insurance for everyone, but through a backdoor. For consumers, as I just said, there are serious disadvantages associated with it. What do we do now? Through the separation of risk zones and non-risk zones, the consumer or insured is now told that he does not live in a risk zone. Therefore, he will not be inclined to take a flood insurance. He will eventually pay more for his fire police, but if something happens with him, for example, pushing up the sewage in his neighborhood, then he will not be insured. That is the perplexity of this bill. People are told they should not pay, but indirectly they pay, and they do not appear to be insured against flooding. Well, people have been rolled twice.

At that time, I talked about the decomposition of the risk areas. We have seen in the committee maps where in Dinant there are barely a few streets of risk zone and maps where in Flanders several variants are proposed. Can the conclusion be different than that the Regions do not delineate the risk areas on the basis of consistent criteria? The question is how this is possible after more than two years. I follow the reasoning of the colleagues that, of course, the same consistent criteria are needed for the delimitation of the risk areas. I find it surprising and somewhat suspicious that those criteria still do not prove to be there. The problem is even postponed to 2005. Therefore, we must now pass a law that can only be implemented in 2005. This is the hopeful first step.

I would like to draw your attention to another aspect. The day when a government would designate the risk zones will become a day when a lot of private property will experience a major deterrence operation. As a result of a political decision, the property of many people at work will be much less valuable. In some cases, especially when it comes to real risk areas, this can be seen as a protection of the buyer. There would still be something to say about this. In other cases, however, especially in those cases where the risk is limited or null and where one chooses a broad risk zone delimitation, people end up on a blacklist, which improperly reduces the value of their property.

Finally, I would like to ask the following question. Is it necessary to identify risk areas? I see here a government that is swallowing and hiding behind the delimitation of the risk areas. However, we cannot ignore the conclusion that some insurers now publicly declare that they do not need the risk zones. Colleagues, at that time, the largest insurance companies have cards with their own risks. They have instructed university institutions to designate risk areas. Well, those insurers use their own cards. The question then is why we need that political choice for risk zones. Insurers no longer need a political determination of risk zones. They will do as they do with all other insurance. They will take one risk and the other not. They will refuse to insure based on their own risk statistics as they do for car insurance. They use the statistics of young people and of those over sixty, and based on that, they either accept or not accept a risk. Insurers can continue without these risk areas.

Based on their own risk statistics and their own tables, they can definitely say which risk they are taking and which risk they do not take. Anyone who has a risk goes to the tariff agency.

This means that there will be no more competition in the insurance world. This is the constatation that I must make if I am your reasoning, that is, that everyone practices the same rate on the basis of cards that all insurers have.

They will differentiate. In addition, the idea of differentiation has been raised by you in the committee. At a certain point, there could even be three different rates, depending on the degree of the risk area in which one is present. The insurance companies will do that too. They will differentiate. But what risks will they not take? The big risks. As in your bill, they will go to the tariff office, where a tariff can be offered again through the conversion.

Mr. Minister, I am not saying that I am choosing this now. I tell you that at this moment we hear the insurers say that they do not need that delimitation of the risk areas. Almost every major insurance company already offers flood insurance. On what basis will they take risks and not take them? We all know the study that the KU Leuven has done on behalf of one particular insurance company. They have their own risk areas.

If you want to spend the evening together, it’s your right, but I find it extraordinary! Fortunately, there is disaster insurance for victims. You have discussed this in the committee, I suppose. I appreciate the conviction, it’s beautiful, but I’d like to get back to a spirit of synthesis, Mrs. Creyf. My remarks apply to others as well.

Finally, at the point where we are, I give you the word but I don’t know who you are going to convince!

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Creyf, I would just like to point out that one of the objectives pursued, in the will to identify the areas, is also to say that there should be no more construction in certain places. This allows both to take precautions and advise not to build any more in these places.

This goal is still interesting to follow, regardless of insurance.

The fact that one will indeed publicly designate those risk zones will indicate where one can and cannot live. But that is no longer the responsibility of the federal government. This is the competence of the provinces and municipalities. That is correct.

Colleague, you also remember the discussion about whether someone who builds in a risk zone can still get an insurance premium? The answer is: yes. By the way, you have quoted it yourself as one of the points you are having difficulty with. Therefore, we define the risk areas, but this government does not draw the conclusion either. In a risk area, an insurance can be obtained. Therefore, the prevention mechanism is also out.

( ... ...

and just.

Bureau de tarification, so everyone, Mr. Minister. You are allowed to still build in a risk area. You can also get a fire insurance in a risk area. The tariff agency requests a flood insurance, which will be high, but not too high, because otherwise you do not have to go to the tariff agency. However, this cost will be charged to everyone. On that level, solidarity will play, for someone who is still insured in a zone designated as a risk zone, and eighteen months after the delimitation of the areas. In that regard, I fully agree with the comment made by Ms. Gerkens thereafter. In fact, it should not be possible either.

Mr. Speaker, where did I stay?

Are these risk zones necessary or not? I think that at this moment, in terms of risk zones, the government can no longer publicly make a curve. It must, at all costs, stick to the idea of the risk areas. For four years, nothing else was spoken of. Thus, this project is politically viewed as the channel in the drive. The law comes into force only when the risk areas are defined. We have outlined the consequences for the people who live in such an area. Their premiums will rise drastically, their property will decline equally in value.

We have also made it clear that the delimitation of risk zones in the absence of consistent criteria and even with consistent criteria is a political decision. Which politician will make that decision? We see that the federal government wants to keep that painful message hidden and is shifting the sour apple to the West. The question is, of course, whether the regions will bite.

A crucial factor in this design is the tariff agency. In fact, part of the solidarity between those living in a risk zone and the others will have to go through that agency. The lower the rate the agency applies, the more people appeal to the general solidarity, the higher the surcharge that residents of a non-risk area will pay. The higher the rate, the fewer individuals will appeal to the general solidarity. This means that the tariff determination by the tariff agency will be of crucial importance.

It is unlikely that the degree of solidarity is determined by the tariff agency and not by the politicians. In other words, it will be fixed by the insurer and by the representatives of consumers, but not stipulated by law.

However, I think it can be differently. Within the framework of the right to a car insurance, the law of 2 August 2002 determines which are the thresholds that allow access to the tariff agency. Then the legislator had the courage to determine the degree of solidarity. However, this is not done in the present draft.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, that we submit an amendment, aiming to provide for access to the tariff agency as soon as the extension to the flood risk exceeds 25% of the fire insurance. This amendment has already been spread to all banks. If the additional premium for flooding is more than 25% of the fire police, then we believe that one should be given the right to contact the tariff agency.

Please allow me, Mr. Speaker, to clarify the following pain points.

Mr. Minister, I would like to return for a moment to the Government amendment, which made it possible to distinguish between the Dutch-speaking and the French-speaking text. According to the French-language text, the insurer may limit the compensation he must pay in the event of flooding. If the damage exceeds a certain threshold, the insurer will reimburse up to that threshold and the insurer will be reimbursed for the damage above that threshold by the Disaster Fund, which thus from now on becomes a second-line player.

According to the Dutch text, the insurance company can limit its intervention only in case of unexpected floods and therefore not in case of anticipated or all floods. This is not stated in the French text. You remember the discussion about foreseen and unforeseen floods. Some people laugh at this because flooding is always unforeseen. Well, I refer to the statements of colleague Laenens, more specifically that Ms. Dua told the press on Friday last week that floods are becoming predictable. A Belgian-British consortium has developed a high-tech prediction and warning system that makes it possible to predict floods. Thanks to the system, the government will know in a timely manner which streets will face disruption. On 20 March 2003, the Demer’s new prediction and warning system will be operational and from 2004 the other basins will follow.

The difference between the Dutch and the French text is substantial, because the Dutch text makes reference to unforeseen floods and the French text does not mention it. You laughed at that comment in the committee, but now, thanks to the study referred to by Ms. Laenens, it shows that floods are predictable and we can distinguish between predicted and unexpected floods. The difference between the French and Dutch texts is, thanks to the recent statement of Minister Dua, substantial. The Government refused to submit an amendment or accept an amendment. In view of the new facts, we submitted an amendment. 2 in which we propose to remove the adjective "unforeseen".

A second note is that fire police are not mandatory by law. The estimate of the number of people who have a fire police varies between 85% and 95%. In addition, the number of people who do not have insurance is higher. Numbers about this are not known or we can not get. Probably 20% do not have insurance. These people have been covered by the Disaster Fund. Everyone was covered by the Emergency Fund. From now on, this will no longer be the case. What will we do with it? Their

The proportionality rule will also play. Two policies are closed by young people and subsequently no longer adjusted. This means that many people are underinsured. This is ⁇ the case when it comes to inbound. With fire, it is the same. There is a fire. People say they are insured for so much while the value is much higher. We are going to experience the same here with this flood insurance. This means that many people are underinsured. They are sure of that when it comes to the inbound. Some insurance companies have recently offered a frame. If people are involved, they are adequately insured. For most insurers and for older contracts, this is not the case. So now everyone is covered for flooding by the Disaster Fund. People who do not have insurance will no longer have it.

My third point is that one can fear that due to the sharp increase in premiums more people will not take insurance. Thus, they will give up their fire police by this law. I think this is also one of the negative consequences of the present regulation. Their

I come to my conclusion. We reject the design. We do this first, because there is no link between prevention and solidarity. Second, the implementation of the design is shifted to the Greek calendar. This is due to the link of the law to the definition of the risk zones. This is a flatter for 2005. Third, there are no criteria in the law that define a risk zone. As a result, the delimitation becomes a political decision that undermines the principle of equality and could lead to an unjust operation of deprivation of private property. Fourth, many people — some speak of 10% — are at risk of losing their fire insurance. Fifth, the role of the tariff agency is left fully open. It is not the politics that will determine the degree of solidarity, but the insurers and consumers.

Mr. Speaker, you have repeatedly given a sign to speak very quickly. I will try to be brief and concise.

Of course, it was an exciting disaster debate, with few actors. Of course, I do not want to go into all the arguments that were developed today. I have great sympathy for Mrs. Creyf. If I have listened carefully to her, I can only conclude that some hoped that the design would never come out. Everyone agrees that this is a complex matter. This complexity can explain the tracks and some curves. I just want to say that precautionary and precautionary principles apply in all matters. It indeed took a while. We ran a marathon. We are therefore only at the beginning.

A draft law is now for approval by Parliament. The aim is to introduce a private insurance against natural disasters. I am talking about natural disasters. It is only about flooding. This is exactly the phenomenon that everyone thinks of when they talk about natural disasters. In addition to the storm risk, which is already insured, flooding is the big blow of many Belgian families. Many homes have been affected by floods.

So it was time to take action to ensure the natural phenomenon as well. It was insufficiently emphasized that, at the same time, the Disaster Fund has been very dynamized here in recent months. As a result, rare disasters such as earthquakes had to be removed from design. That is understandable. By the way, as Ms. Creyf has said, it is already offered by most insurance companies. It can be dealt with separately later. It can also be incorporated into this law later, when more data is available.

We are a few weeks away from the dissolution of the Parliament. However, it is the merit of the current government that after many hesitation a draft was submitted. In addition, it is also her merit that the train is put into operation. The locomotive has left. Not all wagons are connected. There are still a few pain points. However, these can be repaired later and the train can be refined later.

The important thing is that there is a law. It is also important to start implementing the law. That is the essence. It is already a great achievement. It is a fundamental advance compared to the past.

As far as the content is concerned, I do not want to repeat it, but we have, as you say, Mr. Speaker, discussed two issues in the committee for a very long time. Mr Fournaux referred to “the questions prealable”. How far should solidarity — the degree of mutualization — reach? Can we continue before the risk zones are defined? This, of course, depends on a certain degree of responsibility of the Regions and it presupposes a kind of minimum agreement of the criteria between the Regions and the federal government. I do not want to go into the advantages or the comparison between the cards of Dinant, Antwerp and the Westhoek because that will reopen the debate and that may not be the intention.

There are no easy solutions to solidarity. So much is certain. The imposition of universal solidarity seemed at first to be the most obvious solution. I admit that greed, but without a definitive delimitation of the risk zones it is also an unhealthy solution. It is difficult to impose a general solidarity if one does not know what premium increase this will mean for everyone. I even have the fullest confidence in the insurance sector, ⁇ more than other speakers, but that does not mean that we should give them carte blanche in this case.

In addition to this fact, the definition of the risk zones is equally fundamental. One can only state that it is actually a very difficult, complicated and long-lasting exercise and will remain. On the other hand, it would have been cowardice that, because we do not have those cards, we could not move to the principle of insurance. Between two evils and two illnesses, we are somewhat satisfied that a solution has been found so that a legal arrangement can soon come.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, the solution provided in the amended bill will not receive a beauty prize, you have already heard. Naturally, natural disasters are not a beauty contest. We believe that it already offers the least bad solution. With the immediate entry into force of the provisions concerning the tariff agency, anyone who wishes to do so shall be entitled to take a flood insurance.

This is my amendment, my colleague.

Mrs. Creyf, I would like to be so proud today to acknowledge that positive contribution to the debate. What does it matter to me that you run away with the plumes if the consumer and insured are satisfied? I personally have no problem with this, Mrs. Creyf. I give it to you. Maybe the minister thinks I’m too big.

So I said that the right of access to the tariff agency is guaranteed by this draft. In addition, solidarity is provided for and within those whose home is located in the risk zone. Thus, there are two important conditions that are met: the right to insurance and a form of minimum solidarity. So it is the merit of the majority, helped by Mrs. Creyf, that a choice was made, which actually cannot always be said of the opponents. I know today, beyond that estimate of 5 euros, Mrs. Creyf, still not much more. Between saying and doing, there is a huge difference. I have not received anything on paper. I would like to see it until one is confronted with a precise example or an offer. I still don’t know what quantitative degree of solidarity will advance the others. Or maybe, I know it. If I listen to Mr. Julien Van Molle, then he wants an all in insurance for a huge premium increase with one winner: the broker. So much is certain. Their

Criticism is easy. However, we have the suggestion of quantified alternatives.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, let the train of this bill calmly start. It is as Mr. Fournaux said “un premier pas”. Let us approve this bill, make the tariff agency operational as soon as possible and finally, as soon as possible, designate the risk zones, so that finally after 20 years of waiting a full-fledged insurance is possible within a few years. Our group will approve this bill, also because all stakeholders, especially the Regions and the insurance sector, will be held accountable.

Some say that this bill is an empty box. Mr. Fournaux has been so honest to say that "there is a du pour et du contre". We would rather say that the glass is half full. The principles are there. Some things are not operational yet. However, it is important to supplement them well with, among other things, preventive measures as proposed by colleagues Gerkens and Laenens and with a co-responsabilization of all actors in the field. The mechanisms are there. It is a positive signal.

In the next legislature, I will use my best efforts to follow this matter closely. Mr. Minister, I wish you a lot of success. We would be happy to approve this bill.

Please reassure me –

I will not return to the debate as we have seen it in the committee. by

What did the insurers want? Globalization is something everyone pays for. In any case, they felt that it was superfluous to have risk areas. We, we want to de-globalize, we don’t want everyone to pay, starting and based on the very limited information we have about the areas and we want risk areas. by

The project has a story: it is that of a bill establishing a full-fledged insurance, an insurance in which one can include earthquakes, attacks, etc. When I see this project taking on my functions, my first reaction is to ask myself what can be objectively appreciated and evaluated. The attack is not, the labour conflict is not, the earthquake is not. But there is one phenomenon that gives an objective basis for risk assessment: flooding, because it cannot occur everywhere. by

At this point, we are happy to imagine that cards will be made. They are not ready and globalization, i.e. the draft law, without floods, risks to lead much more to the arbitrary in the head of insurers and therefore to bring a significant increase for all consumers. Globalization is a trap for consumers.

Why then, at a given moment, decide-t-on de se limiter aux inundations? This limitation may be justified by various considerations. First, certain risks are already covered and are subject to special, separate regulations. These include storms, attacks and labor conflicts. Including those risks in this draft would add nothing new to it, but would pose the risk of delaying the moment when insurers will be able to effectively offer flood coverage. It is also true that earthquakes can be very powerful and can exceed the capabilities of the insurance sector. In that case, it is better to have the Disaster Fund pay a further compensation. When the earthquake, on the other hand, is not strong, there is no problem in terms of insurance. That’s why we don’t want to globalize.

I have a few answers to bring. And the speculation? The fact that solidarity only plays in risk zones will make the speculator cautious and warn the buyer. The venous value of a property may be loaded with an obvious insurance cost or not be insured at all. One cannot want to avoid any depreciation of property and land — which I have heard — and at the same time want to conduct preventive policies. It is unreasonable to want both at the same time. by Mr. Fournaux talks about the possible increase in prices. Is it possible to estimate price increases? and no. That is why we are cautious. This is because, precisely, we do not know how to measure for all consumers, including those who are not exposed to a flood, what will be the risk of the increase that we wanted to stay cautious.

Have there been negotiations on the new text with the insurers? We have had constant contacts; that is the least that can be said. They are not very happy with the last text. It is not for this reason that it is necessarily an indication of believing that the consumer is better there - I will not allow myself to say it - but they are not very happy with the last project.

Finally, the possible appeal against municipalities and regions. This appeal must continue to exist. Regions and municipalities cannot be exempted from any responsibility by removing the ways of appeal, but it must be demonstrated that there was a case of force majeure or, in the other direction, a mismanagement. Therefore, we are in the classic scenario of proof. Ladies and gentlemen, I will conclude by saying that I have never considered this project as the miracle project. I have no de verwaandheid te beweren dat dit ontwerp alle problemen zou oplossen. When we had to analyze this project, we had to consider three bugs to avoid. The first is the globalization of which I spoke and which would eventually terribly hide the transparency of the price-fixing mechanism itself. Then, it is obvious that we were unable to measure what would or should be the solidarity effort. This is why we wanted to have the cards, to measure the volume of solidarity and transfer of solidarity that would be produced. We don’t have these cards, but we have a pricing office that is a first step towards solidarity. Finally, the third scourge was the fact that we could not even imagine a project that would disrespect both individuals and public authorities. by

What is important is that our project will accelerate the drafting of the maps as the debate is now open and it is so much more open as the consumer of the areas in question will want to see clearly in the delimitation of the risk areas. I therefore believe that the Regions are now required to accelerate the drafting and development of the map of these risk areas. Mr. Speaker, we must vote on this bill because we need to move in the direction that was wanted by the government but remaining convinced that the path that we had chosen is the path of prudence and that we have been able to reconcile the promises that were made regarding a solution to this problem and the prudence that was required to not put on the government table a bill that would have allowed significant increases of premiums to be generalized. Should there be risk zones and maps? Yes, of course, because insurers still make the cards they want in an anonymity that we cannot control. As a public authority, we want the risk assessment to be objective. This is also transparency. This is why risk areas are needed, not only to determine prevention policies that will obviously be made indispensable, but also to offer transparency to the consumer.

Mr. Minister, the insurer is free to take the risk or not, whether that is based on your risk areas in the royal decree, based on his own cards, or with the wet finger. No insurance company is obliged to take a risk. The ground you refuse is not important.

The fact that these cards are public gives a weapon in the hands of the consumer. In this way, in the preparation of the cards, there is an objectivity of the risk that has taken place. That is the core of the question.

That is true, but no insurance company is obliged to take that risk. The insurer has full freedom. He can have as many objective data as he wants.

The fire police are not mandatory.

Agree, that until then. I submitted two amendments.

Mr. Minister, I would like to know your answer. The first amendment concerns access to the tariff agency. The second amendment concerns the unfortunate concept that is still in it.

We will discuss these amendments later. The Minister is now speaking. The Minister can answer you after defending your amendments.

Will he respond to my amendments?

You are the only one who submitted amendments, right?

and yes.

If the Minister responds now, will you not replicate afterwards? as you wish.

He cannot answer. You say he should not answer.

Mrs. Creyf would like me to discuss these amendments in the general discussion.