Proposition 50K1017

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Jos Ansoms, Simonne Creyf

Submission date

Dec. 15, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

fine offence insurance insurance contract road traffic

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

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 ¶

July 17, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, our committee discussed Mr. Ansoms’ bill at its meetings of 6 March, 3 July and 10 July 2001.

Mr Ansoms, who submitted the bill, referred to the explanation of his submitted document. He decided that the purpose of his bill could be achieved by adding a sentence to the existing article 91 of the Law of 25 June 1992 on the Land Insurance Contract.

The Minister could bear in mind that the insuredness of the fines can create a sense of impunity among the employees concerned. For instance, it is not currently prohibited by law that employers, for example, insure themselves against such fines that their employees could incur. Mr Ansoms confirmed that insurance contracts are currently being concluded, including in the package service sector.

A member of the Socialist Party asked if one can generally insure against fines. Mr Ansoms referred here to the existing text of Article 91 of the Act on the Land Insurance Contract which reads as follows, I quote: "Bounts and amicable settlements in criminal matters. No fine or amicable settlement in criminal matters may be the subject of an insurance contract, with the exception of those which are borne by persons having civil liability. Criminal liability remains individual. Mr Ansoms’s bill aims only to classify the fines relating to the laws and implementing decisions relating to road traffic or road transport under the general prohibition contained in the reference to the aforementioned Article 91. Ms. Gerkens wondered whether this should not be linked to labour law. That is, the law concerning the relations between employers and workers.

You want to interrupt the rapporteur, Mr. Leterme.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to misrepresent the eminent report of my dear colleague, but I would like to make it clear in the annals of this Parliament that the majority, with your exception, is completely absent.

I have already seen two members of the majority parties.

It is very striking that the majority is not present.

It is the quality...

The same applies, by the way, to the committees for business, social affairs, finance, where a quorum of 26 members is required. At 2 p.m. there were 10 members present.

Ms. Gerkens wondered whether this should not be linked to labour law. That is, the law concerning the relations between employers and workers. It follows from the case-law that the employer should not intervene in the costs of fines when it comes to the employee’s criminal liability. However, as regards violations of the road code, the jurisprudence is less unambiguous, according to Ms. Gerkens. In any case, there is no explicit prohibition on the intervention of the employer.

Such a prohibition may be found in tax legislation. The Minister noted that an employer should ⁇ not deduct any financial interventions relating to fines incurred by the employee as operating costs. He adds that the draft law is by no means contrary to the law of employment contracts. He decides that he can adhere to the bill and to the motivation of the applicant. An employer who insures himself for the relevant fines increases the risk for the employees concerned. By thus creating a situation of impunity, it promotes the employee’s careless driving behavior. Mr. Van Aperen may endorse the intent of the applicant of the bill. No comments are made to the articles, they are adopted unanimously and the entire bill is then also adopted unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the bill that is being discussed here has to do with our unwavering struggle for greater road safety, although this is an insurance issue. Indeed, last week the newspapers were full of the political world’s interest in road safety, this following the publication of the new NIS figures on the increase in the number of road fatalities. We could hear all kinds of good intentions and promises, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the struggle for greater road safety must be fought every day and at different levels.

There are three elements: the vehicle, the infrastructure and, above all, the behavior of the driver. Our bill has to do with this. If we want to change the behavior of the driver in the road, we can do so through awareness, through preventive action and through enforcement policies. More than ever this is needed in our country. If you see that our country has 14 road deaths per 100,000 inhabitants against 7 per 100,000 in the Netherlands, then something is fundamentally wrong on our roads. What is going wrong? Well, the behavior of the drivers is not adapted to the road infrastructure. Hence the need for a sustained and high-quality enforcement policy. Therefore, it is necessary to close all possible back doors. To our surprise, we discovered that it is possible to insure against traffic fines in this country and that certain companies do this for their employees as well.

Well, in this way, no enforcement policy can be conducted. Therefore, we closed that small backdoor in the law on the Land Insurance Agreement. I thank the members of the Committee on Business and the Minister for their positive cooperation and I hope that all colleagues, today in the House and tomorrow in the Senate, will approve this bill.