Proposition 51K1732

Projet de loi modifiant, en ce qui concerne l'assurance contre les catastrophes naturelles, 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 calamités naturelles.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

April 25, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

natural disaster damage insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Josy Arens (LE) 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 ¶

July 7, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I will shorten my report due to the late hour and the turmoil of this plenary session. That said, the project is important for our fellow citizens and it is necessary to report, especially since five committee meetings have been devoted to this bill. Since 1990 there has been an attempt to introduce a coverage against natural disasters. In May 2003, our Parliament passed the so-called Picqué Act, which included natural disasters. The law we are going to vote today introduces compulsory insurance against natural disasters. by

The strength lines of this project are as follows. First, a mandatory coverage for all catastrophic risks, namely earthquakes, landslides, landslides, floods, tide raids, dive ruptures, refuelling or sewage overflow. This mandatory coverage is extended to all fire insurance holders, which establishes solidarity among all citizens. Victims of such phenomena will no longer have to resort to the Disaster Fund, which simplifies the procedure and shortens the wait for compensation, which is important. In addition, the franchise will be set at 1.325 euros. by

For all the details, I refer to my written report. I would like to comment on the interventions of my colleagues. I will not summarize what my colleague Véronique Ghenne said since I will intervene on behalf of the PS group: I will avoid repeating myself.

For the sp.a-spirit group, my colleague Dalila Douifi has joined the same philosophy as the PS group by supporting the project because it allows solidarity to cover all natural disasters.

However, the sp.a-spirit group paid particular attention to the price issue by denouncing an excessive amount of the franchise. He also suggested a maximum rate corresponding to 12% as provided for in French law.

Pierre Lano expressed, on behalf of VLD, his satisfaction with this project. He welcomed the logic followed and the economy that this bill would represent for the state budget since it is the insurers who will insure this risk.

On behalf of the CD&V group, Ms. Creyf returned to the difficult genesis of this bill. She was also somewhat surprised by the criticism of the so-called "Picqué" bill voted earlier.

In addition, she has issued several criticisms about the bill that we are dealing with today. According to her, the cost of fire insurance will be very high, from 15 to 25% — but I think the minister reassured her on this point — just like that of the franchise. It also has concerns about the delimitation of risk zones. She believes that it is better to transfer this competence to the Regions as well as the calamity fund, which would allow, in her opinion, a better accountability of the municipalities.

The Minister has responded to these various points as he will still do so recently. He also highlighted the positive attitude of the various colleagues.

To conclude, I would say that many amendments were submitted. Some deal with the franchise, others with the time to be compensated, others still with the assessment of the pricing office system.

I believe therefore that a real work was done in the Economy Committee, a constructive work in which all colleagues, both the majority and the opposition, as well as the minister, participated. This bill was voted by nine votes for and three abstentions.

I am closing my oral report here.

I would like to thank Ms. Lalieux for her report. Since she is in the tribune, I give her the floor on behalf of her group. She said it would be short.

I will now give you the position of the PS Group. It is true that during the previous legislature, we had adopted this bill called "Picqué" that established flood coverage but it could never be applied. This law had to be amended.

In order to make it possible to incorporate natural disaster coverage into the fire police, the principle of solidarity was applied, while the 2003 law applied to the notion of risk areas. We obviously share this principle of solidarity among all our citizens, even with those who will probably never have the misfortune to resort to this type of coverage. I think, however, that solidarity was necessary and when you see what has happened in Belgium in recent days, you can understand the urgency of voting this law and especially the urgency for our fellow citizens, Mr. Minister, to be able to apply it very quickly. We therefore ask the citizen to no longer show selfishness but to show solidarity.

There is one element of which I spoke during the general discussion, and which I reproach a little to this project: if an enormous solidarity between the insured has been requested, it seems that the solidarity is less on the side of the insurers. At this point, the PS group and others have attempted to modify the bill, ⁇ in relation to the franchise. We thought that the upper franchise was much too high because it amounted to 1.350 euros indexable, thus to 2,300 euros. This franchise was too high compared to the fact that the surprise was not limited by law and would have depended on competition. So we asked for a reduction in the premium and the minister accepted our proposal. The premium was therefore reduced to 610 euros, or 1,000 euros indexed, which we find acceptable.

It is known that the level of the premium is the spinal issue that has not been resolved but we hold what the minister told us in commission, namely that he speaks of a supplement of 3 to 4 euros per tranche of 25,000 euros insured on average for fire insurance and natural disasters. We really hope that the competition will play and that this surprise will not be higher. I will return to it later, but it is true that we have planned a necessary evaluation there.

If it is not possible to ensure a correct price, the pricing office will be responsible for determining the amount of the premium. However, without fixing a upper limit of the premium, the level of the premiums is likely to be high, for sensitive areas, especially those that have been flooded today. These are new areas. That is why we have requested this annual assessment from Parliament. I think that Parliament should check not only whether all our fellow citizens have obtained insurance, but also whether it is obtained at the price declared during our committee debates and whether people in so-called “risk” areas have found insurance or have had to systematically appeal to the pricing office.

If these risk areas obviously no longer need to be delimited to enable the project to take action, the regions will still have to delimit them. With this project, we also want to empower the Regions – this is important – because if an urban planning permit is issued or if a construction is underway in areas that will be delimited by risk, the persons concerned will have to ensure the cost of the market and will have difficulty finding insurance. This is also the responsibility of the regions.

Another important factor is the deadline for compensation. It was thought that the project contained flaws in relation to the period of compensation, given that one party could impose its solution unilaterally, which made us fear, in any case, for a quick compensation of the injured. In this regard, an amendment was adopted. I believe that a balance has been found between the insurer and the insured so that an immediate compensation occurs in case of dispute.

The definition of landslide has also been changed. The term “suddenly” has been changed. This sounds anecdotal, but it is fundamental for slow and successive terrain movements that are encountered in Walloon areas. These areas will now be covered by disaster insurance.

One last point is ⁇ ined in the project, and I regret it: the system limits compensation in two ways at the level of insurers. On the one hand, the limit per insurance is 3 million and is revised to 8 million for earthquakes by disaster and by company. On the other hand, there is a global limit of 280 million, which I do not think is a problem. The limit that worries me is that of 3 million. There is a lack of solidarity between insurers. In this case, there may be a quick reminder to the pricing office.

Thanks to this project, a certain balance has been found and tomorrow our fellow citizens will be more protected from natural disasters and especially from floods that occur in our country.

We will vote on this bill, with this request for evaluation after a year. It’s about seeing if everyone has found this insurance, if it doesn’t cost too much and if there have been too big surprises.

Mr. President and Mr. Minister, we will be happy to vote on this bill.

I share the concern about the flooding of the past days, which a number of colleagues have just expressed during the questionnaire.

Over the past few days, a large number of people have stood back into the water. Livings, basements, garages were flooded by water and mud. The moisture crumbles and crumbles in the walls. Property was damaged. After the disruption, people desperately wonder who will pay the damage.

In the absence of a sound legal regulation on natural disasters or on floods, a new appeal must be made to the Disaster Fund. This means uncertainty about whether or not the disaster is recognised as a natural disaster, uncertainty about whether or not it is eligible for compensation, frustration over the slow progress of business and disappointment over the partial or inadequate refund. What happened to the law of 21 May 2003 that would remedy those situations? The law was promised by Prime Minister Verhofstadt. The law was approved in Parliament. There is, therefore, a law on insurance against natural disasters. It is a strange history, with a remarkable and also sad ending given the recent events.

For fifteen years, attempts have been made to obtain a natural disaster insurance. On 10 January 2001, a bill was finally submitted to the House by Minister Picqué. Hearing was held and then suddenly it became strangely silent: Minister Picqué himself was no longer behind his design. His original design also envisaged the globalization of the various disasters. His original bill also provided for a compulsory insurance as an extension of the fire insurance.

The reason why Minister Picqué no longer supported his design was that he could no longer sell it to his electoral, urban backbone. A real catastrophe was needed to bring the matter back on track and push forward, in particular the heavy floods of late 2002 and early 2003, which hit large parts of the country, including East Flanders. That was the sign for Prime Minister Verhofstadt to intervene.

Verhofstadt promoted himself as the great advocate of the mandatory natural disaster insurance, in his well-known way: he promised that before the June 2003 elections a law would be adopted for insurance against natural disasters.

But Minister Picqué saw the mood arrive. Just before the elections must give his name to a law that makes urban residents, including Brusselsers, pay for risks that they do not take, that Picqué could not allow. The clever Picqué then turned his chariot and completely changed his bill. Only those who lived in a risk zone would have to take a mandatory flood cover.

However, the law of 21 May 2003 was completely inapplicable and actually everyone realized that. Colleagues in Parliament also realized that the law was actually not enforceable. The Prime Minister, however, had promised it, so Parliament had to keep silent, suffer and approve. The law became an empty box.

Have we heard of the Prime Minister today about his law of 21 May 2003? Today, the Prime Minister is silent in all languages. Now it turns out that despite his promise and despite his law, people still have to turn to the Disaster Fund. I think the prime minister, out of shame, will not be able to do other than recognize the flood of the last days as a catastrophe.

It becomes almost obvious that we should always take the promises of Verhofstadt with a grain of salt. As a result, the opposition will never sit without dust, but it is regrettable and sad that the ordinary man is always the victim of the prime minister’s empty promises.

Because the catastrophic situation of 2002 and 2003 could repeat itself and we had no working law. In recent days, some regions have faced extreme watershed again, but the victims cannot rely on the law that has been passed, nor on the legal arrangement that is voted today in the House, despite the promises of the prime minister.

Colleagues, who compare the new law, which is put to the vote today, with the original bill of Minister Picqué, conclude that the new bill shows great similarities with the originally submitted Bill-Picqué.

I will briefly summarize the most significant agreements. The link of natural disaster insurance to fire insurance simple risks is stated in this law and was also stated in the original law-Picqué. The globalization of various disasters, such as earthquake, land decay, land displacement, flooding, to which now comes flood wave, dive break, discharge of sewage.

Principle of globalization of catastrophic risks: idem originally Picqué and current bill. The definition of what is a covered natural disaster is set out in the law. What is an earthquake, what is a flood, it is stated in the law, it is included. These definitions are almost identical. The exclusions already legally permitted are, in fact, the same. Why do I say that, why do I make this comparison? Because during the discussion of the law of 21 May 2003 and therefore of the amended and reduced version of the Bill-Picqué, many arguments were raised by the majority and even by the minister to refrain from approving the bill submitted at that time in its original form. For example, the majority and Minister Picqué did not consider it appropriate to include earthquakes in the insurance coverage. I quote the statement of Minister Picqué, which you can read in the report. "Later it turned out that the design's option was to limit the flooding. Earthquakes, if they are strong, exceed the capacity of the insurance companies, which makes it better in that case to allow the compensation by the Disaster Fund to persist. If the earthquake, on the other hand, is not powerful, there is no problem for the insurance." Their

I give another example. The majority and the minister were against too much solidarity, against the maximum solidarity because – I quote Picqué again – “in such a system prevention is not taken into account”. Ladies and gentlemen, you hear it well. Today, this belief is again denied. Well, earthquakes in the new bill, solidarity in the new bill, colleagues, this is the way this so important dossier has been dealt with over the past three years.

Let us return to the bill we are discussing today. The explanatory memory explains why a new law was needed. The reason is the inapplicability of the 2003 law. It is not a bad law, said Minister Verwilghen in the committee, but it is not enforceable. It is certain, colleagues, that something had to happen. In this sense, Mr. Minister, we are grateful to you that you have actually drafted a new draft. In his approach, the minister has chosen the path of privatization of natural disasters. The insurance against natural disasters is left to the private insurers. Although, not entirely. The law imposes the obligation to globalize various disasters and the law sees the coverage against natural disasters as a mandatory extension of the fire insurance. In addition, the interventions of the insurers are limited.

If certain limit amounts are exceeded — approximately €280 million for most disasters and €700 million for earthquakes — victims will still have to turn to the National Disaster Fund. There is also an upper limit per society. It is obvious that this latter provision involves more risks than the limit per accident. As the Minister has said, no disaster has so far caused damage exceeding these limit amounts. The upper limit per society involves more risks because small companies will reach their upper limit much faster, after which the victims are referred back to the Disaster Fund.

I think the insurers can be happy with this scheme. They were, by the way, the requesting party for such a arrangement. The globalization of risks and mandatory coverage, as part of fire insurance, provide their guaranteed premium income. The additional insurance premium for the coverage against natural disasters, which the insurers may request, is not limited. Insurers can differentiate the premium according to the risk. For the major risks that the insurers do not want to insure, there is the tariff agency. The reinsurers can also be satisfied because the risk for the insurers is limited to known maximum amounts. Therefore, there are also no adventures to be expected for the reinsurers.

If this new scheme is good for the insurers, is it also good for the people and better for the insured? I want to say here that this law is ⁇ better than the law of 2003 — which is not difficult — but also better than the current arrangement through the Disaster Fund. If one chooses the path of privatization, we think that this is a formula that can work. The weak points in this design are for us that not everyone has fire insurance and that many people are underinsured. Usually, it is only realized at the moment when something really happens. A weak point is also that even those who, by the way, do not take any risk will still have to pay and have no choice. Another weak point is the sensitive set of exclusions. A weak point was the high franchise. By amendment, however, this amount was reduced by half. A weak point is to us to feel also the possible discussion, if anything happens, of what can be considered a natural disaster and what is the result of a human activity or the result of the absence of human activity. I mean, I mean, the removal of wastewater. Their

When in the past weekend a lot of people have suffered serious damage, it was very often related to the overflow of sewage, due to sand accumulations in the sewage, which are the result of insufficient maintenance of the sewage. I expect in the future discussions between what will be a real natural disaster or what is later considered to be the result of human activity or the absence of human activity.

Mrs. Creyf, as regards your last comment, I come from an area where there are regular floods. I can tell you that the biggest inconvenience is caused by the overflow of sewage systems. The Emergency Fund has always accepted this at the time. Therefore, I suspect that it will also be insured through this system.

The fact that sewage flows overflow or the water cannot swallow is a result of flooding. It is inherent in the problem of flooding. So I think this will definitely be covered.

Colleague Lenssen, you are right, as far as the Disaster Fund is concerned, but you must imagine the new situation in which people now end up. This is a contract between an insured and an insurer. It will be up to that insurer to determine whether the damage is due to a natural phenomenon or to poor maintenance of sewage systems. To the extent that an insurer discovers that the damage could be the result of it, he will exercise the right of claim. Let us be honest, we can indeed expect a number of disputes that will come before the court.

The insured will be paid.

The insured will be paid and it can be recovered afterwards. So we can expect trials and disputes. That is one of the weak points of this project.

The weakest point, and also our greatest criticism, is the lack of every possible form of prevention to prevent flooding, land depletion and displacement of sewage systems. It is not enough to obligate people to insure themselves against floods and debris if, in the meantime, nothing is done to avoid and prevent floods and debris or, more importantly, even if the risks are increased by a bad or absent policy.

The only provision in the draft law that can be considered as a preventive measure is the fact that those who build in a risk zone after delimitation by the Regions will no longer be able to receive insurance coverage. However, a lot of damage can be avoided by a good water policy, good spatial planning and maintenance of sewers, but that is a regional competence. The minister rightly says that he can do nothing about it. This is a regional competence. It is precisely for this reason, Mr. Minister, that CD&V chose another option, in particular a regime at the regional level. It is the regions that today have all the instruments in their hands to carry out a preventive policy.

If you allow me, I would like to briefly interrupt you, just to say that this issue was discussed yesterday in the Consultation Committee. An agreement was reached with the regions to line up the risk areas as soon as possible in order to create that certainty. I think that, with the exception of what you have just cited as the only measure of prevention, they will have those plans and that public administrations will also adhere to those plans, with the result that people will not build in real risk zones. However, this will only apply to certain natural disasters, because I do not think that one can really defend against an earthquake, ⁇ not in our regions. For this purpose, special arrangements must be made.

Mr. Minister, I have no problem with this. Only, you remember that I said in the committee: what if the three regions move at different rates to designate the risk zones? In practice, this could mean that in the Region that has already defined the risk zones, people can still build but can not get any insurance coverage, while in a Region that delays the delimitation or does not move to the delimitation of the risk zones, anyone who can get coverage. Of course, they will receive a differentiation of the premium from the insurers. You said at that time that the measure would only come into force at the moment it came into force in the three regions.

The basis of my argument is actually that all instruments for carrying out a preventive policy are in the hands of the Regions: water policy, infrastructure works — such as building dams — spatial planning, and so on. Our proposal is the regionalization of the Disaster Fund. Specifically, the CD&V proposal entails that flood disasters with damages exceeding a certain amount shall be arranged through a regional disaster fund or through an insurance that the Region takes. At the same time, water damage below the threshold amount would be more easily insured as part of the traditional fire insurance. Then the insured is free to say that he insures himself for the risk below that limit, or that he does not insure himself and is willing to take a certain risk in this regard.

Be careful that way, we believe, there are enough incentives, enough incentives, to do something and take preventive action.

Whoever is responsible bears the financial risks. The desire to reduce financial risks will encourage preventive action. Therefore, the Emergency Fund should be regionalized.

By the way, colleagues of the Flemish factions, the Flemish government agreement provides for the regionalization of the Rampen Fund. On Friday, 4 March 2004, the Flemish Government, among other things following a question from Minister Verwilghen, I think, decided on the following position. “The Flemish Government expressly proposes that in the first place the competence regarding the Flood Disaster Fund should be transferred to the regions. As a result, the level responsible for flood prevention and for building permits will also be responsible for the burden associated with floods."And the Flemish government consists not only of CD&V!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, because something had to be done, because we find the proposed arrangement more operational than what exists now, but also because we prefer a different track, we will abstain at the vote.

Finally, I would like to point out what might seem like a technical point. However, this is a point that I would like to submit to the Minister and to the colleagues who voted in the committee. At the last session of our committee, just before the voting, we submitted an amendment to Article 2 regarding the expertise. It is always difficult when amendments are submitted before voting. After all, you can no longer check them or actually look at them.

In the amendment that was unanimously adopted – I myself do not advocate innocently – it states “the costs of the expert appointed by the insured and, if applicable, the third expert are fired by the insurer and are borne by the party in the wrong.” I have since received feedback showing that in practice this text can cause serious complications at the disadvantage of the insured.

At first glance, this text seems logical. In practice, however, it can cause serious complications. I am told that this text attempts to settle a matter with which there is no problem today. Usually, the costs of the expert appointed by the insured are reimbursed by the insurer, even if the insured would be placed in the wrong. The costs of the third expert are usually borne by both parties each for half or, if it would have been otherwise stimulated in the policy terms, also by the insurer.

I checked my own fire police. In fact, it states that the costs for the expert will be borne by the insurer. The remuneration is made according to generally accepted bars. However, the text of our amendment does not impose any limit on the honorary wages that experts may request. According to the amendment, the costs must be borne by the party in the wrong position.

In most cases, if a third expert is appointed, there is no party that is right or wrong. If a third expert is appointed – it is usually about damages – one wants a friendly settlement and tries to find a compromise. Now, however, the law states that the party that is placed in the wrong will pay.

What if it is the insured? Due to the scheme there is a possibility that the insured in the future will have to bear all costs for the expertise, while he can now always count on the reimbursement of the costs for the expert he has himself appointed, even if he is in the wrong. This is the practice of the damage scheme in the fire insurance.

By incorporating an amendment that is contrary to the scheme, a number of damages regulators are wondering which provisions will be followed. Who will decide who is in the wrong when one usually settles in the memory? Who will ultimately bear the costs? At present, the practice is that the insurer or the insurers share the costs.

Mr. Minister, I take it up without therefore — I repeat it — wanting to claim innocence. I approved it. I want only to address the danger of amendments that are submitted at the last moment and cannot be examined. Mr Tant, Chairman of the Committee on Economic Affairs, has repeatedly pointed to this.

This is what was signaled to me. That’s why I bring it here too. Maybe you have an answer to my concerns. Maybe you think I am wrong. It would be interesting to know your answer. It should be clearly included in the report so that compensation regulators and insurers know what to follow in that particular case.

Mr. Minister, after the recent floods in the provinces of Hainaut, West Flanders and East Flanders, I read with attention and interest your bill on insurance against natural disasters. At the beginning of this reading, I will submit to the following observations.

The bill amends the law of 21 May 2003 which presents a large gap in its current version. This law adapted the Law of 25 June 1992 on the Land Insurance Contract and the Law of 12 July 1992 on the Repair of Certain Damages to Private Property Caused by Natural Disasters, by providing for compulsory flood coverage for insured persons whose buildings are located in risk areas. This involved the precise definition of ‘risk zones’ by the Regions.

I am sensitive to your argument that, by limiting the mandatory coverage to only insured persons located in the risk zone, the law is addressed only to persons who will almost ⁇ be victims of floods. The insurance system cannot therefore apply in such a context, except to imagine extremely high premiums to cover the almost certain risk of finding a damage. In addition to this fundamental problem, the definition of risk zones is an extremely difficult task for the Regions.

To remedy these gaps, the bill you submit proposes to extend the mandatory flood coverage to the entire population and, to justify this extension, to extend the scope of the coverage to other risks than floods such as earthquakes, overflow or rejection of public sewage and slipping or landslide. However, it seems to me that the extension of covered risks as proposed in this bill does not mask this certainty of having a catastrophe in the risk areas, on the one hand, and on the other, does not necessarily allow for a homogeneous distribution of risks across the entire population. Earthquakes occur very rarely, landslides and flooding generally cause less damage than floods and usually occur in risk areas.

The proposed system is therefore more a system of solidarity than of insurance and the premiums to be paid are more taxes than insurance premiums.

In the light of the foregoing, I therefore ask myself the following questions:

Should the organization of solidarity really be entrusted to the private sector? Should we not be concerned that a modulation of premiums and franchises will appear so that they will be as high as possible in the risk areas? In any case, the system has the merit of saving the state’s treasures! Furthermore, one may wonder what the premiums paid by the population will be used for, as long as there is no consequent sinister. Will they be capitalized by insurance companies?

In order to finance such a solidarity project, why not have opted for a more flexible management of the National Disaster Fund and for its allocation to the height of its needs and obligations? Frankly, this privatization of solidarity poses a real problem for me, just as the idea of regionalizing the calamity fund would pose a problem for me.

If the argument of Regions accountability and prevention measures to be taken is relevant in the case of floods of dams or sewage, what about earthquakes or storms? The argument does not hold.

Despite all these reservations, Mr. Minister, I do not wish to oppose a project that provides a pragmatic answer to a major problem. I think in particular of the people who have experienced the recent floods and who are still wondering about the intervention of public authorities in view, in particular, of the recent interventions of the National Catastrophe Fund. It is more than necessary to provide flood victims with financial security that will prevent doubt and uncertainty from adding to the known difficulties in the event of a natural disaster. I would like to remind that this is a solidarity, now privatized, between citizens that goes out of the field of action of public authorities.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, this may be just a small consolation for the victims of the storm of the last days, but today we are going to vote here on a bill for the introduction of insurance against natural disasters. Their

This law has gone a long way. It actually took a very long time. This law also has a long history. Already in 1990 there was a preliminary draft law, but this preliminary draft has never been discussed in the committees or in the House. It has actually continued to rest in the boxes of the various ministers, until Minister Picqué in 2003 then tried, after difficult negotiations and difficult compromises, to have an insurance law against natural disasters passed on 21 May 2003. It soon turned out that this law was inapplicable and ineffective. The government has acknowledged this in a timely manner and has called for an improved law. It is the merit of Minister Verwilghen who has prepared a draft law that is presented today and that is executable and workable. Mrs. Creyf has already stated this. Their

This law is actually based on four major principles. First and foremost, the generalization of the mandatory coverage against all catastrophic risks such as earthquakes, land degradation, land displacement, floods, flood waves, dive breaks, let alone mention. Second, the extension of coverage to everyone who has a fire insurance, allowing solidarity to play full play. Third, the law can enter into force without the need for risk zones to be defined. The entry into force can, of course, only take place after the tariff agency is operational. I would ask the Minister to work on this as soon as possible so that the tariff agency can enter into force and the law can be operational. Fourth, the Disaster Fund should only intervene more sporadically, in very exceptional cases. Their

Additionally, of course, it should be noted that the designation of the risk zones, which is a Western matter, should be done as soon as possible. Their

It has been agreed that, if the areas are delimited, those who subsequently still build in a risk zone or a flood area will not receive coverage through the fire insurance. He consciously takes a risk. He will, of course, still be insured, but I do not know which insurance at acceptable rates will still cover such risks. The prize will be half-hand. I think that will then be exceptionally high, making it impossible to still take an insurance in a normal way.

The draft law undoubtedly means a substantial improvement compared to the law, which has never actually entered into force. When the insurance logic is accepted, private insurance companies can demonstrate that insurance can work perfectly in the event of natural disasters. This, of course, reduces the intervention of the Disaster Fund to an absolute minimum, the Disaster Fund, which in fact still works very hard and inadequately.

The committee has made a few other changes, namely the reduction of the franchise. The franchise was reduced by half compared to the initial proposal, which, of course, may be a complication or as a result that the mandatory contribution increases somewhat, but that contribution is still quite well compared to the insured risk.

The insurer will say what the premium is and you will say that the premium is already included. This has yet to be fully determined.

It is estimated that the premium is approximately 2.5 euros...

There is no maximum.

It is estimated that the premium will be around 2.5 euros per insured amount of 25,000 euros.

Additionally by halving the franchise.

No, the total cost. It is, of course, due to the halving of the franchise that the cost has gone up.

No, you should not minimize it. I have already heard other figures, from 5 to 8 euros.

No, you should not exaggerate either. Studies have shown that the amount to be paid will be close to 2.5 euros per insured amount of 25,000 euros.

I would only like to point out that at the moment only the risk of flood is offered by certain large insurance companies and that the supplementary premium requested for the risk of flood alone is more than the amount you say now.

That is probably an insurance specifically for flooding.

We are going to a coverage that is greater than just flooding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assume that the example that Mrs. Creyf outlines will correspond to the reality, but that is of course not comparable to the operation that is now being carried out.

The operation that is being carried out now expands the support area. It is therefore actually based on the two essential premises of insurance, that is, on the one hand, the probability of risk, thus the risk calculation, and, on the other hand, the spread of risk over a large number of persons. This, of course, makes a very big difference from the exercises that have occurred until now, because they are set on a completely different ground.

(...) embedded in the fire insurance, thus allowing the solidarity (...

The [...]

(...) Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the VLD will fully support this project. Let us hope that the insurance law on natural disasters will come out as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Mrs. and Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, the climate disorders that we have known for a few years already indicate that in the future we will more and more often be confronted with extreme atmospheric conditions, the outcome of which can be detrimental to each of us.

In our country, I will only cite as an example the torrential rains that have been falling for a few days in the region of Tournai and in Western Flanders, although for those affected by these weather conditions, this law will unfortunately come too late. Worldwide, the number of recorded natural disasters has increased by 2.5 times between 1970 and 2000. At the same time, the number of people affected each decade by these disasters has increased from 740,000 to ⁇ 2 million. Therefore, I look forward to the future adoption of this text of law, especially since it is soon fifteen years that our country expects to provide itself with legislation on natural disasters.

Regarding the bill of Minister Picqué, adopted at the end of the previous legislature after long debates, the too narrow nature of solidarity and the mandatory delimitation of flooded areas by the Regions have significantly compromised the entry into force of the bill. This was emphasized by colleagues who spoke before me. I can therefore only welcome the initiative of Minister Verwilghen to have adapted the draft of his predecessor in order to make it applicable as soon as possible. From now on, in addition to floods, earthquakes, landslides and landslides, dig breaks, tide rays, sewage overflow and mud spills will be insured through fire insurance.

The extension of the scope of the law was fundamental. Insurers have established that 3 to 4% of Belgians are insecure in terms of flood risk and that 8% of them could expect to see their fire premium doubled if the law adopted in 2003 is implemented. 12% of the population would therefore not have been able to adequately cover these risks on affordable terms. This extension of the scope will automatically end this situation and make insurance possible and affordable for everyone.

It should not be forgotten that so far the victims could only count on an intervention of the calamity fund. This has also been emphasized earlier by my colleagues. This procedure is slow, very administrative burdensome and uninteresting financially because the compensation is only partial and/or flat-rate. Furthermore, the conditions of intervention of the Fund are strictly delimited. We recalled this during the current issues, this law on the calamity fund is undoubtedly deserving to be amended and I believe that most groups in this parliament will agree to do so very soon. At present, any victim of a natural disaster is therefore not entitled to compensation from the disaster fund. In the future, therefore, victims of a calamity will be able to benefit from insurance coverage and will be entitled to compensation for the damages suffered.

The improvement of compensation will, of course, have a cost, but the solidarity between all insured persons means that it should be limited so as not to exaggerate the budget of those who are less likely to use the insurance. Thus, the additional premium that will be requested from the insured will vary depending on the location of their home.

A person living in an apartment on the 7th floor of a building in the heart of Brussels will pay less than a person with a house in a flooded area. The premium will therefore always vary according to the risk incurred.

In short, this project offers many advantages. Every potential victim of a natural disaster is assured of being insured on affordable terms. Each fire insured benefits from a supplementary coverage against natural disasters, while with the law of 2003, some insured would have contributed without the slightest compensation since the insurers would probably have reflected their costs on the risk insured. The victim of a natural disaster is fully compensated within the limits and conditions of the coverage of the insurance policy.

For all of these reasons, the MR group will vote in favour of this bill, as it constitutes a fundamental step forward in compensation for victims of natural disasters.

I will fully fulfill my role.

We suspect that.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the bill regulating the insurance against natural disasters comes not too early. It actually comes too late. After all, all those who have suffered serious damage in the past few days due to the abundant rainfall will still have to resort to the Disaster Fund, which, as you know very well, in practice does not work adequately.

Therefore, it is important to refer to the history of the design. After all, she is not revealed of importance.

Since 1990, successive governments have been trying to introduce natural disaster coverage. We can only state that this has never worked in practice.

The most hallucinating — Mrs. Creyf has referred to it — is the law of 21 May 2003, which you now yourself say was a compromise and a law that has never actually entered into force. You are shifting the blame for this, among other things, to the three Regions that would not have worked on the delimitation of the risk zones. I will return to that problem later. However, an equally important reason for the failure of the previous law is ⁇ also the fact that the mandatory coverage only applied to risk areas, resulting in an anti-selection.

It is, however, strange to note that a liberal minister and a liberal people’s representative here criticize a law they have collaborated on. We will only interpret it as a healthy self-analysis.

The fact is that the population has been waiting for a natural disaster insurance in vain for fifteen years.

Mr. Minister, our group is not opposed to the present draft, however not in terms of the content of the draft. First, some practical barriers from the past have been removed. Thus, not every natural disaster should be recognized by the government to compensate victims. Second, the imposed solidarity, due to the obligatory linking of fire insurance to a natural disaster insurance, does not allow the premiums to increase too high and spreads the risk to all insured parties as much as possible. Third, the franchise was reduced from 2,145 euros to 610 euros.

Mr. Minister, despite your meritorious effort to prepare a draft that will work in practice from an insurance technical point of view, we have some concerns.

First, farmers, who are often the first victims of natural disasters, are here excluded from this law. The damage incurred by farmers falls under a separate coverage scheme.

This fragmentation of powers between you and the Federal Minister of Agriculture and Middle-Earth does not, in our view, benefit the citizen. Following this consideration, our biggest criticism lies in the fact that you continue to oppose the regionalization of the jurisdiction on natural disasters with convulsion and persistence.

Although the delimitation of the risk zones is no longer necessary for the entry into force of this law, it will still be done for the sake of spatial planning. Anyone who still builds in a risk zone after the delimitation of the zones will no longer be covered. As long as this limitation has not occurred, one will still be able to conclude an insurance. Their

Mr. Minister, you know very well that Flanders is much further in this regard than Wallonia. To remove any doubt and confusion about this, I would like to give a brief relay of the response of Flemish Minister Peeters to a question for explanation from my colleague Flemish parliamentary member Marleen Van den Eynde.

In November of last year, a consultation took place within the Flemish government, on a draft royal decree that the federal government had forwarded to the regions. At the same time, however, the government was already working on the current preliminary draft law. The Flemish Government has asked you whether the draft royal decree was still up to date and agreed to the draft royal decree on Friday 4 March.

Mr. Minister, the Flemish Government has also reminded you that the Flemish Region, in accordance with the Government Agreement, remains in favour of a transfer of the powers concerning the Rampen Fund to the Regions so that in this way only one government is responsible for prevention through the building permits and for any costs associated with damage caused by flooding of built property.

Mr. Minister, I do not want you to remember the last paragraph of Mr. Peeters’ response. I quote: “After I informed my colleague Verwilghen about the position of the Flemish government on 4 March, I was not allowed to hear anything about this. I can tell you that the Water department is almost completing the delimitation of the risk zones and that it is effectively using digital map material that allows simulations with different criteria." However, the question remains whether this is the case in Wallonia to the same extent.

We have never received a clear answer to this. Mr. Minister, you stated during the committee meeting that regionalization does not necessarily provide a solution. To say and write in advance that regionalization will not lead to a solution is to settle in advance in a loopway where one refuses to get out. I continue to find it surprising how the VLD, but also the Flemish socialists, succeed in always speaking with two mouths: on the federal level, they dig in and advocate against a regionalization of a natural disaster management and at the same time in the Flemish Parliament write and sign a government agreement in which just the opposite is proposed. It must be done.

Mr. Minister, I come to my decision. Our group is of the opinion and will continue to be of the opinion that homogeneous competence packages should be developed. It does not mean that the regions should develop preventive measures but cannot develop their own regulation in the event of natural disasters. Only the fact that the Flemish and French speakers are progressing at two different speeds also in this dossier proves that this country should not be held together crampfully but, on the contrary, must be liberated from neckline unitarism. Place the responsibility as close as possible to the government that is closest to the citizen. In this case, there is no doubt about the regions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I will be brief and powerful because we are happy today. We are pleased with the present bill, which we consider to be a good regulation in the field of natural disaster insurance. Natural disaster insurance has indeed been a problem for years since floods – a natural disaster that we know very well in Belgium and that we have recently experienced well – often cause many and large damage cases and the risks are also very often geographically limited. In the past, damages caused by flooding were still reimbursed through the Disaster Fund, even to this day. We know that this ⁇ did not go smoothly and goes on. The reimbursement, however, leaves too long to wait for itself, because nevertheless the whole procedure must be repeated again and again. The reimbursement was never complete.

The new law that is now in force should actually solve all the problems of the past and finally make natural disaster insurance accessible to everyone. Therefore, the bill has a whole set of very good points. Not only floods are covered, but also other natural disasters such as earthquakes. Especially the coverage of a flood of the sewerage is a very strong point in the design.

After all, one does not necessarily have to live in a risk area to suffer from flooding sewage, as we have recently experienced. In this context, it is therefore very important to establish a mandatory link between fire insurance and natural disaster insurance. This means that everyone who has a fire insurance now also gets a natural disaster insurance. Estimates indeed show that the additional premium for that coverage can be called quite sober. A sum of 3 to 5 euros per disc of insured value of 25,000 euros is, in our opinion, a good deal.

I think we in the committee have been given an extensive opportunity, including from the minister, to discuss this and submit amendments. I think through the amendment the bill has become a very good and balanced whole. We have been given the opportunity, through discussion with parliamentarians across party boundaries, to introduce a number of good amendments. Among other things, the reduction of the franchise amount was more than halved. This is very important and ⁇ a support for people who regularly suffer from floods since they will now have to pay a smaller part of the damage themselves.

A second major change in the design is the definition of natural disaster. Also here we have the idea of land decomposition through mutual discussion and through amendment can add something. Consider, among other things, the famous landslides in SintTruiden. Such phenomena would now also fall within the scope of this new law and will therefore be covered in the future. We think this is very important for the people in the area. Their

A third and important change that we have introduced after discussion in the committee in mutual consultation is the compensation procedure. There were some doubts about the amount of compensation which would unnecessarily delay the benefit. In the final text as we have approved it, we provide for very strict procedures. If there is no dispute about the compensation, it shall be paid within thirty days of agreement. If there is a dispute between the insured and the insurer, an expert from both sides is appointed with the possibility to have a third, independent expert decide. In case of discussion, the insurer must pay the final compensation within three months, after designation by the insured’s expert.

We think, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, that thanks to the good interaction in the committee, the minister’s openness to allow amendments and the joint and sound committee work, this natural disaster insurance will be both affordable and consumer-friendly.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I can be relatively short because it is not intended to be repeated for all that has been addressed.

Let me say in the beginning that the course of the draft law has wanted us to vote on it today — counting today. For me, it is partly symbolic but also symptomatic that we have had to wait 15 years and, in the sad aftermath of a natural disaster — or what may be cataloged as a natural disaster — address this bill.

I would like to say this, Mr. Tant, because of the very good cooperation within the committee – le rapporteur a rappelé à cette bonne entente – but also because of the efforts made by the relevant actors such as the insurance sector, the consumer associations and not least my associate Professor Colle who have tried together to create a balanced bill. In this regard, it is, in my opinion, an important step forward.

Let me go back to 1990, the natural disasters and floods that occurred after a severe storm then. I remember very well that the then Prime Minister and the then Ministers of Economic Affairs and Home Affairs all three together — I remember the picture — pledged for a different structural solution because the problem that was already established around the Disaster Fund could provide insufficient answers to such natural disasters. Unfortunately, it took 15 years. It was 15 years too late. I give that grip. However, we are taking an important step with an instrument that I hope will be sufficient. The opportunities to be given to this law can ⁇ be invoked legislative technical and insurance technical and involve a clear improvement.

Let me briefly summarize the four core ideas of the law.

Ten eerste, de verplichte dekking tegen overstromingen, veralgemeend tot natuurrampen in de brede betekenis van het woord. Secondly, the mandatory coverage of any risk of natural disaster that is extended to all fire insured persons, which in any case allows to find a solution for the anti-selection that made, for a part, the law of 21 May 2003 inapplicable.

Third: the generalization of coverage to all the insured incendie nous permet de ne plus nous limiter aux zones à risque pour ce qui concerne le volet assurance de la loi et il y a la possibilité, par le biais du bureau de tarification, de rendre assurable chaque assuré. Fourth, the fact that we are can transition to a situation where victims are not dependent on the Disaster Fund. The Disaster Fund ⁇ has advantages, but it also has disadvantages. They have been sufficiently listed today. This can be stopped because we will no longer be dependent on that procedure, because the full fee will also be paid.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to a few punctual comments, because there have been questions about them. I think there should also be a clarification here.

Mrs. Creyf, the amendment on the experts seems to be difficult for you. However, I think the reality of things is as follows. It will not be so frequent that three experts must be invoked, but assuming that it must be at a certain moment because one does not get out of it, then there will be a distribution of the expenses of that expert for the share that one is placed in the wrong. However, do not understand this as a rule that would make it happen, for example, that when the expert of an insured person comes to different numbers than the expert of the insurer, therefore a third expert must come and transfer the balance sheet to the insurer instead of to the insured person, the insured person then should cover all costs. No, the system we have now developed implies that proportionally, up to the amount that one is placed in the right or the wrong, it will have to bear the part of that third expert, after it has been advanced by the insurance company. This is an important and substantial change.

I find that in itself is much more reasonable and much more balanced than a system where the costs of the third expert are simply divided into two halves. It could be that the insurer had it at the right end. If he is absolutely right, he would still have 50% of the costs and honorary payments of the third expert at his feet. En matière de franchise, je suis le premier à me réjouir qu'après amendement et accord intervenu en commission, nous ayons pu baisser la franchise. Dans le projet initial, j'étais sur la même longueur d'onde mais une autre décision a été prise alors. At yesterday’s consultation committee, the three regions jointly agreed on a royal decree containing the commitment to effectively end the risk zones as soon as possible, assisted by the current circumstances. This should not prevent the entry into force of this law. I hope that prevention will be followed.

For farmers, a number of important aspects have already been arranged. The Disaster Fund continues to apply in the sense that when a disaster is recognized as a disaster, farmers are subject to it. It will still be necessary to take additional initiatives. For this, we try to reflect on what is applicable in the Netherlands and France.

The last thing I want to talk about is the tariff agency. It will be necessary to put the tariff agency into operation as soon as possible. I will designate a President for this purpose without delay, in the true sense of the word. Four members must be appointed by the insurance companies and four members by the consumer organisations. I hope that they would like to do this effort with the most competent urgency. I would not like to find that, as in the tariff of automotive insurance, we have to wait a year for certain representatives of certain groups. My call on this will therefore be very clear.

I hope that this law will be implemented as soon as possible. I think it is difficult for us to afford another damage incident without having made the necessary arrangements.

Mr. Minister, I can once again come back to the point that in your eyes is apparently not so important. If the insured employs an expert at this time, then the costs of the insured’s expert will be borne by the insurer, even if the insured is misplaced. Now in the law it is stated that the one who is placed in the wrong pays the expertise. This is contrary to the practice that is now taking place. This is the case when there are only 2 experts. If there are 2 experts, the one of the insurer and the one of the insured, the expert of the insured is paid by the insurer. Now in the law it is stated that this goes to the one who is placed in the wrong. This is a reversal of the situation. If the insured in this case is the injured, he will pay. Now it is the insurer who pays.

Mrs. Creyf, I have subsequently tried to explain to you that the arrangement applicable here is the same arrangement that applies in insurance disputes with experts in automotive insurance.

Mr. Minister, I am talking about the system that exists in the fire insurance.

It is only about the third expert who acts in the event that a distribution of costs must take place. Depending on the right or the wrong one achieves, that division will be applied. That seems to me, in essence, the most fair principle, which, by the way, is also fully applicable in the automotive sector.

Mr. Minister, first of all, you say that is the case with car insurance. It may be. However, fire insurance is different. This is an extension of fire insurance. It is not an extension of car insurance. I tell you what the facts are at the moment and what the conditions are in the fire scheme: if the insured employs an expert, those costs are borne by the insurer. This is no longer the case.

Second, if there is a third expert, the two insurers divide that cost in two. Now it is the party that is wrong. If it is again the insured, that is a step backwards.

Mrs. Creyf, we can discuss this for a long time. I say it very clearly and very quietly: as for the first insurance expert, nothing changes. As for the third insurance expert, the costs can be divided according to the right or the wrong one gets. Let me add one thing: in your assumption — assuming that you are the insured and you have been given the right over the whole line, but there has been a third expert to approach — you do bear half of the costs. In the system that we have prescribed, the costs in that example that I just gave you are fully borne by the insurance company. That is the difference. I think that is more fair. However, we may differ in opinions on this.

But it can be the opposite, Mr. Minister, and then the insured carries everything.