Proposition 52K0404

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 10 mai 2007 tendant à lutter contre la discrimination entre les femmes et les hommes en matière d'assurances.

General information ¶

Author

Open Vld Bart Tommelein

Submission date

Nov. 21, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive anti-discriminatory measure sexual discrimination equal treatment gender equality insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP

Party dissidents ¶

• Karel De Gucht (Open Vld) 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 ¶

Dec. 13, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to report on the bill submitted by Mr Tommelein, amending the Act of 10 May 2007 on combating discrimination between men and women on the grounds of gender in insurance matters. This proposal aims to allow an exception to the non-discrimination between men and women in motor vehicle insurance, hospitalization and life insurance. A proposal submitted by Mr. Logghe has the same intention.

The non-discrimination in question is contained in the European Directive 2004/113 and was transposed into Belgian legislation in this Parliament on 10 May 2007. However, the European Directive also provides for the possibility of allowing an exception. This must be done before 21 December 2007. These proposals want to take advantage of this possibility.

This Chamber accepted the high urgency on November 22. We then discussed the proposals in the committee on 27 November, 4 December and 11 December. The debate on these proposals has not only been held in the committee, but we have also been able to take advantage of the expertise of, among other things, the committee for insurance, where this discussion was already held in 2004. There was also the information provided during the hearings, among other things organized by the Senate following a similar proposal.

We heard the presentations of the applicants on these proposals on 27 November. For the texts I would like to refer to the report. On 4 December we held a discussion of this proposal and the submitted amendments. On 11 December – yesterday – the committee accepted several additional legislative technical adjustments by the Chamber’s legal service and two amendments based on these observations. This proposal is now for voting in the plenary session.

I would like to take this opportunity, if possible, to share the opinion of my group as well. First and foremost, CD&V continues to uphold the principle of non-discrimination and gender equality. I would like to clarify here why and in what sense we amended this proposal, together with the colleagues.

First, we do not ask for an exception for motor vehicles, as the insurers have sufficient other criteria to segment. These include, for example, the capacity of the vehicle, the number of years of driving experience, the place of residence, the use of the vehicle. Moreover, gender only plays a role until the age of thirty. It is not that a young man by definition is also a broken pilot.

Even in the case of the “sickness” branch, we do not ask for an exception. Gender is a factor that the person concerned does not possess.

Other factors, such as lifestyle habits, are known to the insurers and may be more determining in the risk than just the gender.

The solidarity between the insurers must also continue. It cannot be that only bad risks are excluded.

Furthermore, in the motor vehicle and health insurance branches, there is no risk of distortion of competition from abroad. This is no exception in these branches.

Second, as regards life insurance, we suggest that the exception is applied for. There are still many questions about life insurance, including the market position and the competitive position of Belgian insurance companies in this regard.

We would like to have a little more time for this. The exception for life insurance is linked by our amendment to a review by this Parliament by March 2011. This date was adjusted yesterday to take into account the European report on the subject. Member States must report to Europe by December 2009, in December 2010 the European Commission will publish a report with an overview of the situation in all Member States.

We would like to use this for our evaluation in Parliament. This evaluation will be further carried out on the basis of a report drawn up by an evaluation committee to be set up by the King, which can bring together all relevant actors, such as insurance companies and consumer organisations.

In this report we can take into account the situation at that time in the other European Member States, we can look at the market situation of the Belgian insurance companies and their competitive position, and we can also look together with the sector in what direction we can evolve to a system that can also take into account other than gender-related criteria.

Another supplement is intended to prevent the costs associated with pregnancy and maternity from being counted with immediate effect from 21 December 2007. These costs should no longer be charged.

A final element is an adjustment of the modalities of the CBFA in order to have the necessary data available. We are pleased that together with our colleagues in the committee we have been able to submit and adopt these amendments, in addition to this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, why submit a bill aiming at first sight to maintain the discrimination between men and women, as a certain press wants to make us believe? Why should the law of 10 May 2007 on combating discrimination between women and men be amended according to the Flemish Interest? Who can have anything against the equality of rights between men and women? Dear colleagues, I would like to try to summarize the arguments of our party briefly before you.

In itself and in theory, there is nothing wrong with equality between men and women. On the contrary, we fully support the principle. The European Union also provided for a directive on gender equality. However, the European regulators have granted the European Member States the possibility to provide for exceptions on the standard rule of gender equality for specific activities, i.e. activities where the distinction between men and women remains permitted. So we immediately get to the core of the matter, the private insurance.

Private insurance is supported by two important principles, the solidarity principle and the newer but generally accepted principle among Belgian insurance companies, the principle of responsibility.

Insurance is based on the principle that risks are distributed across a group of insured persons. However, it was soon revealed that the expected damage in insuring a risk was not equally large and equally likely in all groups. In order to responsabilise certain groups that are more at risk of an accident or a particular event – the second principle – the insurance market in the 80s and 90s of the last century generally adopted the principle of segmentation. Acceptance and insurance premium were based on segments based on age, place of residence, gender. The Flemish Belang, of course, also knows that segmentation is not happy in itself.

Segmentation as well as solidarity can turn into extremes. However, you must assume from me – I have experience in the insurance branch – that the balanced tension between solidarity and segmentation, which exists to this day in the Belgian insurance market, is praised by all insurance companies. We want to maintain the system of solidarity and segmentation in Belgium.

Segmentation currently exists on the basis of gender among others in the branches of car insurance – Mrs Partyka has already cited it – hospitalization and death coverage. Dear colleagues, the reality of market segmentation has, by the way, led to large groups of individuals who pose little or no risk dropping their premiums year after year during all those years. In other words, they pay a correct premium for a properly balanced risk. They are the broken-makers in the car insurance branches, who pay a lot more. I have been told by specialists that young drivers who manage to go through a number of years without accidents, quite quickly reach a normal, normal premium level. There is, therefore, a segmentation in car insurance.

Ladies and gentlemen, the segmentation in death coverage is even more striking. I will give an example. In 2007, a 30-year-old woman pays a premium of 241 euros for a death coverage of 100,000 euros with a duration of 25 years. A man in the same situation pays a premium of 398 euros, based on official death rates. It is more than obvious for the Vlaams Belang that those who follow the insurance market a little, know that women pay a much lower premium in terms of death coverage. It is that inequality – and I would recommend everyone to let it sink well anyway – that one wants to eliminate in the very short term. This will lead to substantial premium increases.

One may, by the way, ask – this is another argument – on what basis one would maintain premium differences in the branch of car insurance for young people if one wanted to eliminate the segmentation in death coverage based on gender.

Why should one segmentation be non-discriminatory and the other not?

My second argument comes to the application of the European Directive. The European Directive gave the European Member States the opportunity to clarify an option and to provide, in other words, with exceptions to equality between men and women.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are receiving very strong signals from the market that approximately all European Member States would either have applied for the exception or will apply for it. Only Belgium has not done so far. I think, as a cautious home father, we cannot take that risk. If we do not address the option provided for in Article 5 of the Directive before 21 December, our insurers are at risk of facing a premium disadvantage, which they will not be able to overcome immediately. Our insurance companies and thus the employment in this sector are threatened.

I conclude with a third argument on why our group has submitted this bill. All Belgian and European insurance companies are currently segmenting among other things based on gender. Theoretical question may be asked whether discrimination on the basis of gender in the private insurance branch is contrary to the Anti-Discrimination Act of 25 February 2003. Well, a lot of legal doctrine and a lot of insurance law professors think of no. Their explanation for this is that the gender-based segmentation takes place in an objective and technically responsible manner.

In that sense, ladies and gentlemen, the Anti-Discrimination Act of 10 May 2007 needs to be adapted so that the fully legitimate segregation based on gender can also be provided in the future. For this purpose, the Flemish Interest has submitted a bill. Given the urgency of the case, I would like to ask you to support the bill, for which I thank you very much.

Het was de eerste toespraak van de heer Logghe in de Kamer. (The Applause)

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will not speak, in the first place, on the substance of this proposal, but rather on the form and common sense of voting an exception to the anti-gender discrimination law.

Not voting for this exception, it means applying purely and simply the law without taking into account the possible consequences, both for consumers, since at present and you know, some premiums are much cheaper for women, especially for life insurance, and at the same time for insurance companies who risk themselves to expose themselves to the competition of neighboring countries which, for the most part, have already provided these exceptions and will therefore offer more advantageous products.

However, in its directive, the European Commission provides for a period of five years, which means that if the exceptions are voted, it leaves us five years to assess the potential risks both for consumers and for insurers and nothing prevents us from going back and deciding, within five years, a strict application of the anti-gender discrimination law.

Otherwise, if we decide not to vote on these exceptions, it will not be possible to go backwards, regardless of the economic consequences of the anti-discrimination law. Therefore, it will no longer be possible to ask for exceptions.

The MR group therefore does not see why, as soon as the Commission permits, the law should be applied in the strict sense without giving itself time to assess the consequences. This seems to us logical. The gender distinction in insurance has always existed, it is not by extending by five years that we will undermine our quest for gender equality!

It is therefore in all objectivity and, as every young member, I think I can afford it, that we defend the vote on the derogation. I apply the precautionary principle: let us not take the risk of voting an irreversible text in the urgency since the deadline is December 21 and that the European Commission gives us the opportunity to evaluate for five years.

It should not be fooled: this will, of course, have consequences on prices for the consumer. Insurance companies will not apply the lowest prices. They will not take risks, especially since the gender segmentation seems statistically justified in some insurance companies. Data collected since 1950 proves this: despite the ageing population, there is still a difference between men and women in terms of life expectancy, to just take this example.

In addition, 18 out of our 19 European neighbors have already applied for the exception or have announced that they would apply for it. So why would you want to isolate Belgium within Europe? There is a risk of contract relocation.

In conclusion, without putting into question the will to ⁇ unfailing equality between men and women, the MR group supports the bill proposal by Mr. Tommelein, which aims to request the exemption in insurance, in order to align with the other European countries and not take any risk, without closing the door, however, to a strict application of the anti-discrimination law after evaluation.

Dear colleagues, you tiens à remercier Mrs. Reuter, not c'était le "maiden speech". (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we have read the bill of Mr. Tommelein and Assuralia, as amended by the Christian Democrats, with great attention. Mr. Tommelein’s concern for our insurance sector adorns him and is also, you may be surprised, our concern. Nevertheless, we believe that this proposal not only undermines gender equality, but even the renewal of the sector itself can cause long-term damage. Let me clarify myself.

First of all, of course, the fact that this Directive was de facto already transposed on 10 May 2007. As Fernando Pereira of the European Commission has already stated, this is effectively already the case. At the same time, the purple government opted to not use the option right and therefore to prohibit all discrimination on the basis of gender in the insurance sector. One of the main reasons for not doing this was because of the lack of objective and up-to-date data.

Returning to that transposition of 10 May 2007 and the application of the option right for life insurance means de facto a relaxation of the decisions at that time and thus a decrease in the protection. As such, this new legislative proposal, in my opinion, violates the standstill principle as established by the EU. The danger is unthinkable that the European Union will also demonstrate this and so Belgium will be able to flow back.

This is primarily a procedural argument. More substantially, the bill is a weak offer for us. For the green! The principle of equality, of equality of men and women is very important. By the way, both the women’s work of CD&V and the socio-cultural work of the Flemish Liberal Women are our partners in this. We feel further strengthened by, among other things, Test-Acquisition, the Women’s Council, the Council for Equal Opportunities for Men and Women, the Flemish Patients Platform and more.

The women’s organizations among these organizations look beyond their own interests. The possible price increase that this principle may result will be accepted with great pleasure. The principle is important to them. It just belongs to that.

Option law weakens this principle by allowing the insurer to work with variables, with data that the people, you and I, do not have in hand. Your gender is not selected in advance. For us, an insurance premium should ideally therefore depend on matters that each person has control of himself, in which one plays a role, such as whether or not one smokes, drinks, eats high-fat foods and sports. These are so-called lifestyle variables.

Also for the insurance industry itself, working with these variables is a good thing. After all, it provides a more adequate picture of the actual situation and thus provides for a better and more correct calculation of the premiums. This allows us to play in on the reality, and develop better strategies for the future. Specific promotions can even be made.

You may be surprised, but ethically, our party is quite liberal. We were surprised, therefore, when we learned that the liberals wanted to undermine the ethical principle of equality between men and women, for a cause that might very well benefit the market. You invoke the competitive hazard that could come from the countries around us because they could apply the option law.

However, fear is a bad adviser. The threat you present is not certain at all. The opinions of various experts such as professor-doctor Britt Weyts, who is a lecturer at the University of Antwerp, and Mr Thiery, who teaches at the KU Leuven, are very divided on this subject. For the same amount of money, the Belgian legislation will apply to all insurance offered in Belgium.

Nevertheless, we had hoped that additional information on this subject would come from the European Union, but we must, together with you, conclude that the uncertainty remains.

We are not alone in this. CDH has also asked the Senate for the opinion of the European Commission, to which Mr. Pereira replied that this was impossible in the current time frame.

Nevertheless, our impression is that just under the pressure of the insurance lobbies article 5.2 was introduced and that it is just that article that creates uncertainty, sets countries against each other and thus can create a snowball effect that can undermine the European principle of equality of men and women. The right of options thus only weakens the European directive and blows with the sole effect that that uncertainty remains and that the lobby of insurers in each Member State separately tries to seek an exception. The mere reference to the existence of the right of option is for us insufficient reason to apply them too. Our consideration remains in favor of the principle of equality.

By encouraging the use of lifestyle variables and at the same time refusing the right of option, I am convinced that we not only comply with the principle of equality but also that we can give our insurers in Belgium, instead of an angstreflex, an innovation incentive.

Thank you, also for you was it today your maidenspeech in Cameroon. (The Applause)

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we have actually been confronted with a bill whose urgency was justified in so far as the European deadline of 21 December was known. This is the reason why our group accepted the request for an emergency, on the basis that the issue will soon be subjectless and that we cannot refuse to consider such a proposal by our Parliament. However, one can question whether this bill has been submitted to us so late since the issue was known for several months.

A number of hearings took place; they were very useful given the technical nature of the case and its multiple aspects. A thorough examination is indeed necessary and useful. However, I do not hide from you that as a result of these hearings, we were not convinced by the authors’ proposal to allow the continuation of differentiated rates between men and women in certain branches of insurance. In any case, we do not consider that the problem that is presented to us justifies a distortion of such a fundamental principle as gender equality. This is what led to our negative vote.

The main argument put forward by the authors is the risk of unfair competition with companies established in other countries, arising from the fact that 18 European countries have requested exemptions. The first problem is that we do not know anything about the scope of these exemptions; we do not know whether they cover all the branches of insurance invoked, whether they are general or more limited exemptions, whether they cover a limited duration. There is therefore no certainty that a competition problem may arise; even if it were the case, we were able to retain several important elements from the hearings.

On the one hand, most often, insurance companies work from Belgian subsidiaries, in which case they must comply with our legislation; on the other hand, it is quite possible to segment the market in other ways. It is indeed extremely questionable to continue to fix insurance rates on criteria as general and independent of the individual as gender or age. This is the opposite of individual accountability. This leads to stigmatizing target groups where it would be much smarter to set criteria based on behavior, i.e. what the individual has taken and can act on.

The other main argument concerned the fact that insurance premiums will inevitably evolve across the different segments, ⁇ at the disadvantage of women. This is not quite accurate. The consequences will not be the same in all segments; sometimes, women or men will be subject to higher tariffs than today, sometimes lower tariffs, and the market will necessarily have to adapt its offer to the new date. This is obviously the price to be paid for respecting a principle that goes far beyond the issue of the proposal we are examining.

The text finally adopted by the Commission has a very limited scope since it no longer covers only life insurance. The argument used to maintain the exemption for this branch does not convince us any more. It would be to take note of the undisputed statistical fact that women live longer than men. But this criterion does not convince us: again, it completely abstracts from the behavior of people. Thus, it is obvious that lifestyle, working regime, eating habits and others have an impact on life expectancy. Therefore, it would be better to use such criteria.

Dear colleagues, I will conclude by returning to the very principle of gender equality which is at the basis of the European text and which justifies the request for exemption expressed in this bill.

This principle was strongly claimed by all political parties since the Charter for Equality was signed. This charter is the very evidence that equality between men and women is far from being achieved. While many things have evolved – at least in countries like ours – over the past decades, we are still far from a real equality, ⁇ in terms of access to positions of responsibility or income equivalent to that of men.

Many stereotypes also persist, including in our own educational systems and in how the orientation of girls and boys is organized from an early age.

The general principle of gender equality, on which Europe is very clearly pronounced, cannot therefore be undermined at the first difficulty. On the contrary, it requires that one stick to it in every circumstance so that it means something and leads to real improvements.

That is why we reject this proposal, even diminished.

Of course, men, women and colleagues are not equal. They are equal. In the insurance sector, the risks are determined by statistical and actorial data. The discussion held in the committee in recent weeks is not one of challenging the non-discrimination directive that we adopted in May with full conviction as a liberal group.

But for insurance, the European Commission made an exception. There is a possibility to request exceptions.

The higher the risk, colleagues, the higher the premium one will have to pay. Gender is determining the risk. It is stated that women live longer than men. That difference does not diminish, contrary to what some claim. Statistical data show that the difference in life expectancy between men and women has hardly changed in the youngest 50 years and, on the contrary, even increased slightly. In other words, women live longer than men.

That young women cause fewer car accidents than young men often causes hilarity, but is a reality. How it goes, I’ll leave it in the middle. Apparently there are a lot of explanations to be found. In the discussion of the Non-Discrimination Directive, this was also observed and exceptional clauses were drawn up. That is what it is about now. Had there been no exceptional clause, I would not have stood here with this bill.

If one applies the non-discrimination directive throughout Europe, for all Member States, in all cases, and allows no exceptions to it, it is also equal for all and equal for all, regardless of which Member State one is resident.

Now, Member States have until 21 December to choose to do so. Therefore, the urgency of the proposal was requested.

Most Member States have also opted for the exception or are at least planning to do so. If our country were one of the only countries that did not apply for an exception – which is expected and according to informal information we received – it would be a big blow for the Belgian insurance sector. This is not about the big capital, it is about people who work in the insurance sector. There are thousands of people employed there, but there are also thousands of self-employed brokers who earn their bread by selling insurance. I believe that we should not take any risks in this regard and that we must ensure that these people can carry out their bread mining in a normal competitive manner.

Not only the employment in the sector could be at stake, but also the revenue for our state treasury, as a lot of taxes are levied on insurance products, which allows budgets to balance or may show a structural surplus in the future.

The prices of the average premiums will undoubtedly rise as insurance companies have to incur higher costs in order to make a risk assessment in a different way than the gender-related.

Gender-related means that a risk can be estimated in a fairly simple way. There are other ways, which, however, are undoubtedly more expensive. More importantly, especially young women will eventually have to pay higher premiums than it is today.

Given our open economy – we don’t live on an island – and the free movement of services, many activities from the insurance sector could move to neighboring countries in the future. This will be at the expense of the employment of employees and self-employed persons who depend on this sale.

As a liberal, I deeply regret that our socialist colleagues did not even want to discuss this important and urgent topic, neither during the previous rule period nor during the crucial weeks that preceded it.

Therefore, we were obliged to make an important decision within a very short period of time. During the discussion in the committee, the discussion on discrimination was again included, although that was absolutely not the intention. This is an objective segmentation.

It cannot be that the European Commission simply, without reason, provides for an exception. It cannot be that all our neighboring countries ask for exceptions if there is no reason for this. There must be a reason for it. I therefore think that we should not play the cleverest of the class and should not try to be more holy than the Pope, but should effectively also apply for the exception.

The proposal I submitted covered all branches – car insurance, hospitalization insurance, with the exception, colleague Partyka, of the birth that I had also missed because I think there should ⁇ be no discrimination there. I asked for an exception in all areas. I took part in the amendment of my colleague, together with my group and with the MR group because at that time we realized that it was either this important part of “life” or nothing at all.

We are pleased that we found a majority in this committee. However, we had hoped that we could have provided for a wider exception.

I now hope that we can still value this decision before the crucial date of December 20 and that we will be able to work with an exception in the coming years.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the proposal that we are debating and that many will now support is a text that hurts me.

Dear colleagues – to the feminine – this text hurts because it puts us, we women, forward to diverting the great principle of gender equality. We serve as an alibi. Tommelein just repeated it. Indeed, we have a text that makes a major distortion of the principle of non-discrimination between men and women. Thanks to this proposal, insurance companies will continue to not treat men and women equally in the rates and premiums they offer.

Dear colleagues - to the male -, a man is not equal to a woman when it comes to taking a car insurance. A woman is not equal to a man when it comes to contracting a hospital insurance. Nevertheless, I didn’t choose to be born a woman and, Mr. Tommelein, you didn’t choose to be born a man. But because you are a man, and especially if you are a very young man, you have to pay more than I pay your car insurance, because you are more likely than I to drive like a crazy on the coastal roads.

The arguments put forward by the insurers are also very sexist and very protectionist. We have heard them repeat and repeat again that in the name of praiseable principles of equality between men and women, we risk getting the ladies paid more, the ladies who are, of course, more virtuous at the wheel, the strongest, the more this, the more that. But I haven’t heard much of the insurers say that because I was born woman, I paid more for my hospital insurance than you, gentlemen, because I risk, up to 45 years old, to give birth!

Dear colleagues – women and men – the insurance sector uses discrimination and segmentation as a competitive weapon, outright and without distinction. This choice, in a sector whose very foundation is solidarity, really poses problems for us. In the name of statistics, insurers make certain age groups, some or some, those who live here or there, pay higher premiums to attract particular segments with much lower rates.

If one really wanted to stick to the real risk, and environmentalists have repeated it, why do insurers who, just ten years ago, still resorted to unisex rates, not reintroduce, for example, the bonus-malus at the level of auto insurance? It is based on your actual performance that your insurance will be adjusted and not on a criterion on which you have no hold.

From the beginning of the debate on the text, we are the only ones, together with the colleagues brothers of the sp.a, to have explained very easily, without circumvention, our opposition to this derogation advocated especially by the liberals and somewhat supported to varying degrees, it has been heard, by other parties. However, the principle of equality between men and women is not, for us, a principle of variable geometry. One cannot put the principle of gender equality on a pedestal when it comes to talking about human rights, when it comes to signing – and all parties have signed it – the equality charter, and reduce it to a simple actuarial calculation when it comes to talking about profitability and profitability of insurance companies.

One cannot militate within associations for the defense of equality between women and men, pretend to support their struggle, be on their side and not assume the threats of “it may cost more” branded by the insurance sector, especially since these threats are rather unfounded.

One cannot hide behind random statistical clichés (“girls drive better than boys”, “girls go to the hospital more often and are more often sick than boys”) to refuse to apply a principle, which has taken years to impose itself and which continues to fight sexism everyday.

The PS denounces the attitude of insurers, who try to convince the general public and who have succeeded in convincing most political parties of the well-founded of their willingness to maintain discrimination against men and women with regard to insurance risk premiums.

We have the right to ask who would really win if these inequalities were ⁇ ined. Certainly neither democracy nor modernity, for violating the fundamental principle of equal treatment between men and women is to organize a turn around the past; it is to forget all the victories won and acquired for this equality.

That’s why the PS and sp.a stopped the four lines, and I’m surprised that we were so alone. I am amazed at the position of the other parties, which appear to have been conquered by the threatening discourse of insurers, discourse which, I recall, has been destroyed point by point by the consumer associations which, however, usually, defend not the fair price but the lowest price, discourse which has also been demolished by university professors and experts.

All, consumers, university professors, women’s associations, the Centre for Equal Opportunities, were against this proposal in the name of defending the principle of equal treatment, but also in the name of defending the interests of consumers. No one, except the insurance sector, comes out of this affair, neither the principles, nor the citizens as a whole. And it is not the amendment submitted by the social-Christian humanists that soothes the bitterness of the text that claims to deviate from this principle of equal treatment.

It is not because the exemption is limited to only one branch of insurance, life insurance, that the principle of equal treatment has been preserved. It is a kind of doll cut in two, glass half empty, hair cut in four to both try to assert the intangibility of the principle of equal treatment and enjoy to relay the needs of a sector to the power of fearful influences. All this seems to me a bit Jesuit.

It is therefore no surprise that you will learn that the whole socialist group will oppose this proposal which marries only the claims of a concerned sector of being able to continue to segment as it wants, to practice the tariffs it wants, even for compulsory insurance.

We will all vote against this backgarden proposal. I repeat, equal treatment is not sacrificed in the name of the profitability of insurance companies, as most of the experts we invited have shown us well: it is the insurers who threaten to raise their price but not the reality of the structure of the insurance market.

I hope this has made some women think about the bench on the orange side!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to thank colleague Lalieux because she has actually been the spokeswoman of our group for the most part and in essence, almost. Meanwhile, everyone has probably noticed that almost no one can actually be found for what is currently on the vote, except orange-blue and Assuralia.

I will clarify. The Consumer Organization Test-Buy has called on all of us not to approve this proposal. For several weeks, the insurance industry has been trying to justify the practice of discrimination between men and women and to defend an exception to the equality principle by means of half-truths and whole lies. Assuralia puts women against men by using incorrect and incomplete examples, disinformation to say, which give the impression that the rates for women will rise. This is not from the socialist factions, but from the consumer organization Test-Buy.

The Flemish Patient Platform has also called on us all not to approve the present. Gender, age and, in many cases, health are elements that the consumer has no vessel. Differences in premiums, based on those elements, are undoubtedly discriminatory. For the patient platform, the distinction between male and female is a very inexpensive argument for the insurance sector to estimate the risk and calculate the premium. There is a mistake sprinkling around the segmentation policy of the insurance companies. This is not what the socialist groups say, this is what the Flemish Patient Platform says.

Colleagues, we are also all called by the women’s movements, by all political women’s movements, regardless of the pillar or the ideological or political background they have, to disapprove of what is present today and to implement the European directive tout court.

Finally, colleagues, the Senate Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities has also provided us with a comprehensive, thorough and motivated opinion. The colleagues in the Senate have done their work and they also advise us in this matter.

The conclusion is the same as that of the civil society organisations I have just listed, in particular not to allow any gender-based derogation in this matter.

Mrs. Douifi, first of all, I note that you are again starting the discussion on the principle of equality between male and female. You take all the examples from the organizations that call for equality. It is not about that. I just said that it is correct that segmentation is a cheaper form for insurance companies. Insurance companies have the right to choose the cheapest form of segmentation instead of more expensive forms. We see every day that products become more expensive because the basic raw materials become more expensive. As the prices of the products rise, it is mainly due to the cost of raw materials worldwide. As socialists, you are, of course, trying to make the Belgians know that you can solve all this with government interventions, while at this time worldwide prices are rising.

Second, I have admitted that segmentation is cheaper. But can you explain why the European Commission allows exceptions? I have also said in my presentation that if it does not allow exceptions, I as a liberal will not ask for exceptions in Belgium either. Why does the European Commission allow such exceptions? Why do all countries require these exceptions? You have no answer.

Mr. Tommelein, then you must first start by quoting the correct figures from all other European countries. Eleven other European countries have not requested the opt-out.

The [...]

Were you not the one in the committee who would come to the props with a cautious note with the motivation of the other countries why to ask for an opting-out? We have never seen that note. Eleven European countries have not requested the opt-out. This is also what we ask.

I could basically read the Note of Test-Buy if you did not. I could also basically read the note of the Flemish Patient Platform, if you did not read it. Then we can see that you have enlightened something very fragmentary from that. By the way, you have already had your own bill to be completely underestimated in order to be able to vote on a branch here, while you have proposed three branches. You will, of course, find a way to explain that to the lobby of Assuralia. If you go to sea with a different political colour, you must make concessions.

For the individual hospitalization insurance, to name just one example, women pay 50% more today than men up to 45 years old. Have I heard someone from orange-blue say anything about that hospital insurance? No, no one . It is a compromise, a cloth for bleeding, because you absolutely had to do something for the big lobby of the insurance sector.

The government had an agreement. That agreement consisted in not changing the European directive, in other words to meet the large group of civil society organisations that have well formulated their position. There was an agreement. The sp.a remains with its position and finds the implementation of the European directive, the implementation of the Gender Act, evident.

Staying in the same position, it cannot be said of everyone. A change in a political color combination clearly means a change in political attitude. Contrary to all the opinions I gave as an example recently, orange-blue will come in by approving the present proposal. The reasons for this are clear. After all, it is to meet the demands, to the lobby of the insurance sector. Meanwhile, as we have noticed in Parliament in the past six months, it has become a trend: orange-blue is cold and hard for consumers, but benevolent for the wealthy economic sectors, such as the insurance sector.

Ms. Almaci asked for the word.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assist Mrs. Douifi in her response to Mr. Tommelein.

In fact, 11 countries have already transposed the directive without using the right of option. The second point is that you now want to make the exception the rule across Europe and that I find a problem. The principle in Europe is equality, that is the directive, and you want to make that exception absolutely the rule throughout Europe, and I cannot agree with that. The problem is that you are generating a snowball effect in this way and it is also not at all certain that this will result in reducing competition. I am sorry, but Mrs. Douifi is right in that regard.

After six months, this is actually the first, pleasant, tough debate we have here. I actually find it very pleasant. Mr. Tommelein, I’m going to explain you a few things about the birds and the bees to make sure this can be placed in a scientific framework because in fact you’re right. The statistics that indicate the differences have a scientific basis.

Before I talk about the content, I would like to talk about the form, Mr. Tommelein. In 2004, Europe issued the Directive to eliminate discrimination between men and women in access to services and the supply of goods and services. Very noble of Europe but we will soon see that – Europe has actually realized that there were reasons to do different things in the insurance sector – men and women are not really equal.

Nevertheless, I find the penalty that we are talking about this measure here now, eight days before the expiration of the time limit for transposing this Directive into a law.

The VLD will be knocking on the chest here today. Knowing that Professor Colle has been in your midst all the time, you could have thought of transposing this directive before.

For us, there are three clear reasons to call for support for this bill.

Regardless of the fact that we as a party are also against all forms of discrimination and how hard it may sound for the testosterone present in this Chamber, women are genetically predestined to live longer. The double X chromosome, Mrs. Douifi, ensures that you are protected from a number of diseases against which I am not protected. So there are a number of scientific grounds that really need to be followed. It is therefore logical for insurance companies to rely on those statistics, which are, by the way, a result of that scientific background, in order to implement a different approach.

This is not about eliminating gender equality. It’s just about clear gender differences, both genetic and behavioral, which need to be honored.

Another point I would like to draw attention to is that Europe is gradually creating a unified wardrobe in which everything must necessarily be equal. On all levels, the supranational level is used to make anything equal. We see it somewhat differently. Segmentation and competition strive for optimum. If we let Europe do that, I fear that in a few years we will have a very expensive economy. Moreover, when Bolkenstein promotes the free movement of services in its Directive on the future of Europe, we must also ensure that we actually do so.

Finally, we can’t get it out of our hearts to see that for a number of principled reasons to see men and women as equal at all costs – we think you’re right, we think everyone is equal, but that’s not the point – they’re going to make insurance more expensive. This is a step too far for us. Therefore, we support the bill and call on you to think about it and do so.

I have written the scientific background for the interested parties. This is a very interesting test with cavia.

Dear colleagues, dear colleagues, dear colleagues, gentlemen, gentlemen, we are not equal in the face of life and death.

Things would have been much easier if the EU directive had banned any possibility of derogation and if it had imposed that the use of sex as a factor in the calculation of premiums could no longer be used. But this is not the case. The European legislature has made a different choice. Let us not give him any other intentions. He was aware that, for commercial or human realities, in the calculation of premiums, it is possibly possible to take this criterion into account.

In addition, a lot was cited in the debates of this late afternoon, the law of 10 May 2007. Everyone said that it should not be deviated from it because it will weaken the difference between men and women, but also the principle. But should I remind you that those who defend this thesis today voted for the derogations in the law of 10 May 2007? Article 12 of the Constitution states: “In matters of supplementary social security scheme, distinctions based on the respective life expectancy of men and women are lawful.” As regards the supplementary social security scheme, the distinction was therefore allowed by the legislator, that is, by this assembly, in May last year.

Let us now come to what is the subject of our discussion. We need to leave the field of ideology and realize the reality. The insurance sector is, in essence, a highly competitive sector: 70% of the gross domestic product of the European Union is also developed in the service sector and foreign operators work in our territory, as Belgian operators work in other territories. Contracts can also be negotiated through more modern ways such as the Internet and there are no borders. In addition, many contracts are signed through collective insurance.

Therefore, the position we defended to amend the bill proposal of Mr. Tommelein – one can give this latter the merit of having posed the problem – was to say that in this environment, according to the principle according to which it is necessary to try to limit the derogations, we could not accept that they are taken into account to justify the premium differences between men and women, either the behavior of one and the other – I mean here in particular RC auto insurance – or the benefits that the insurers would be brought to perform. - I think here of hospitalization insurance - or other criteria on which one and the other can weigh or weigh differently.

However, life expectancy is another factor. This is the subject of the amendments we have submitted and this is what is now under discussion. We are not equal before death, as we are not equal before life. In the case of mortgage and life insurance, this is the determining criterion.

The directive – I recalled – allows for derogations until 21 December next year, in a time-limited manner because it still takes the Member States to justify them before the Commission. In the light of this Directive, it appeared to us that only this derogation deserves to be ⁇ ined.

Those who, today, claim that by doing so, the scope of the principle would be reduced, are mistaken. Should it be remembered that they themselves reduced it for the complementary social security schemes? They were not obliged to do so. But, in the present case, it is clear that if the derogation was not adopted, it would be the ladies who would be asked to pay higher premiums tomorrow.

I have here the question, withdrawn at the last minute, from a member belonging to a group today opposed to the derogation. She wrote this: “While a priori we can only welcome the implementation of any measure contributing to greater equality between men and women in practice, this measure leads, in most cases, to penalizing women by increasing their insurance premium. Most of our neighbors understood this and modulated the scope of the directive when it was transposed into national legislation.”

Today, the same political group is opposed to the proposal. It is to say that, in the end, we have left rationality to fall into ideology. I hear today some say not to use this factor but rather to use the factor of individual behavior to justify bonuses. It is, in my opinion, to open the Pandora’s box to certain discriminations that are completely unacceptable. For this reason, we submitted amendments.

The proposal, as presented today, allows the derogation only in the life and death insurance sector, where mortality tables are used as a determining factor and for which it will be up to insurance companies to justify relevant and accurate actuarial and statistical data, both to the national parliament and to European authorities.

Congratulations for your “maiden speech”. (Applause of Applause)