Proposition 52K1977

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre en ce qui concerne les assurances du solde restant dû pour les personnes présentant un risque de santé accru.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Katrien Partyka, Servais Verherstraeten
LE Joseph George
MR David Clarinval
Open Vld Willem-Frederik Schiltz, Sofie Staelraeve
Vooruit Cathy Plasman, Freya Van den Bossche

Submission date

May 6, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer credit credit real estate credit life assurance personal insurance insurance insurance premium illness

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 3, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

As the rapporteur on this bill, I am very pleased to see that the Parliament is able to work in full autonomy and produce laws. And maybe, since we have two vice prime ministers ahead of us, that ministers should have more confidence in the parliament and have confidence in the bills submitted by our parliamentarians. Hundreds are filed. I must also thank the Minister of Finance who has the insurance in his powers for letting us work. This work in collaboration with his cabinet helped solve a problem that I will address.

The Economy Committee, which is not always a quiet committee, has shown that parliamentarians are able to work towards a common goal, in the general interest. In the present case, it was a matter of allowing persons considered to present an increased health risk to enter into an insurance for the remaining balance due and, therefore, allowing them to access the property.

Initially, there was a bill submitted by the CDH and CD&V. Presented to all the democratic parties, it has gathered a large number of signatures, which proves the interest that our commission has in this essential issue for some of our fellow citizens.

The ⁇ large number of amendments submitted, as well as the collective effort to find a compromise, has led to the text presented to you this afternoon. This was voted in a committee by unanimous vote of the members present, majority and opposition mixed. This compromise thus allowed each of the parties to bring about at least one measure that was at its heart, and this in a great coherence.

The CDH and CD&V saw their work carried out to the end and sanctioned by a unanimous vote. I would like to congratulate the members of these two parties. The Vld was able to maintain the possibility for partners (insurers, consumers and patients) to agree on a code of conduct largely negotiated within six months. The MR achieved the abolition of the Pricing Bureau and the partial maintenance of the fixing of premiums by insurance under the control of the Pricing Monitoring Bureau and also the control of Parliament.

Finally, socialists can welcome the obligation of insurers to scrupulously respect the law on privacy – it is important to repeat it sometimes to insurers – and also Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights that makes health an integral part of citizens’ privacy.

The compromise resulted in a coherent text aimed at greater consumer protection with regard to remaining balance insurance for persons with increased health risks. Congratulations to everyone for the work done.

First and foremost, I would like to thank the members of the committees, and especially the co-contributors of the proposal and their employees, for the good cooperation.

As Ms. Lalieux has outlined, there were initially different proposals. With a lot of giving and taking and after long meetings and discussions, we have come to a proposal that we hope will provide concrete solutions to a problem that many people face.

I would also like to thank the patient and consumer organisations for their contribution. There was also especially the constructive contribution of the employee of the Minister and of the Minister himself.

I will outline what the proposal specifically means. The proposal deals with two aspects of debt salary insurance. First and foremost, we want more transparency for consumers and more information about the premiums. In this way, we hope to create a better market operation. Second, a solidarity mechanism is provided.

Thus, through the first leak of the bill, we want more transparency and information for consumers. This is achieved through a stepped-up system. For example, if I apply for debt balance insurance while I have an increased health risk, the insurer must notify me of its decision within fifteen days. In doing so, he must make a written distribution between the basic premium and the supplementary premium. The supplementary premium then saves, for example, that increased health risk.

This division makes the premiums more transparent. Thus, consumers can better compare them and they can see how high the supplementary premium is due to the increased health risk.

The insurer must inform why an insurance may be refused. He must also inform that the consumer’s doctor can ask for more information from the insurer’s doctor, that there is a follow-up agency for the tarification, that there is a mediation committee and that there can be a solidarity mechanism.

After the decision is made, the consumer can request a re-examination with a reinsurance company. This is a non-obligatory second step.

As a third step, the consumer can directly or through the representatives of a patient or consumer organisation, or through the Insurance Ombudsman, ask the succession agency whether the supplementary premium is medical and insurance-technically responsible. He has an objective second opinion. The Succession Office shall take a binding decision within 15 working days. For example, it can impose on the insurer that the supplementary premium must be lower, or it can confirm the insurer’s decision.

The second layer of the bill is the solidarity mechanism through the succession office for tarification. That solidarity mechanism shall take effect from the moment the supplementary premium is more than twice the basic premium. The consumer can then resort to a standard insurance in accordance with the conditions of the succession agency.

Finally, a compensation box is provided, where the insurer can receive compensation when the consumer pays a portion of the supplementary premium. The insurer can then recover a piece at the compensation box.

How exactly the mechanism of the minimum and maximum threshold will work will need to be further determined in a royal decree.

One last aspect that I have not mentioned yet is that this bill also stipulates that this is the legal regulation. We are convinced that this provides a solution to the problems and that it is a good mechanism. However, we ask the industry, if possible, to provide itself with a solution to the problems that arise. We give the insurance committee, where patients are represented together with the industry, six months to make any better proposals, including on the medical questionnaires and the problem of debt balance insurance. If the sector in the insurance committee fails to reach consensus within six months on a code of conduct enforceable through the Act on Commercial Practices, then the legislative proposal comes into force, as I have outlined.

We sincerely hope that this will provide a solution for many people who are dealing with this problem, such as ex-cancer patients and people with a chronic condition such as asthma or diabetes. Many young people, in addition to the disadvantages of their illness, are also faced with the fact that they cannot make a debt balance insurance to buy a first own family home. We hope that this proposal can provide a solution to this problem.

Mr. President, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, as Mr. Lalieux said very well in her report, and Mr. Partyka, the bill is aimed at solving a real problem encountered in our country by 1,500 people according to the most unfavorable estimates and by more than 10,000 people according to other estimates. Those people who sometimes wanted to rebuild their lives or, depending on the circumstances, re-invest a personal investment at 50 years, 40 years or even earlier were faced with the impossibility of finding accommodation and funding it through obtaining a mortgage loan because their health condition was not accepted by the insurers as part of the risk selection. This is a real problem that the sector itself had not been able to grasp or, in any case, to solve satisfactorily.

The bills that have been signed and which date back to several years have been the subject of long discussions in committees, amendments, mergers, various opinions and will result today – I hope – in a positive vote. The vote was unanimous in the committee; I can hope it will be the same way today.

As my colleagues have said, it is about responding to four simple principles: let the Banking, Financial and Insurance Commission take care of developing a code of conduct, otherwise a pricing monitoring office with a clearing fund and the assessment of the situation after two years.

The choice made through our discussions is that of a device that we wanted very practical, transparent, accessible and above all allowing to bring a satisfactory solution as quickly as possible.

As always when creating a mechanism of solidarity, the question arose of how to create this solidarity and to endure it. The mechanism consists of a compensation fund that relies on both insurers and mortgage lending agencies, so that it is the sector itself, through its both Belgian and foreign insurers operating on our territory or the credit agencies, who will have to ensure the financing of the said service.

Ladies, gentlemen, dear colleagues, I can only be ⁇ pleased with the achievement of these bills, many of which have been added in the course of our work, and with the work carried out in committees that demonstrates that the Parliament can perfectly respond to the aspirations of our fellow citizens and take hand in hand problems that the sector itself had not been able to solve.

Mrs. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, and in this I am focusing primarily on the gentlemen present here, because it is a problem that may concern the gentlemen even more than the ladies in the hall.

The debt salary insurance is often more expensive for men than for women. Other insurance is then more expensive for women than for men. This is an essential data. As I prepared this text, I saw Jaco Van Dormael on television announcing his latest film, so many years after Toto Le Héros. In early January, Mr. Nobody comes out, the story of a little boy who is the last surviving mortal person walking around the earth and looking back on his life in a world where everyone has become immortal. He looks back on the choices he made in his life. He asks himself whether certain things would have been better, which lives would have looked different if he had done or not done certain things.

In our lives we have fundamental choices, a position that liberals are initially convinced of. In addition, there are a number of aspects that we do not have a vessel, such as our health. This is an essential data in the choices, barriers and opportunities we encounter in our lives.

This bill deals with two aspects: on the one hand, health and, on the other hand, a roof over your head and the opportunity to invest in it. Those who buy a home in Belgium and take a mortgage loan for it are usually asked to take out a debt saldo insurance. This life insurance serves as a guarantee that the bank, in the event of the death of the buyer of a house, receives its capital reimbursement. A debt balance insurance protects the survivors from heavy financial burdens if a buyer dies during the term of his credit. This is very important.

Although debt insurance is not mandatory in Belgium, it is de facto linked to a mortgage loan. In itself, such debt saldo insurance is not a cheap thing, especially if one knows that most people in Belgium buy their first home on their 28th, and that the average price has increased tremendously in recent years. Those who buy or build a house often have to touch very deeply in their buidel.

I know from my own experience that a debt saldo insurance this year for two healthy people will soon cost 600 to 700 euros per year. I am not talking about the division between men and women. The man always pays more than the woman.

Disease appears to be a barrier in the insurance of debt salaries and the purchase of a home. This is the case for not a few people in our country. This disease in itself is already a barrier. I think not only of chronic or long-term diseases or disabilities, but also of curable diseases that temporarily have a great impact. I also think of diabetes or rheumatism at a young age.

This morning, Mrs. Partyka was a guest on a radio program. One listener told me: I signed a debt balance insurance on my 24th and I had to pay a premium that was five times higher than that of my wife.

These are examples we all know, emails we all get and, it has been cited by other colleagues, it is a problem that has been alive for years. In recent years, the Ombudsman for Insurance has also repeatedly addressed the case in its report. The industry is aware of this, but has so far failed to provide a solution. We are aware of this. There is the desire, the will from various organizations such as consumer organisations, patient organisations and also from the insurance sector to come up with a solution. However, we find that a stick behind the door of the Parliament was really needed to fix that in the short term. We have done that too. We have succeeded thanks to the persistence of a number of people present here. I look at the colleagues, but also colleagues in the committee of all parties have worked hard on this. The Cabinet of Minister Reynders has also worked hard on this and has sought solutions. We can all be proud of the result. It shows that Parliament is indeed capable of doing something in very concrete cases.

Collega Partyka has already cited it: this bill contains elements that we will approve, which work constructively and which are also very important for Open Vld. I’ll be quiet with each of them. Initially, the sector will be given the opportunity to arrange a number of things on its own. Within the insurance committee, ultimately the body that should settle the case but where it is very difficult, there is still the possibility to settle a number of matters, subject to a number of conditions set by Parliament. These conditions put very strong emphasis on the information to the customer, the ability to obtain objective information about his health condition, working with similar medical questions and getting a quick proposal of premium when applying for a debt balance insurance. The sector has the opportunity, but we know with all of them – this has also been shown during the discussions – that this will probably not succeed for the sector itself. For this reason, we, members of the Chamber, have set ourselves up to do so as soon as possible and to offer a solution within the year – I emphasize it – because a number of KBs must be made by Minister Reynders and you, his colleague of Public Health. We will work together and ensure that this happens within the year.

A second important element for Open Vld in this story is indeed the procedure provided. The client gets a framework, a number of steps. It is also very clear to the insurer what steps in the procedure can be followed when applying for debt balance insurance.

One can get a first proposal of premium, one can go to a reinsurance company or ask for a second proposal. If it is not sufficient or fails to make it a feasible issue, then it can be moved to a succession agency for tarification. If all this is not feasible or the surplus premiums are too high, i.e. twice what is requested from a healthy person, then there is still the compensation cash that the basic security insurance can finance for people. Thus, these are very important steps where much attention is paid to the information for the customer, for the citizen, about the steps to be followed and the timing that stands on them. This is a very important thing for the consumer to know where he is going.

The Tarification Succession Office shall be established and a compensation fund and, lastly, a compensation fund to finance a basic security fund. It is also very important that a kind of medical questionnaire or frame of questions is provided so that the same questions are asked to all people in the same cases. There is an objective norm. Of course, not every insurance will be equal: it is not intended to restrict the freedom of insurance. It will still be the case that some people are not insured. It is intended to give as many people as possible in this country a debt saldo insurance linked to the mortgage loan. That we will monitor this also shows from the evaluation that is explicitly inscribed in the law: a two-year evaluation with report must be presented to the Chamber. I am convinced that all colleagues across all borders will read this report too much. I see Minister Reynders already laughing: he will also very much like to do so. He always laughs, so he sees it all and will definitely deal with it, we are convinced of that.

With this, we hope that a Mr. Nobody or the many Mr. Nobodies or people who could feel a Mr. Nobody today if they are looking for a loan for a home and a debt balance insurance, have been helped in this country and that in this way they can buy a defective home and get a good loan. We hope to contribute in this way. I would like to thank all colleagues for their cooperation in this area.

Mr. Speaker, ladies, gentlemen, ministers and secretaries of state, dear colleagues, it is with joy and great satisfaction that we are preparing to vote on the proposal for the law on the remaining balance due which is submitted to us this afternoon.

Indeed, this text is the fruit of long and fruitful labor that has mobilized the majority for many weeks. The MR group has always supported the idea of setting up a remaining balance insurance for sick people, but it is true that the initially proposed text did not meet all our expectations.

From the beginning, I would like, like my colleagues, to thank all the members of the Economy Committee who worked to make this bill what it is today and, more ⁇ , the authors of the initial proposal who agreed to hand over their text on the profession. Among them, a special mention for my colleagues David Clarinval, Katrien Partyka, Karine Lalieux, Sophie Staelraeve and Joseph George. I would also like to thank the collaborator of Mr. The Minister who gave us very good advice, Mr. by Galand.

We know that sick people find it difficult to contract life insurance, especially chronic patients and people who have or have suffered from cancer. Either the premium is so exorbitant that few are able to pay it, or they directly cause a refusal from the insurer contacted. Now, it is not because a person is said to be sick that their life expectancy is necessarily reduced; I think especially of diabetics.

Therefore, in order to enable these people to assure themselves, we must rejoice that this text constitutes an excellent compromise. On the one hand, we leave all freedom to the Insurance Commission to set up the code of conduct that sets out the rules granting the benefit of the insurance; on the other hand, we can supplement it in case of failure of their negotiations, thus bringing into force the additional arrangement that we have set up. Thus, whatever happens, the sick are assured of being able to apply for an insurance balance remaining due in the year.

As I said, in the event that the Insurance Commission fails to agree on the Code of Conduct, we have planned an additional procedure in several stages. First of all, the person with an increased health risk requests a remaining balance of insurance due to his insurer, from which he receives a price offer. If this offer does not suit him, the insurer asks his reinsurer for an assessment of the request. If that second offer is still not suitable, the pricing monitoring office shall verify whether the proposal of a surpremium is, from a medical point of view, objectively and reasonably justified and whether it meets the technique of the insurance. Within 15 working days, it shall communicate in writing to the parties a proposal of a binding nature.

A compensation fund has been created so that solidarity can play out as soon as the proposed bonus reaches 200%.

I also wanted to remind that the obligation to inform the insurer was our red, blue and orange thread in the confection of this device. This concept is for us fundamental so that the person is always informed both about the development of the procedure and about the reasons that explain the offers that are made to him.

I am therefore very pleased that this text presents a real legislative advance in favour of a fragile category of the population. This was the ambition of the MR group and we will of course support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, also for the sp.a. group, the fate of persons with an increased health risk is very important. We have always hammered on this. Therefore, Mrs Van den Bossche, my predecessor, supported and co-signed the joint proposal made by Mrs Partyka, a summary of all the various proposals. I was also told then, as a non-parliamentary member, that it was because Minister Reynders had not yet put a draft on the table.

The proposal that then came into discussion, we could fully support, but at some point it is then completely and quite radically changed after a number of proposals of Minister Reynders. We have been somewhat critical on a number of points. We have then studied this further.

In the end, however, we find it important to take a first step. Therefore alone, because we otherwise leave those people in the cold, we continue to support the proposal. It is a good example of cooperation in Parliament. However, we will remain critical. An evaluation is planned. This has already been said by colleagues. We will continue to follow this as well. It is important to be careful about discrimination. We should definitely look at the review within the framework of the European Directive on Discrimination.

It cannot be that insured persons are discriminated Mrs. Staelraeve has already cited it. Age is the most well-known factor on the basis of which another treatment is developed. There are other factors that we cannot control. For example, a patient does not choose to get sick. Therefore, we must closely follow the developments at European level. If there are changes to regulations on this subject, then we must also change the bill that will be approved in the meantime. I hope that Minister Reynders will then take an initiative in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Ministers, Dear colleagues, if we were to look at the representation of the model of success in the lives of our fellow citizens or their most common dream, there is a strong bet that it would be the fact of being the owner of his home. It is well known, the Belgian has a brick in the stomach. Building a house or buying an apartment is a common ambition among all of us.

If, for many people, the dream becomes a reality – remember that 75% of Belgians own their main residence – others do not have that chance. Some people do not have access to the property because of their limited financial resources, but others are excluded because insurers consider them to pose an aggravated health risk. Indeed, obtaining a mortgage loan is very largely conditioned by the subscription of a remaining balance insurance due to cover, which is normal, the mortality risks of the borrower.

However, some people are considered by insurance companies as hardly insured or under completely unacceptable conditions, due to their presumed risk health status. You will immediately think of a person with a deadly disease, but there are many others. There are people who suffer from chronic diseases, people who have had cancer but are now healed, people who suffer from rare diseases, who are completely excluded from the insurance scheme. We have had enough testimony on this issue. These people are marked with red iron and pass from insurance to insurance before being seen signify a total refusal.

For us, and for all members of parliament, this is totally unacceptable.

Tomorrow, the text presented to you will, we hope, limit such discriminatory practices by strictly framing the conditions of insurance.

If the Socialist group did not sign the initial bill, it was because it considered it insufficient, given the problem it addressed. But, of course, it is not for this reason that we are turning away from this question.

On the contrary – this has been said and repeated by everyone in this tribune – we have worked very constructively with the aim of effectively improving the conditions of security of our fellow citizens.

We have been involved in drafting a set of amendments that have already been discussed here. Following this long-term work conducted by the Economy Committee, my group is pleased to have been able to incorporate four priorities into this law.

First, the establishment of a standardized medical questionnaire that must imperatively respect – I know that I repeat myself, but it was sometimes unnecessary within the commission to insert it into the law while this point is fundamental – the law of 8 December 1992 on the protection of privacy with regard to data processing and with respect to individuals, as well as Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which enshrines health as an integral part of the privacy of our fellow citizens. I think many insurers forget this very often!

In this regard, I also remind you that the medical certificates required for insurance concern the current state of health and not the past state of health! On this point too, Mr. Minister, it is good to repeat this to Assuralia, who will repeat it to all companies.

Second, the obligation for insurers to justify in writing, in a clear and explicit manner, a refusal of insurance, a surprise or even a specific exclusion. In this matter, total opacity reigned since one was rejected without knowing why. Today, they will be obliged to justify their refusal.

Third, the newly created pricing monitoring office will be chaired by an independent magistrate. We wanted this solution. Indeed, we find it important to have an independent person at the head of this monitoring office, which will be composed equally of insurers and representative associations of consumers and patients.

This should soon be the case, Mr. Minister, of the Insurance Ombudsman. I’m sure you will finally tell us good news about this next Tuesday!

This office will be responsible for verifying that the insurer’s proposed surrender is justified, objective and reasonable from a medical point of view. It can then make a binding proposal to the parties concerned.

Finally, fourth, the obligation for insurers to take into account the evolution of medical and health care techniques when fixing surpluses.

Every two years, the Federal Center for Health Care Expertise will be tasked with producing an objective study on the developments in medicine to accompany the development of the law by the Insurance Commission. The whole will be evaluated every two years by the Parliament, which is important.

We can be very satisfied with the work done. The law is a real improvement. That said, we must not be fooled. This is a minimum trade union, Mr. Minister. It still does not eliminate the discrimination that some insurance applicants face because of their health status or other reasons. As my colleague said, I hope that a European directive will soon put an end to this segmentation and discrimination in the insurance of fellow European citizens.

I also hope that we will soon have a code of conduct. We trust the insurers. If this is not the case, I hope that the Minister of Finance who has the insurance under his tutelage and the Minister of Health will palliate this lack of agreement of the sector to make sure to move forward and allow, within a year, future candidates for property to have no doubt when they will want to build or rebuild their lives.

As others have already done, I would like to thank the consumer associations who helped us a lot in drafting this bill.

There is still a lot of work to be done on insurance. You are rarely seen in our committee, but I hope that we are at the beginning of a long series of legislative amendments aimed at ending many discriminations in insurance. We will return to this issue later.

It was necessary to improve access to insurance and credit for persons with an aggravated health risk. This improvement of access will be made possible tomorrow by voting on the bill that is submitted to us today.

This bill faces an ever-increasing challenge due to the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases and cancers, the increase in life expectancy and the increasingly expressed desire to access property, in particular to protect yourself from life’s hazards.

These are the reasons why we supported this text in a committee after a long and interesting work of approaching the points of view, after the adoption also of some compromises that make this text an important and necessary first step.

Too often, people are still discriminated on the basis of their current or past health status – the colleagues mentioned it –, also discriminated on the basis of the risk of mortality or morbidity associated with that health condition. These individuals are often faced with refusals, exclusions, or payment of very high premiums when they file an application for remaining balance insurance as guarantee of a mortgage loan.

As the authors of the proposal recall, this applies, for example, to people who suffer or have suffered from cancer or even to people with HIV. Patient associations, consumer associations and the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Combating Racism have long pointed out the discriminatory nature of certain practices. These actors also formulated proposals partially repeated in the bill.

What are, in our view, the most important advances of the text? They have already been mentioned; I would also like to cite a few of them without concern for exhaustivity.

First, the code of conduct and its content, in particular the standardized medical questionnaire. This mandatory code of good conduct will be drafted within the Insurance Commission. The responsibility is now in the hands of this commission.

I recall, however, that in its opinion on the bill, the Commission had concluded that it did not have the possibility to reach, within a reasonable time, unanimous agreement on a code of conduct. Therefore, it was also necessary to provide for the case in which this commission fails to draft this code within the fixed timeframe, i.e. six months.

The Code of Conduct will specify the content of the standardized health questionnaire. This is a major breakthrough that responds, here too, to an urgent demand from patients and consumers, too often faced with medical questionnaires from insurers who do not adequately observe the right to privacy.

We are also pleased that the bill expressly reiterates the need for the standardized questionnaire to respect both the Privacy Act and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

We hope that the proposal will also allow for a better accounting of scientific progress. The Federal Center for Health Care Expertise will be responsible for evaluating, every two years, the suitability of tariffs to the evolution of medical techniques and health care. When one looks at the work provided in France by the Commission of Studies and Research in charge of this mission, one realizes how complex this work of elaboration, pathology by pathology, of the evolution of risk in the next ten to twenty years, is a complex work. The question is therefore raised of the means which will be made available to the Centre to carry out this new mission.

We also highlight the creation of the Pricing Monitoring Office and the fact that it is chaired by an independent magistrate, whose opinions will have binding force.

I will continue with the assessment that will be carried out in the future by the Insurance Commission. It will, in our opinion, have to answer certain precise questions that, for some of them, have remained in scratch. This assessment will ⁇ enrich the future debates of our Parliament.

I will quote a few things that we want to pay attention to:

- the scope of the law, first of all, and the need or not to take into account in the future professional credits and the situation of persons with disabilities, as is the case, for example, in the French system;

- the correct information to consumers, as colleagues have said, by insurers and credit agencies, information without which the device could not be fully operational;

Finally, the need to provide for sanctions in the absence of motivation for the decisions of the insurers.

This evaluation, which will be carried out every two years by the Insurance Commission, can only be carried out through a reinforcement of this commission. We believe that it will be necessary, in particular, to ensure that the conditions are met in this committee for more balanced contributions of the different components, by the facilitated use in these highly technical subjects of experts for representatives of consumers and patients.

In conclusion, despite the remaining obstacles to be overcome and thanks to the bill under vote today, insuring and borrowing with an aggravated health risk should soon be an easier approach. Vulnerable consumers will be better protected against insurance technology. That is why we will support, as we did in committee, this important bill co-signed by Mrs Partyka and her colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to my colleagues’ statements, my speech will not address the technical aspects of the case.

As a group, we have followed the committee meetings on debt salary insurance well. I do not take the word to minimize the efforts of my colleagues or to attack certain measures or drive into destruction. There is a Chamber-wide agreement on most of the principles of this bill. We have therefore been very flexible in the committee in the interest of the bill. We voted in favour and will do so here.

We were willing to sign the bill, but through the foolish cordon sanitaire, certain parties found it necessary to keep us out again. I deeply regret that. I would like to emphasize this again. It is a bill in the interest of everyone, and so I do not understand why a particular party should be held out again.

Mrs Partyka, colleagues, we are, in any case, happy and relieved that the bill finally comes into the plenary session and can be approved. Mrs. Partyka, after two years of effort, it is possible.

I am also pleased that certain nonsensical measures contained in the first bill – I mean, for example, the rather radical and extreme sanction consisting in withdrawing licenses from certain insurance companies if they did not meet certain conditions – have been removed. For the rest, we have very little to add. It is useless to overlook all technical measures and provisions. The members of the committee have done this very well for me. I do not have to come back to that.

We will therefore approve the bill despite our objections to an absurd cordon sanitary at a level that is completely useless. I have said.

First of all, I would like to thank all the members of the committee and first of all the proposers of the bill. It was a long way to get approval in the committee.

We will continue to work with the Insurance Commission but also through royal decrees to enforce the law. I hope that within the time limit, we will be able to convince the Insurance Commission to find an agreement within it on what concerns it and to take the execution decisions.

I am always happy to be able to work in collaboration with a parliamentary committee. We have received a number of bills from the Finance Committee. I hope there will be more in the insurance sector.

I’m not going to be longer, I think everything has been said. I thank all the members of Parliament for welcoming the work done by a member of my cabinet, who actively participated in the realization of this compromise.