Proposition 53K1199

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 mai 2007 relative à la reconnaissance et à la protection de la profession d'expert en automobiles et créant un Institut des experts en automobiles.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Daniel Bacquelaine, Denis Ducarme, Kattrin Jadin
Open Vld Herman De Croo

Submission date

Feb. 10, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

motor car professional society organisation of professions access to a profession self-employed person

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) 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 ¶

June 30, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

by Mr. Jef Van den Bergh, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

A similar proposal was already voted in 2007. At that time, we had approved a bill concerning the organization and regulation of the profession as well as the recognition of the title of automotive expert.

In its current state, this law, which was passed on May 15, 2007, concerning the recognition and protection of the profession of automotive expert and creating an Institute of automotive experts, is unfortunately inapplicable. That is why we have put forward a proposal to enable its applicability.

Indeed, the law passed in 2007 contains a number of inaccuracies and contradictions that the proposal submitted to vote today tries to remedy. This new bill effectively enables the establishment of the Institute of Automotive Experts. This is actually not neutral because the profession of automotive expert concerns 600 experts currently active in this sector. This economic activity is not negligible because automotive experts make estimates, in civil liability insurance, for a total of compensations of the order of one billion euros per year. If we add the personal injury, this figure becomes even more significant since it can be credited with an additional €500 million, which, therefore, represents a total of €1.5 billion per year.

In addition, this affects 600,000 consumers each year. One in eight drivers is affected annually, both from a patrimonial and safety point of view. The assistance provided by automotive experts is therefore not negligible both economically and safely.

In addition, the activities of automotive experts are very diverse, although their main activity consists in assessing the damage suffered by vehicles in the event of accidents. They also perform judicial tasks, technical investigation tasks in matters of liability or accidentology, vehicle assessments, quality controls after repair, etc.

Today’s bill guarantees the independence of the automotive expert. This is one of the first objectives of this proposal. This independence is indeed indispensable in the search for the right balance of the interests of the insurers, who obviously want to guarantee solidarity between the insured, consumers, i.e. every owner of a damaged vehicle who wishes to obtain a fair repair, but also repairers who want to be properly remunerated for the services they provide.

In a number of European countries, such as France, Spain and Italy, the profession of auto expert is already regulated. This situation also causes a distortion of competition for our experts in Belgium. Indeed, experts recognised in other countries may come to establish and settle in Belgium, but Belgian experts are not yet recognised and therefore cannot exercise their profession abroad.

The problem could have been solved by the adoption, in 2006, of the draft framework law on the carrying of the professional title of an intellectual profession or of a service provider. Nevertheless, if this project responded well to the request for recognition of the profession, it did not allow the creation of the Institute of Automotive Experts. However, it is precisely the establishment of this institute that is a major demand of the sector. It will have the task of establishing the rules of deontology of the profession, establishing a regulation of internship, monitoring the application of the rules of deontology and the regulation of internship, drawing up the table of holders, keeping it up-to-date, also drawing up the list of trainees, the table of persons admitted to the honorary according to the conditions fixed in the proposal, to decide on disciplinary matters with respect to holders and trainees, to establish a program of continuous training and to ensure that it is respected by each of its members. These are tasks at least essential for a profession and should serve as a guarantee of the integrity of the profession towards the consumer.

In summary, it is a proposal that meets the interest of automotive experts in relation to their search for independence and integrity, consumers, who know how to address a recognized, regulated profession, with rules of ethics, but also insurers and repairers, who can work in a regulated framework with a recognition of the profession.

That is why we submitted this proposal to the committee. We would like to thank the colleagues who participated in the vote on this proposal.

Colleague Bacquelaine, Colleague Jadin, since the law of 15 May 2007 on the recognition of the profession of automotive expert and on the establishment of an institute of automotive experts in its current form was inapplicable, you both submitted this bill to help some of the uncertainties and contradictions from the world. We will be the last faction to question the usefulness of an institute of automotive experts or the protection of the profession of automotive expert. The consumer is only benefiting from a professional auto expert. We support your demands to carry out, strengthen and assess the independence of automotive experts, which is very important in assessing the value of vehicles in the case of BA liability.

However, our political group is of the opinion that this bill will again create a number of inoperable conditions. It has turned out that the Order of Architects and formerly the Order of Lawyers did not work because of that structure. Whenever you thought you had to use the inoperative Belgian structure to organize all kinds of free and other professions, it went wrong. It went wrong with the lawyers, who were eventually split. It goes wrong with the architects, who are especially on the Flemish side asking party to break up an inoperable, unitary Belgian structure and move to a split.

In this bill, you wish again, with all respect, to go to an outdated structure of a national institute with chambers and a national council. Why introduce something, Mrs. Jadin, when it turns out that it doesn’t work at so many levels anymore? Why all that effort, when you know too well that it will result in nothing? Now that we are with Belgium on the border of that federal structure, now that we see that it does not work, do you want to try it again with a unitary structure?

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to make it clear that we will not vote against. It is indeed high time for automotive experts to work professionally and to defend the interests of consumers in an independent manner, but not in this way.

During the previous legislature, we submitted a number of amendments to create separate institutes for automotive experts in the Dutch-speaking and French-speaking regions. We will submit a number of legislative proposals to ⁇ this. We will not vote against today, but we will not approve the proposal, because we cannot live with this united Belgian structure.

We discussed the issue in the Economic Committee. In addition to the remarks made by Mr. Logghe, who do not surprise me on his part, I want to say that this is a demand that comes from the sector: they want a framework that allows them to organize freely. Today, this possibility is finally given to them; it could have been sooner.

Some freedom is finally given. I am quite proud that the agreement has been widely acquired in the committee and I think you even voted for. I am sad that this is not possible today. We will “do with!”

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Jadin, I read literally from the report drafted on the bill: “10 votes for and 4 abstentions.”

I, together with N-VA, abstained from this bill, because I really cannot live with the unitary Belgian structure that you give to the institute and the councils. You know as well as I do that it no longer works in the organs for architects at all, and that the Flemish architects are the party asking to finally split it. So we are not going to introduce anything here to then have to determine after two or three years that it does not work.

That is my only concern. For the rest, I share your concern regarding the professionalization and independence of the auto experts.