Proposition 53K1597

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 22 juillet 1985 sur la responsabilité civile dans le domaine de l'énergie nucléaire.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Liesbeth Van der Auwera
MR David Clarinval
Open Vld Willem-Frederik Schiltz
PS | SP Olivier Henry, Karine Lalieux

Submission date

June 15, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil liability nuclear power station nuclear energy nuclear accident indemnification

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

July 19, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Verherstraeten, if I were a member of the Chamber for CD&V, then I would say: listen to what the colleagues of the N-VA will tell later, I do not have to keep my speech. I am a member of the Chamber of Greens. I will say something in this debate.

Colleagues, I think it’s good that we have this debate about nuclear liability and the insurance of nuclear power plants, I would finally say. We needed a terrible crisis in Fukushima to trigger this debate in the House of Representatives. It is a pity that such a debate can only take place after such a crisis.

We needed a crisis at Fukushima, although some of the issues we will discuss today and some of the changes suggested by colleagues have actually been the subject of international protocols since 2004. Although the Minister of Energy, Paul Magnette of the Socialist Party, has had regular tea bars and meetings with the people of Electrabel in recent years, nuclear responsibility has never been addressed. Even the amendments to the protocols in 2004 have never been transposed into Belgian legislation. The absence of the debate is actually quite logical, given the strong pro-nuclear attitude of some parties in this hemisphere. After all, the debate about nuclear responsibility is really about this technology. Only carrying out all this debate hurts the pro-nuclear parties a little. A reform, however small, hurts the exploiters. It is therefore not surprising that this debate has been postponed for us in recent years and that just that Minister of Energy has not taken the step.

I also understand that after a crisis at Fukushima there was some anxiety among some groups to do something right and take steps. I have rarely seen Mrs. Lalieux so enthusiastic and eager. Maybe it’s because of my limited experience. However, I have noticed that they and a number of other colleagues wanted to move very quickly to the approval of this or another bill. I am delighted afterwards – although I have some comments – that I and a number of other colleagues at that first session got up on the brake. At least we were able to force hearings to take place.

For the colleagues who are not members of the business committee, I note that although the discussions went fairly quickly, there have been hearings with interesting experts. A German professor also explained the German example to us in writing.

If I see how we have made some progress thanks to those hearings, I am pleased. If I look at the initial proposal of the colleagues George and Van der Auwera, it was also provided by a royal decree the possibility, when the operator does not have sufficient financial resources, to carry out a reduction post factum. Their proposal also provided for the reintroduction of a second contribution for the national state. I am glad that we have already been able to reverse those things.

I am also pleased that, thanks to the hearings and the fairness of the insurance sector, Mrs. Lalieux’s proposal, which initially provided for a contribution of only EUR 700 million, was amended into a proposal with a contribution of EUR 1.2 billion. Fortunately, some MEPs wanted to go a little slower and have been able to absorb some of Mrs. Lalieux’s zeal and enthusiasm at the first discussion in the committee.

Anyone who follows the energy debate in this country a little bit may be tempted to pass a small step forward, a bill that is less serious than what was initially predicted. It doesn’t happen often, and it’s been a long time since this Parliament passed an energy bill that means a step forward and has made a lot of progress. As a group, we discussed this bill and what to do with it. You can expect us to remember us later. We refuse to consider a bill, which is less serious than originally predicted, as positive. We find the current bill not good enough because it does not guide the principled choice from the past and does not eliminate the anachronism of limited liability for nuclear operators.

Even after this legislative change, the liability remains limited. In particular, this means that the preferential regime established in the 1960s remains. This is a favourable regime that dates back to before Chernobyl. The Paris Treaty was signed in 1964.

Today we vote on a bill based on a treaty of 1964, pre-Chernobyl, pre-Fukushima, a treaty of before the rise of the so beautiful principle “the polluter pays”, a treaty of before the rise of the idea in environmental-economic circles that one must at least internalize the external costs, a treaty of before the rise of the entire liberation idea or liberalization of the energy market. It has become a text, which fits into an era of nuclear promotion, as in the 1950s to 1970s of the last century, according to Mr Vanden Borre van de KULeuven, and with which is chosen for limiting liability.

Colleagues, although other changes are needed in the relatively short term, my group has proposed to incorporate immediately the principle of unlimited liability into Belgian legislation. This is best not done through a resolution, which contains only a vague intention, as today in the draft resolution of colleagues George and Van der Auwera. By the way, now there is another Parliament, possibly no longer; that depends on the colleagues of CD&V. The principle of unlimited liability must be incorporated into Belgian legislation, before the summer vacation, as we have proposed. Now the draft resolution speaks of unlimited liability, but like colleague Tuybens, I am a cool lover of resolutions. According to experienced colleagues, they dare to get into a slide sometimes.

Although the draft resolution calls for the government to impose the unlimited liability legally, I noticed some hesitation among colleagues when the green group, the colleagues of sp.a and, with some delay, colleague George advocated the introduction of unlimited liability in Belgian legislation. I do not fully understand that hesitation. I can hardly imagine that the liberal colleagues really stand on the barricades for a dumped subsidy to the nuclear sector and thus want to mortgage the liberation of our energy market and the introduction of new technologies. I can hardly understand that the groups that are calling the alarm clock for the millions of euros in support for offshore wind farms, find it right that the nuclear energy bill is transferred to the Belgian taxpayer. I can hardly imagine that colleagues find it normal that a gas plant operator is fully liable, but a nuclear plant operator is not. I can hardly imagine that some colleagues in our hemisphere or in the regional parliaments are embarrassed about the support for their neighbor’s solar panels, but it is normal that in this way a technology and a sector are massively supported. I find it difficult to understand the hesitation of different factions to move to a system of unlimited liability.

I therefore assume that this hesitation is only of a temporary nature.

Colleagues, today you may still hesitate, even though there is an amendment to Ecolo-Groen! and from sp.a. Today you may still want to maintain the anachronism, but hopefully there will be a mental change after the summer holiday. I assume that you will not forever maintain the half-truth or the whole lie, which is nuclear technology, and that you will eventually realize the risks associated with it. I hold here a clear plea not to stick to a resolution with vague intentions, but to really move to a legal adjustment that introduces unlimited liability.

Colleagues, maybe the resolution of colleagues George and Van der Auwera, which we will support, will be forgotten. Then the good news – though it is relatively good in these – is that the discussion will be renewed, not just about whether we want limited or unlimited liability. In the long term, provisions in the nuclear liability legislation will still need to be amended. I hope some of my colleagues are convinced of this.

The hearings gave us a lot of homework. I will summarize a few of them, for the report and for those listening at the right time.

First, we will have to adapt some definitions in Belgian legislation to the 2004 protocols, which have not yet been translated and for which no initiative has since been taken by the Ministers of Energy.

Secondly, there will also be a debate on the period set out in the 2004 Protocol, namely thirty years. Should this term be included in Belgian legislation? It is a good idea that victims of a nuclear accident can file a claim for damages up to 30 years after the incident. That amendment is not included in the current proposal of colleagues Lalieux, Schiltz and Clarinval. This homework is still on our list for the autumn.

Third, suppose that we go to a story of unlimited liability, what reciprocity is playing with other countries? This question remains unanswered even after today.

Fourth, Mr Vanden Borre pointed out in the committee that we need a clear system of damages. This is also lacking in the Belgian legislation.

Fifth, we need a better definition of environmental damage. Our legislation on this subject is also not clear.

Sixth – this is ⁇ the most imaginative example for colleagues in general and for us a very important political issue – we must examine how we will allow the parent company, in the Belgian case GDF SUEZ for the operator Electrabel, to contribute to the damage caused by a nuclear accident.

Colleagues, without having to do too much effort, I have already been able to give six points that we still need to work on, hopefully after the recess. Only then can we say that the nuclear liability legislation has undergone a real renewal. As the Green Group, we believe that we are committed to this post-Fukushima renovation.

Colleagues, the draft resolution of colleagues George and Van der Auwera goes beyond the good intentions and shows in abstract terms where we should go, in particular a European Commission directive to reach a generalized system of unlimited liability.

Given the debate on stress tests at European level, I am a little concerned about this. Then it is not so likely. However, it is important to formulate that intention and indicate in the resolution that we want to move towards a system of unlimited liability.

Our group wants to turn that intention into action in a relatively short term. To the colleagues who are really hesitant and expect that that resolution will be forgotten relatively quickly, which will therefore apply the same curve as that concerning the political memory in connection with nuclear accidents, I say immediately that our group will be there in the autumn with its own bill and, if necessary, with a weekly parliamentary request to point out the resolution to the Parliament and the competent minister.

It is only when we pass legislation with unlimited liability in Parliament that a new energy era has come. Only then will there be a fair social and political debate about the choice between one and the other technology. Only then will there be willingness from other investors to engage in a greener energy supply.

That is why we stand on the barricades. That is why we will not approve the limited renewal of the legislation, but will abstain, because we are once again – and I now address the liberal colleagues – in favour of fair market operation and energy innovation.

This proposal aims to increase the civil liability of nuclear plant operators.

Our bill filed at the initiative of Mrs. Lalieux, which I co-signed with colleague Schiltz and colleague Henry, was initially aimed at raising to 700 million euros the amount of coverage currently fixed at 297 million.

During the committee-organized hearings, SYBAN, the consortium of Belgian insurers, announced that at present their insurance capabilities could be estimated at €1.2 billion. That is why we submitted an amendment that brought the amount of coverage to this level. It is clear, however, that current discussions on extending coverage to environmental risks or changing the prescription period, in particular to a 30-year prescription, would inevitably lead to a new allocation of the insurance capabilities of the companies concerned. Therefore, the amount of 1.2 billion is clearly indicated in the framework of guarantees and current legislation.

A new negotiation will have to be conducted at the time of the ratification of the international protocols of Paris and Brussels. For this purpose, a study on the costs of this decision will need to be conducted because at MR we fear that operators will impact on the consumer of possible increases in coverage; I spoke about environmental risks and limitations.

Furthermore, we believe that in the current state of affairs, for technical reasons, in particular the absence of coverage offered by insurers, it is not possible to have an unlimited coverage as claimed by Ecolo or the CDH. Even in Germany, this decision is accompanied by restrictive conditions.

In conclusion, this proposal is a step forward, which places Belgium in the leading peloton of European countries in this matter and which will need to be assessed in terms of cost impact before concluding the ratification of international protocols. I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Calvo, I would like to assure you that today we are taking an important step in increasing the accountability of the operators of nuclear power plants. The maximum amount of damages for which an operator is liable is increased from EUR 297 million to EUR 1.2 billion. This is a first step. You are here again very strongly calling for the introduction of an unlimited liability. I could ask your colleague Deleuze why in 2000 as Secretary of State for Energy he revised the Law on Liability, but did not introduce unlimited liability. You then determined the liability of operators at only 12 billion Belgian francs. Today we quadruple this amount.

Mr Calvo, I agree with you, like all the other groups in the committee, that we must come to a really good liability scheme. This should also be studied, a system of unlimited liability. Today, Germany is the only country where such a system exists. We agree, like the other groups, that this unlimited liability should be studied. However, we must also consider whether such risk is insured and we must ensure that this does not exaggerate the price of electricity. I see here amendments of the SPA, which also wants to introduce an unlimited liability. However, if prices rise by one euro, we get a big rush here in Parliament. As several colleagues have repeatedly stated in the committee, we would like to further investigate this system, but this should not be done unthinkingly. We are now taking an important step forward, and we are thus even at the head of the European peloton. This will need to be done in a thoughtful manner, taking into account the insurance market and the energy prices that are already high at the moment. We will also have to look at liability schemes for nuclear power plants at our borders, for example in Chooz, Flamanville or Borssele. If a disaster happens there, it will have a direct impact on our country. Therefore, other European countries also need to establish a system that provides the necessary guarantees. The European Commission will therefore need to come up with a harmonised system.

Colleagues, I remain on – something that our resolution also shows, Mr. George – that it is intended to go one step further. At this moment we can quite well be content with that important step that will be taken today and in the coming weeks and will be decided in autumn. Mr Calvo, as is so often the case, we are the submitters of proposals of resolutions to remedy these things and you are only good at requesting hearings and always shouting that it is not enough.

On the agenda of our work, there is both a resolution and a bill. First, I will address the problem of the resolution. It requires the ratification of the Protocols on Nuclear Liability. This resolution was voted in the Economic Committee. It is subject to debate.

These protocols incorporate, in the event of a nuclear accident, the damage caused to the environment by extending – and I insist, and this also seems contradictory to the bill proposal – the 30-year prescription period for damages to persons, by establishing an international support mechanism. The draft resolution also calls on the government to call on the European Commission to draw up a draft directive with a view to achieving a harmonised system at European level regarding the liability of nuclear operators and the necessary safeguards.

I am reminded that these protocols date back to 2004. As I have said and continue to say, I regret that they have not yet been ratified. Parliament does not have this competence and that is why this proposal takes the form of a resolution. We hope that the Minister quickly submits a preliminary bill to the Government so that it ratifies them as soon as possible. In fact, it appears at least surprising that protocols dating back to 2004 have remained in the drawers and that, on several occasions, the attention of the government has not been drawn to the importance of signing them.

In response to a parliamentary question I had asked, the Minister of Finance himself had indicated that he wanted the ratification of these protocols and that he would again question his colleague, the Minister of Energy, on this subject.

In connection with the protocols, a bill is also submitted to our discussions. As we said, we support the fact that the guarantees, which must be provided by nuclear operators, are raised to 1.2 billion euros. I remind you that this figure is not out of a Pandora box; it is the one that was given to us in commission by the officials who can cover this type of responsibility. It should be noted that the initial figure of 700 million euros was actually based on the capacity of the nuclear insurance market.

The Minister of Finance, always answering my parliamentary question, stated: "I would like to remind this, however. The capacity of the nuclear insurance market has limits. The amount of €700 million was selected taking into account the available capacity in this area and taking into account the fact that these risks are reinsured on the international market.”

For the CDH, there is no difficulty, as the capacity of the sector allows it, to bring this guarantee to 1.2 billion.

By taking this step, we have only followed the insurance market in its coverage capacity. However, this step remained insufficient and we remained below our capabilities.

I regret that the text does not now, as in Germany, provide for the implementation of unlimited civil liability for nuclear operators. This is a wonderful missed opportunity! And this unlimited responsibility, which is indeed in force in all sectors of our social life, for all individuals, for all companies, actually knew an exception at least surprising in nuclear matters, which was regarded by the people whom we conducted the commission hearing as a survival of the past.

We want to implement as soon as possible, so regardless of the guarantee issue, the principle of unlimited liability. I will submit a bill in this regard.

I hear again the same mistakes, hiatus and misunderstandings. Responsibility has nothing to do with guarantee. Gratefully, stop making us believe that, because we lack the ability to guarantee, we should limit responsibility! The responsibility of a company or individual is entirely independent of the ability to find insurance coverage.

We are actually repeating the same lesson. And it is repeated to us that the capacity of guarantee does not exist yet and that ⁇ if, tomorrow, it could be increased, the principle of responsibility could be increased proportionally. This is completely wrong! This is evidenced by the hearings we conducted. I will give you a read from Mr. Audition. Vanden Borre, in point 20: “It would be extremely sensible to establish an unlimited liability system. As a result, subsidies allocated to the nuclear industry will be reduced. Nuclear energy will bear more of the actual costs of nuclear risk. Like the German model, this unlimited liability must be linked to the obligation to insure up to a certain amount, that is, the maximum amount of an insurance capacity.

Why do we not do it? We actually had the ability to propose it immediately and to consecrate the principle of this unlimited liability. I insist and recall that the circumstance that this guarantee cannot be covered by the insurance sector in its entirety and in an unlimited manner to the insurance sector is entirely independent.

It was, in fact, about responsible actors, nuclear operators.

Some will say that we risk postponing the cost of this guarantee, which is not covered since it is the operator who must assume the consequences of a possible sinister, on the consumer. What I answer to them is that they are mistaken. There is no special cost associated with the absence of a guarantee. In the event of an accident, the operator must intervene. And if it takes special measures to make its installation safer, it will only be better for the population. Even if it would be a cost for him, it would simply be deducted from the nuclear rent, and not from the price that the consumer must pay. Those who refer to a potential risk in terms of cost are committing a serious economic mistake.

That said, the ratification of the Protocols does not preclude the conscription of unlimited liability. Germany has taken a decision in this regard. Why not do it for ourselves?

Furthermore, it is regrettable that we have not taken advantage of the legislative amendment that will be voted to extend, from now on, to 30 years the deadline within which a reparation action can be brought against an operator. We had the opportunity to do so and the protocols provided for it.

I add – this also has its importance – that the protocols provide for other measures. In fact, the protocol under consideration does not simply aim to extend the limitation period from 10 to 30 years or to increase the guarantees; it also consists of other measures ⁇ interesting in the event of a nuclear disaster. It is essential that these can be applied. I think in particular of "the obligation for the Contracting Parties whose courts are competent to take, for actions in repair of nuclear damage, the necessary arrangements so that any State may initiate an action on behalf of persons who have suffered nuclear damage and who are nationals of that State, or that any person may initiate an action to assert, under this Convention, the rights acquired by subrogation or cession."

I will conclude my speech, dear colleagues, by saying that I look forward to the ratification of the draft resolution. We could have gone further in the bill. I would have desired it especially after attending the hearings. But this is only a part of it and we will ⁇ have the opportunity to re-discuss the issue next October.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the serious nuclear crisis Japan has experienced for more than four months has revived debates around the world on the production of nuclear energy. In the past, public authorities too often responded to public fears by denying the risks inherent in the atom. Our political generation thinks, on the contrary, that it is by ensuring transparency on the operation and potential risks of nuclear energy that we will honor the mandate that the people have entrusted to us.

It is under this principle of transparency that the PS group has decided to submit a bill to ensure better protection of victims in the event of a nuclear accident or incident. A small or large-scale nuclear incident can never be excluded, as is seen in many countries. It is therefore our duty to provide for a system of compensation favourable to victims.

When the first nuclear civil liability schemes were introduced, the authorities at the time considered that nuclear operators should benefit from limited civil liability. For what purpose? In order to promote nuclear energy, it was the will of many states that developed power plants, including ours. Obviously it was to promote this technology. However, there has been a small counterpart to this very limited liability: a regime of common law derogation since victims do not have to prove the commission of a fault in the head of the nuclear operator and the latter cannot challenge his liability by invoking the fault of a third party. These counterparties, though small, to this limited liability were inscribed in the law.

The draft law initially called for an increase to 700 million euros. As recalled by some colleagues, given, according to the insurances, that we could insure up to 1.2 billion euros, the PS group immediately filed an amendment, signed by the MR and the Open Vld, to increase this liability. That is why we hastened so that this law can come into force no later than January 1, 2012. The insurers told us that it took more or less three months to be able to guarantee this amount.

The general will – which is ours too – is to establish unlimited civil liability; we could have applied it directly. I heard that it could have been accomplished as in Germany: a few months ago, it succeeded in imposing on its nuclear operators the constitution of a financial guarantee of 2.5 billion. I will not confuse the two, Mr. George, rest assured. I speak only of the $2.5 billion guarantee obtained by Germany.

In Germany, only 256 million are insured in the strict sense. I distinguish the guarantee from the rest. The remaining 2,244 billion came from the commitments of the various nuclear operators who collectively claim to be willing to present funds to help if one of them was aware of an incident or accident.

Needless to say, in order to organize a common guarantee like in Germany, there must be several. In Belgium, we have only one power plant operator. This complicates the transposition of this German model into our territory. In addition, no insurance company in the world is willing to insure an unlimited amount.

Obviously, for us, however, responsibility must be unlimited. Of course, this unlimited responsibility cannot be decided only in parliament, but that it is worth working with a government not in ordinary affairs but in full exercise, with insurers and the operator(s) on the other side. Imposing an unlimited liability would cause the operator to undertake fiscal and legal manoeuvres – which he does, of course, Mr. Calvo – to limit his assets by subsidiating his nuclear power plants, for example.

So this is a first step, but it is not a small first step: it is an important step forward that we will take here.

Mr. Calvo, you are caricatural by saying that we have a pro-nuclear socialist minister. But he has never been for nuclear power. In this way, we will never be able to vote on any of your proposals, Mr. Calvo. It’s a shame: in fact, I share part of your analysis.

Therefore, in order to show the goodwill of the Socialist Group, we have submitted an amendment to the proposed resolution: we want unlimited liability. This amendment was submitted by the Socialists and not by the authors of the resolution.

I would like to address Mr. by George.

Let us first answer Mr. by Calvo.

Mrs. Lalieux, I am sorry to interrupt for a moment, but I absolutely do not want to have any misunderstandings about my appreciation of the Minister of Energy.

Nor do I want to make a misunderstanding about how progressive I find the Socialist Party.

However, you are confusing two things. I have only said about the Minister of Energy that since 2004, despite the international protocols, he has not adjusted the Belgian legislation and that the Socialist Party of Fukushima needed to discover that problem. I have not said at any moment that the minister is for or against nuclear energy. Why not ? This is very difficult to find out. He is for nuclear energy. In 2008, there was the nuclear protocol and the extension of the oldest and least safe nuclear power plants, the nuclear power plants that we can close. The other time the minister says at a lunch lunch at the ABVV that we can close those two at least and carry out the nuclear departure anyway.

I would not want to comment on the position of the Minister of Energy. I don’t know if Mr Magnette is for or against nuclear energy. I know that since 2004 he has done nothing despite international protocols on nuclear liability.

I am not going to say what Mr. says. Paul Magnette, but I appreciate that you corrected your remarks by clarifying that it was not pro-nuclear. I probably misunderstood it.

Mr. George, I simply wanted to say that your initial bill was well below the one that was filed by the Socialists and Liberals. In fact, you provided an amount that would only be applied after the ratification of a 2004 convention. You also provided for exemptions granted by the government and a non-indexation of the sum. So, Mr. George, your lessons do not seem to me to be necessary! The proposal we are going to vote on is important because it extends the civil liability of nuclear power plant operators. We will all work together to return in favour of unlimited liability.

I will respond from my bank. You will see the numbering difference between the proposal of Mrs. Van der Auwera, which I had co-signed, and that which was filed by the PS. At least, you must admit that it was us who started the debate. This is among our priorities. On the day we had to discuss this, you submitted your proposal. You can always rewrite history... Look carefully at the content of your text according to what is amended in the current law and look at our proposal based on the amendments that have been introduced to it.

We will not continue this discussion, because everyone will pull the cover for themselves. But acknowledge at least that we put the point on the agenda and that I asked parliamentary questions to the Minister of Finance several months ago. If we don’t act, I’m not sure we’ll talk about protocols someday.

Mr. George, if the committee as a whole decided to work on the PS-Open Vld-MR proposal, that means it was better than yours, I’m sorry!

The incident is closed, and nuclear energy is to be handled with great caution!

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, the issue of nuclear insurance is perfectly exemplary of how this sector manages, case after case, to socialize risks and troubles and to privatize profits. Let’s note a fantastic contradiction among those who tell us that there is no risk – or even if you control it – and who are also those who advocate partial coverage of nuclear accidents. We should explain why, if it is not dangerous, coverage is partial and not unlimited. This seems to me absolutely illogical.

This is not the only area in which the sector succeeds in socializing problems and privatising profits: there is also the field of nuclear waste since, in the essence, our companies have decided to embark on this type of activities without having any idea of what we would do with these waste – and we still have no idea, despite the scandalous decision of the Commission or Europe today to allow us to export them. Regarding the nuclear rent, there too, in an extraordinary way, it is the individuals who pay the depreciation of the power plants and then, at the time when the market is free, in 2003-2004, it is the private who seizes the profits.

Therefore, nuclear risks and nuclear insurance are a pure relationship of forces. When you look at the coverage of insurance by country, you can find that in France, it is 91.5 million euros while in Germany, it is 2.5 billion. Are French power plants 10 or 20 times less dangerous than German power plants? This is a pure relationship of forces, final point.

This is also the reason why at the time of the rainbow government, it seemed to us that the priority was to close these power plants because the best assurance we could have was that they were not working. Structurally, the best way to cover risks is to eliminate the risks at the base. Furthermore, it seemed to us equally unacceptable that Belgian law provides for a section in which the State intervenes automatically. This is a private activity in which not only the risks of those who engage in it are limited, but also in which, by law, the state intervenes, even before the nuclear pool.

This seemed to be a priority. It seemed to us in this government that the priority was to close these power plants. Unfortunately, the distortions to which my colleague Calvo once again referred are such that investors no longer know which wood to heat.

Fortunately, there is one before Fukushima and one after Fukushima. This may be the return of experience. After Fukushima, it is to find that there are still in Japan for four months 1,200 km2 uninhabited because polluted, notably by radio elements that will remain active for 300 years, which has led yesterday or earlier yesterday the French Nuclear Safety Agency to deliver a second report on the radioactive pollution of plants in Japan (for the little history, among others tea and bamboo), which contain amounts of cesium 137 such as they are unsuitable for consumption. The problem is that these materials are not intended for immediate consumption, since they are dried, and therefore will have to be controlled for months and months, in Japan but also for example in the port of Antwerp, if it does not come from Japan products that have been exposed to this release of radioactivity and which still contain it.

Cesium remains active for 300 years. Imagine, in Belgium, an area of 1,200 km2 (30 km on 40 km) uninhabited since March 11 and of which we do not know what to do for a country of 300 inhabitants per km2. As a result of this situation, Merrill Lynch estimated the damage to about 90 billion euros.

Of course, it’s about that, but it’s still 90 billion euros! No one can pay 90 billion euros! It is obviously a good thing to increase the coverage from 700 million euros to 1.2 billion euros. Note, however, that if an accident to the Japanese happens in Belgium, it will be peanuts!

Consequently, the challenge for us, not only for Belgium but in all of Europe, is to arrive at the unlimited responsibility of persons who engage in such an activity. One can not at once say that this activity is legitimate, that it does not pose the problem inherible and at the same time defend the fact that the people who liberate themselves to these activities have a liability limited to their insurance coverage. C is unjustifiable!

The floor is now yielded to Ms Vanheste for the defense of her amendments.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the proposals discussed in this bill include improving the regulation of the legal liability of nuclear operators in nuclear incidents. What is now on the table is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but why should we not stretch the line right away?

The sp.a submits an amendment, signed with Mr Calvo, aiming to extend the deadline for submitting a nuclear damage claim from 10 to 30 years. This specifically means that in the case of damage to persons or the environment, a claim can be filed up to 30 years after the nuclear incident.

We must be honest. Sometimes the damage is only revealed after decades. In addition, if after ten years nothing is found, there will automatically no longer be submitted claims for damages. The more better. However, if there are still damages after 15 or 20 years, this can still be covered. We therefore leave the possibility open in favor of the victim who at that time still has the right to compensation.

We have a second amendment concerning the unlimited liability, together with the colleague of Green!.

This amendment implements the principle that an operator of a nuclear power plant shall be unlimitedly liable for damage resulting from a nuclear accident.

The SP has already submitted this amendment to the committee. However, I would like to emphasize once again the importance of the introduction of unlimited liability and therefore this amendment is submitted here again.

With this amendment, the members of the Business Committee remained still for a long time. This shows that unlimited liability is very important in this discussion.

As Mr. Calvo and Mr. Deleuze have already stated in the committee, the limited liability was introduced at the time to support the young industry. This argument is no longer valid today.

In Germany, for example, the unlimited liability has been introduced. German nuclear operators are therefore unlimited liable and must provide financial security.

Today, the nuclear power plants in Belgium are still exclusively owned by purely private companies that generate huge profits there. In this context, a system of shared liability has been overlooked and there is no reason for the State and the community to assume a part of the risks of private enterprises.