Proposition 54K2002

Projet de loi améliorant l'indemnisation des victimes de l'amiante.

General information ¶

Authors

LE Catherine Fonck
N-VA Yoleen Van Camp, Valerie Van Peel

Submission date

July 25, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil liability proceedings asbestos occupational disease infancy legal action judicial proceedings damages limitation of legal proceedings illness

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR PVDA | PTB PP 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 ¶

April 24, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs, Mr Clarinval and Ms Fonck, refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, suggest that you should choose between getting a taste of money to pay the heavy medical costs during the last months of life, or not getting money but hoping for justice after death. What would you choose? Both, this is not the case in this country. Well, that is the fate of asbestos victims.

Unlike in other countries, there was only one trial in this country against one of the largest asbestos companies, namely Eternit. It was the son of Françoise Jonckheere who for years fought a very lonely battle against this powerful building material producer. By the way, in 2011 the company was rightly condemned to pay a compensation of 250 000 euros, but it appealed.

The Jonckheere family, more specifically Eric Jonckheere, has called the case a very long fight against the omertha, a fight of David against Goliath, a lonely David too. One might think that this may be because his mother is the only victim of asbestos, of Eternit, but the asbestos deaths in Kapelle-op-den-Bos — where the company is based — and surrounding areas are untold and the end of the list of victims is still far from in sight. In the Jonckheere family alone, four people have been killed so far.

One might also think that there were not many processes because Eternit can refute that it has continued to use asbestos when it was long known that it could cause lung cancer and asbestosis. Although Eternit itself claims that they were not aware of the dangers until the 1970s, the scientific evidence for the relationship between asbestos and cancer was already accumulated in the 1950s. In addition, listen carefully, the company continued to produce asbestos in Kapelle-op-den-Bos until 1994. Moreover, the waste of asbestos was distributed to the surrounding inhabitants, was processed in the roads and is in almost every building in our country.

The answer to the question why there are so few asbestos processes in our country, while Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have driven several, very strict criminal sentences in asbestos processes, is ⁇ cynical. It has to do with what is on the table today.

For all clarity, I will say that right away, we are taking very large and important steps, but not one important step. This has to do with the Asbestos Fund, which came into existence after years of lobbying by the companies concerned: it gives victims on their deathbed no more than a fake choice. I think that choice should not be a choice. After all, by accepting a fee from the fund to be able to pay the high-increasing medical costs in the last months of his life, the asbestos victim automatically waives his right to sue the responsible, former asbestos company in court. Of course, the time and energy of such victims is scarce. Once the symptoms are there, it’s a matter of months or weeks, so everyone chooses the Asbestos Fund.

Therefore, and only for this reason, the Jonckheere family still stands alone with its trial. Not with her story, not at all, but with her legal struggle. His mother, Françoise Jonckheere, died in 2000 of lung cancer caused by the inhalation of asbestos. Her husband worked in the company. The company, as I said before, spent years running asbestos-filled trucks across the streets, along the schools and squares. Like everyone in the congregation, she, like her husband, was working in the business, without too much protection. There was no talk about risks for a very long time, which were heard by the surrounding residents and workers only decades later, although they had been internally known for a long time.

Françoise’s husband died of lung cancer in 1987. Thirteen years later, when the disease was also diagnosed in her, she decided not to take the proposed compensation. He was and will be forever. A life is not for sale, it must have thought. Justice was all that remained of her, but a few months later she died, years before the first judgment. His five sons continued the fight. Two of them suffered from the same type of cancer in 2003 and 2009. Four people from one family. Now I describe one family, but there are hundreds of such in that region and, unfortunately, still in many other regions in our country.

The historic compromise on the Abest Fund was reached in 2007. Let me be clear, that in itself was a very good thing. But there was a strange manoeuvre. After a broad agreement was reached in the Senate, the bill was suddenly drawn to the government. At the time, Prime Minister Verhofstadt came up with a draft in place of the Chamberbreed-backed proposal that had very different inputs, and this after extensive consultation with the asbestos industry itself.

We already talked about the immunity that the companies obtained in this regard, but did you also know that the fund is fed by the government – rightly, because there were mistakes – and by all the employers in this country, not just the polluters? Therefore, it is not just about the companies that are willing and knowingly continuing to work with asbestos. The polluter pays! I hear this often here in Parliament, although there is usually a little more presence. That’s also a beautiful principle, but for Eternit, among others, it’s a far-from-they bed show. Who is really paying for this, besides the many victims? No one, I think. I continue to say that it is an immoral choice that the legislator has imposed on these victims.

I have been dealing with this issue for years, and I have been trying for years to persuade my colleagues from other parties to finally help this illegality out of the world. I have found partners for this at CDH and at Groen-Ecolo. Despite what I have just stated, the other political parties, for reasons of lobbying, the trade unions at one and the VBO and the companies at the other, have remained with their position. Fortunately, there were few people there, but they were ashamed.

I would like to end with a more positive note, because if everything goes well, we will all approve this agreement tomorrow. We can be very proud of that. I would also like to thank all my colleagues for this, especially colleagues Dedry and Fonck, who have greatly expanded our proposal with their contributions. The fate of asbestos victims who will turn to the Asbestos Fund will ⁇ improve with this agreement, which we cannot deny.

An important factor is that the limitation period is adjusted. In the previous agreement, the limitation period was 20 years, while the first symptoms of exposure to asbestos only appear 30 to 40 years later. In this case, there is further immunity. However, we now solve this by ensuring that the limitation period does not enter until the disease is established and then continues to run for 5 years.

Also, it is not insignificant that lung and larynx cancer are added to the list of recognized diseases. This has been scientifically proven for a long time and it is therefore ⁇ a well-deserved extension that has come on demand from Green-Ecolo.

There will also be a smoother transmission of the health dossier. This will allow the links to the patient’s past and work past to be made clearer.

We will ensure that the reimbursement starts from the first day of the month in which the diagnosis was made and not until a month after you have registered for the Asbestos Fund. Also that is not insignificant, if one knows that these victims die not only a horrible, but also a very fast death and that extra one or two months so really make the difference between day and night.

An additional capital of EUR 10 000 will be provided for the main group of asbestos patients. For the funeral costs, a compensation of 1 000 euros is provided, now also for the victims of the environment. These are the people who have never worked in the companies, but who still need to get the same immunity.

There will also be an increase in the budget for monitoring and prevention of asbestos.

You hear it, it is a whole list. I would like to thank the colleagues, and especially those who have pushed along, especially the colleagues of CDH, Green and Ecolo, for having reached an agreement on a Chamber Breed, but I cannot put under chairs or benches that I am with a very double feeling. I still think it is very wrong that such an injustice remains inscribed in this law.

Mr. President, Mrs. Van Peel has been very comprehensive in her explanation. I will not repeat what she has said. We have a lot on the agenda.

In addition to the well-known Jonckheere family, there are many Eternitic victims in that region. We lost a very valuable person in our political ranks a few years ago, Willy Vanderstappen, to this asbestos problem. Not that he was a worker, but he became an environmental victim. In this way I was personally involved in this issue. Willy was a colleague of me.

The improvements and successes that we have now been able to ⁇ , by seeking a compromise for Kamerbreed, delight me very much. We have achieved a number of important expansions. In this way, ongoing business also has its advantages.

I totally agree with Mrs. Van Peel. I also share her frustration over the fact that we have not achieved the principle “the polluter pays” through the lifting of civil immunity. However, that may be one of the first things that we will put on the agenda again in the next legislature, because this really cannot be done.

The stone that we have now moved provides a serious improvement. It is only a pity that it has had to take so long and it only succeeded at the end of the legislature. However, it has succeeded and therefore I also thank all the colleagues who have supported this.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since the PTB has denounced the fact that, in the asbestos case, one principle is not applied: that of the polluter-payer. I know that this proposal will not resolve everything. Nevertheless, in our country, there is still a situation where the seventh richest family in Belgium – according to the site derijkstebelgen.be – the Emsens family, whose fortune is worth 3.3 billion euros, has built its giant fortune on dead bodies.

I cannot say otherwise because since the middle of the 20th century, Emsens and associates knew that asbestos was carcinogenic. “We knew it and we did nothing.” And the opposite! Eternit’s bosses – because it’s them that it’s about – have done something: developing an intense lobbying in order to hide the reality of the terrible dangers of asbestos. They are responsible for many cases of deadly diseases that, in addition, cause horrible suffering.

This law proposal is a beginning to repair this injustice. We will not have to stay there. We will need to continue to work on this issue in the next legislature. Nevertheless, today, an important step can be taken.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the applicants for the improvements made to the Asbestos Fund, which has proven its validity since its creation.

I have known several patients who have been affected by asbestos and have also submitted applications. I can tell you that the recognition by the Asbestos Fund and receiving compensation for their illness was a slight consolation for those involved.

I understand Mrs. Van Peel’s argument. However, some things have been investigated. Whoever accepts a punishment, however, avoids a judicial prosecution. This is the case in occupational diseases and in many other judicial cases. Mrs Van Peel does not acknowledge this fact. It says that the legislator can do other things.

Mrs. Van Peel, I know that you will work on the file. At the moment, your proposal was not possible.