Proposition 54K3297

Projet de loi transposant la directive (UE) 2016/97 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 20 janvier 2016 sur la distribution d'assurances.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Oct. 4, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive consumer protection insurance insurance company insurance law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo LE ∉ VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Jacques Chabot (PS | SP) 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 ¶

Nov. 14, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Klaps refers to his written report.

Before I give the word, let me note the following. Minister Peeters is the responsible minister. He told me, when he left the room for the oral questions, that he would be present at the discussion. I ask the services to call him as soon as possible. Maybe he is nearby.

It may be appropriate to suspend the meeting.

It is the Parliament that decides.

Does anyone ask for the Minister’s presence? Yes, Madame Liliou, you have the word.

Mr. Peeters has five bills on the agenda, not the least. The Minister is not often present in the Economy Committee but when he has projects in the plenary session, it would be to show respect to Parliament than to be present. Otherwise, let’s start with something else.

No, we cannot do that.

This is not at all interesting, Mr. Bacquelaine. I appreciate his coming among us but I think he knows nothing about the transposition of the Directive on insurance distribution. Mr. Bacquelaine knows very well that I do not insult him, but I would like Mr. Peeters to be present.

I think it would be better to suspend the session until the Minister is present.

The word was to Mr. Klaps.

Mr. Minister, thank you for moving to the hemisphere for a yet very important bill. The bill corrected a historical mistake. The previous government has decided in its zeal to apply the European MiFID rules, which apply to banks, also to the insurance sector. This has led to years of chaos in the industry.

You have seen me standing here during the questionnaire with a lot of classers. I would like to make it clear that the concept of consumer protection in the long run was rather supplemented by the number of kilograms of paper supplied to consumers, or by effective information. Of course, that is not the intention.

We at the N-VA support efficient consumer protection and that is not the same as a giant mountain of paper. I therefore believe that the text presented today is a very good compromise text between the questions of all sector stakeholders with a view to consumer protection.

I do not need to remind you that we are not in favour of gold-plating. We try to avoid this always, where it is possible, because otherwise we introduce more and more new obligations, which always bring new costs, effort and work. In terms of information rules, however, we do so and I therefore advocate that those rules be evaluated in the very short term. In this way, it can be verified whether the additional obligations are actually useful.

Colleagues, a concern remains that with the proposed draft we delegate especially many powers to the King. We must pay attention to this. I understand that technically it can often not be different, but we are very thoughtful about the content of the royal decrees. Through royal decrees, one can still greatly shift power to administrative control services, and that should not be the intention.

I have therefore called on the minister in the committee to submit the contents of those royal decrees to the committee, so that we may, if necessary, re-discuss it.

Overall, however, this is an excellent transposition of a European directive, which was very needed and which helps our sector move forward. That is long ago.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, it seems to me that with five projects, it is better to be in plenary session, especially when there is positive and negative. We will, of course, not fail to emphasize the positive, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister.

The IDD Directive (Insurance Distribution Directive) is one of those many texts published by Europe following the 2008 financial crisis – one must always remember and was still spoken in the media this morning – and following the awareness of the damage related to the lack of regulation in the financial world.

I recall that the Di Rupo government had decided to anticipate this European directive, by expanding the scope of the MiFID directive, which concerned primarily the banking world. This Banking Directive has been applied to certain insurance rules. This is what was called the AssurMiFID legislation which was put in place by Minister Vande Lanotte.

As I told you, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I regret that the majority parties today qualify these consumer protection rules put in place by the previous government as “unnecessary paperwork.” These are the words of some members of the majority. Mr. Klaps, you are present and these are of course your words.

In my opinion, on the occasion of this transposition, the government obviously sought to reconsider the necessary rules of the past, which were very useful in protecting consumers. By the way, a moment ago, I thought I heard from your mouth, Mr. Klaps, that this was decided to satisfy the insurance lobby. That is why the PS group will not support this bill.

Of course, as I would like to express myself briefly, I will not repeat everything that was said in commission. However, I will take a crucial example: that of the techniques used by insurance companies to motivate intermediaries to sell their products. On the occasion of a recent report, the insurance regulator gave an important signal. The sector finances the FSMA. On the other hand, Mr. Klaps, yesterday again, you asked a question in the committee on this subject. We wanted this regulator, because banks and insurance companies have notoriously played the casino. Now, when the FSMA publishes a report, the government sits on it! In fact, Mr. Minister, the regulator sounded the alarm by finding abuses in terms of remuneration of insurance intermediaries, likely to harm the interests of consumers. These are the terms used by the regulator.

This includes incentive programmes, allowing brokers to attend free of charge or, in any case, at very advantageous conditions, cultural and sports events or training abroad. It is also mentioned that insurance companies include minimum returns to be achieved in the pricing of commissions granted to their brokers. However, as you know, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, such a practice is strongly condemned by our regulator.

I will not recall, but I like to do it, because I am a woman, the caricature story of a German company that had chosen to reward its meritorious intermediaries by offering them young women from Hungary. This is great as an image and as a testimony of respect for women!

When you hear the FSMA talk about travelling to paradise islands for fifteen days – it is in the FSMA report, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister – you still say that there is an important problem to be solved. How do you address this in the transposition of the Directive? How do you respond to the alarm signal launched by your own regulator? First of all, reduce the current level of protection!

In the future, brokers will no longer have to prove that the granting of the incentive improves the quality of the service rendered to the customer. Are you protesting? Please vote on our amendment, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister. Otherwise, it will be enough for them to indicate that the remuneration does not negatively affect the quality of this service, which is much less compelling. The journeys continue.

Then, you decide to leave the insurance sector to take care of self-regulating. This is the rule according to which the representative organisations of the insurance sector are tasked with drawing up a code of conduct on incentives by mutual agreement within six months. It is surreal, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, that the FSMA, your regulator, tells the alarm ring to signal a problem and that you respond by saying – Mr. Klaps repeated it in the tribune – that they have the free field and that you will give force of law to their agreements. This is the message you are transmitting.

We urge consumers to participate in the development of this code. I’m against this code because I think you should create the framework in the law, but allowing consumers to participate in it is a minimum. I also think that there was agreement among all delegations within the Insurance Commission so that consumer representatives can collaborate constructively in the discussion of this draft code of conduct. You did not accept this option. I ask you why.

We also request that the reduction of the current level of protection be not changed.

Consumer representatives present in the Insurance Commission denounced "a step back in consumer protection and prevention of conflicts of interest in the head of intermediaries". This is what we are talking about today, Mr. Prime Minister. This is also our position, which is why we re-submit our amendments to the remuneration framework for insurance intermediaries.

Once again, with you, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, the financial lobby has won against the necessary regulation and against the necessary protection of consumers.

With this text, the Government has successfully transposed the European Directive on the distribution of insurance. Indeed, the text we are examining today takes into account the requests of the insurance sector actors, but also the interests of consumers.

The project enables several major changes for the insurance sector. On the one hand, we amend the Insurance Act to make the necessary adjustments with regard to the requirements related to the status of intermediaries, the professional and organizational requirements imposed on insurance and reinsurance companies, as well as the rules of conduct and information obligations. On the other hand, we simplify the legislative framework. All the rules of conduct and information obligations applicable to the insurance sector are collected.

With this text bringing many reforms, our group is in favor of its evaluation within two years.

Considering the essential contribution of this text to the insurance sector, I invite you to support this bill.

The transposition of this European Directive into Belgian legislation is a positive thing for the consumer. This has already been mentioned in the committee and by the rapporteur. The purpose of the Directive is to ensure that everyone involved in the sale of insurance follows the same rules. The Directive, which aims at a minimum harmonisation of the European insurance market, allows Member States to adopt stricter measures to enhance consumer protection. We are therefore pleased that the present draft legislation provides a higher level of protection than the Directive provides.

In the committee, I have expressed a number of concerns and proposals for improvement which have received a response from the Minister. I’m not going to repeat them again, but you know I’m a penetrator and always hope for even more positive news than in the committee meeting.

Therefore, I would like to submit two amendments again. It is intended to include a provision that gives people who have ever been seriously ill or who suffer from a chronic condition that is under control the right to be forgotten when concluding insurance. The right to be forgotten must also be possible in Belgium, as in France. Today, for example, ex-cancer patients or people suffering from a chronic condition that is under control, after all, pay ⁇ high premiums for debt balance and other insurance. The two amendments provide a solution to this problem. In the committee you said that you are working on a bill, but I still advocate to go extremely quickly; hence my action today to bring the point to the attention. I hope for a positive signal from Parliament in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it is positive that the Government has chosen a faithful transposition of the European Directive, the IDD, and wants to reduce the administrative burden in these to a minimum. However, in a number of aspects it was chosen to derogate from the maximum transposition of the Directive, in order to take into account a number of specific characteristics of the Belgian market.

For example, the decision was made to reduce to 200 euros the amount in the Directive exempting counter-insurance intermediaries from the obligation to register with the FSMA. We had a debate on this. For a number of self-employed secondary insurance intermediaries who, for example, offer travel insurance, this is not a too obvious choice. They are, in fact, the requesting party for a higher threshold, so that they can nevertheless continue to exercise their profession with an exemption from registration. I know that, on the other hand, there are also people who want to lower the threshold of 200 euros, which the government has chosen. The Minister has chosen the amount of 200 euros, which holds the middle between all the proposals formulated.

The Minister said in the committee that the King will be given the power to adjust the threshold, to promote consumer protection and to take into account the evolution of consumer prices. Since that threshold has caused some concern, Mr. Minister, we are therefore pleased that you agree to review the law and that it may be updated after a review period. You have also left room to eventually do business via the KB. We are committed to carrying out this evaluation.

Mr. Speaker, I will intervene quickly on this bill concerning the transposition of the directive. It generally respects a number of concepts and is sometimes more severe.

I would like to emphasize one aspect of this text. The bill incorporates a number of provisions relating to insurance intermediaries as accessories. It is clear that this effectively reduces the amount of 600 to 200 euros for this type of premiums, but problematic situations often arise from accessory insurance contracts, sold in particular with smartphones or other computer products or household appliances. Often these premiums do not exceed 200 euros. Therefore, Mr. Minister, we ask ourselves the logic of your proposal, in particular with regard to Article 20. I would have wanted a supplementary answer to this question, the rest being raised by my colleagues.

Mr. Carcaci is not there. The word is to the government.

First of all, I would like to thank you all for the interesting debate. Although some issues have been discussed, I would like to emphasize them once again in the plenary session.

I hereby reaffirm to Mrs Smaers that we will carefully monitor whether the 200 euro threshold in practice causes problems and that after that evaluation we will respond to it as much as possible.

I would like to point out to Mrs. Detiège that we are preparing a very important draft law related to the right to be forgotten, which means that people who have had cancer and have been completely cured, for example, will not have to pay higher premiums when entering into a debt balance insurance. I repeat what I have already said in the committee, namely that we are drafting a separate draft on this subject, because such provisions do not fit in the draft that is currently under discussion.

Mrs. Lalieux, Mrs. Galant, Mr. de Lamotte, I understand your reaction especially when you say, Mrs. Lalieux, that there is no improvement in consumer protection. You fear that this is not the case. I have tried to convince you and others that we have obviously tried to transpose the directive but also to improve the situation of consumers.

Furthermore, I also made it very clear that we will write a very clear code of conduct for consumers and that will give them protection in certain situations that you have illustrated with examples.

Finally, I reassure Mr Klaps: I will keep the commitment I have already made in the committee: if the Parliament or the committee asks to give text and explanation to the royal decrees, I will be sure to do so once they have been drafted and approved in all transparency.

Mr. Minister, I thank you for your response.

You agree with what you have already said in the committee, namely that you will draw up a bill. However, there are only five months before the elections. So it will be quite a short day. Therefore, I reiterate my concern, which I have already expressed in the committee. Will you finish the design on time? If it is not approved before the end of the legislature, the figs are after Easter.

Therefore, I again propose that the amendments be approved today.

As Mr. Carcaci arrived, I allow him to speak.

Mr. President, thank you very much. Please apologize for my temporary absence.

This bill is already implemented by most insurance companies. This creates a compelling administrative burden for brokers, especially for those who have medium-sized portfolios. Nevertheless, I think this bill is a good thing and I will vote positively.

Thank you, Mr. Carcaci, for this vote explanation.