Proposition de loi modifiant la loi-programme (I) du 27 décembre 2006 en ce qui concerne l'indemnisation des victimes de l'amiante.
General information ¶
- Author
- N-VA Valerie Van Peel
- Submission date
- July 17, 2019
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Rejected
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- asbestos judicial proceedings damages illness
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR
- Voted to reject
- LE DéFI N-VA LDD PVDA | PTB 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 ¶
June 2, 2022 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Rapporteur Hans Verreyt ⚙
Mrs. President, I usually find the issuance of a report only a necessary formality, but for this Bill proposed by Mrs. Van Peel it is not just a formality. This has nothing to do with the candidate, but all with the content of this proposal.
This bill sought to amend the law on compensation for asbestos victims. Almost everyone in this hemisphere is aware of the danger of asbestos and the awareness is not new and goes beyond party boundaries. This is demonstrated by the fact that this proposal and similar proposals have already been submitted in the past. Nearly all parties have expressed their support for these proposals, but at least verbally.
In its introduction, the applicant pointed out how long it took in Belgium, the preferred asbestos country, before a ban on the use of asbestos was passed. This was in 1998. She also pointed out how the first proposals for the establishment of the Asbestos Fund came from 2002 to be eventually established in December 2006.
The Asbestos Fund regulates the compensation for all asbestos victims of asbestos-related health problems, both asbestos workers and environmental or environmental victims. Several presentations during the committee also pointed out the scandalous financing of this Asbestos Fund, where each employer contributes 0.01% of the wage mass to this fund. The same arrangement applies for Eternit, Etex, as for example for the hairdresser of Staden or the baker in Aarlen, who has never heard of asbestos, let alone seen from close. Unlike, for example, France or the Netherlands, where the principle of the polluter pays also applies to this file.
In addition to the scandalous funding of this fund, there is another curious feature in our legislation, namely the built-in immunity for the asbestos companies. Anyone applying to the Asbestos Fund refrains from any legal action against the then asbestos companies.
Mrs. President, I usually find the issuance of a report only a necessary formality, but for this Bill proposed by Mrs. Van Peel it is not just a formality. This has nothing to do with the candidate, but all with the content of this proposal.
This bill sought to amend the law on compensation for asbestos victims. Almost everyone in this hemisphere is aware of the danger of asbestos and the awareness is not new and goes beyond party boundaries. This is demonstrated by the fact that this proposal and similar proposals have already been submitted in the past. Nearly all parties have expressed their support for these proposals, but at least verbally.
The applicant pointed out in her introduction how long it took in Belgium, the asbestos country by excellence, before a ban on the use of asbestos was passed. This was in 1998. She also pointed out how the first proposals for the establishment of the Asbestos Fund came from 2002. It was eventually established in December 2006.
The Asbestos Fund regulates the compensation for all asbestos victims of asbestos-related health problems, both asbestos workers and environmental or environmental victims. Several presentations during the committee also pointed to the scandalous financing of this Asbestos Fund, where each employer contributes 0,01 % of the wage mass to this fund. The same arrangement applies both to Eternit, today Etex, and for example to the hairdresser of Staden or the baker in Aarlen, who has never heard of asbestos, let alone seen from close. Unlike, for example, France or the Netherlands, where the principle of the polluter pays also applies to this file.
In addition to the scandalous funding of this fund, there is another curious feature in our legislation, namely the built-in immunity for the asbestos companies. Anyone applying to the Asbestos Fund refrains from any legal action against the then asbestos companies.
One of the objectives of the bill was to lift this civil immunity. Victims or their survivors should always have the opportunity to make a claim in order to obtain full compensation, even if they have already received compensation through the Asbestos Fund.
Ms. Van Peel also delivered the courageous struggle in the committee in memory of the Jonckheere family, neighbors of the Eternit factory in Kapelle-op-den-Bos.
After receiving the necessary opinions, the committee continued with the various presentations. I myself pointed to the different places, except for the well-known Kapelle-op-den-Bos, where asbestos was used, produced, processed or deposited in the past. Also, the crushing responsibility of the government cannot be denied. For too long she continued not only to encourage the use of asbestos, but even to promote it. The 2006 compromise, which linked the establishment of an asbestos fund to immunity for asbestos companies, was a bad compromise.
The Vlaams Belang confirmed in its presentation that the party would support the present proposal.
There was also support from the corner of the PTB. Ms. Moscufo did not find it a perfect proposal, but it was valuable enough to support. The funding of the fund was also a thorn in the eye for her.
With majority parties, things were more difficult. They mainly tried to drown the fish in a bath of additional opinions, hearings, evaluations and beautiful words.
Ms Cornet shared the concern and pointed out that indeed too long the environment and health were put at risk for economic benefit. His party, however, wanted to deepen the matter first and voted against it.
Ms. Lanjri of the CD&V tapped from another vessel and pointed out in particular the possible legal difficulties that the victims could face. She asked for a new study from Fedris.
Ms. De Jonge of Open Vld called it a painful case and called for not to let the emotions take over. She feared that the victims with the adjustment would have more to lose than to gain.
Also Mrs Vanrobaeys van Vooruit and Mrs Bonaventure of the PS, as well as Mrs Reuter of the MR, feared that the bill would return to the state of pre-2007, which, by the way, was strongly opposed by the advocates.
Finally, Ms Fonck gave a very comprehensive statement, also to defend her amendment on the adjustments to the list of compensable conditions due to exposure to asbestos. The amendment was not voted at the time, but has been approved in a different way. She also expressed her support for the proposal.
This proposal did not survive the vote in the committee. What the plenary assembly thinks about this, we will immediately know.
One of the objectives of the bill was to lift this civil immunity. Victims or their survivors should always have the opportunity to make a claim in order to obtain full compensation, even if they have already received compensation through the Asbestos Fund.
Ms. Van Peel also delivered the courageous struggle in the committee in memory of the Jonckheere family, neighbors of the Eternit factory in Kapelle-op-den-bos.
After receiving the necessary opinions, the committee continued with the various presentations. I myself pointed to the various places, except for the well-known Kapelle-on-the-Forest, where asbestos was used, produced, processed or dumped in the past. Also, the crushing responsibility of the government cannot be denied. For too long she continued not only to encourage the use of asbestos, but even to promote it. The 2006 compromise, which linked the establishment of an asbestos fund to immunity for asbestos companies, was a bad compromise.
The Vlaams Belang confirmed in its presentation that the party would support the present proposal.
There was also support from the corner of the PTB. Ms. Moscufo found it not a perfect proposal, but valuable enough to support. The funding of the fund was also a thorn in the eye for her.
With majority parties, things were more difficult. They mainly tried to drown the fish in a bath of additional opinions, hearings, evaluations and beautiful words.
Ms Cornet shared the concern and pointed out that indeed too long the environment and health were put at risk for economic benefit. His party, however, wanted to deepen the matter first and voted against it.
Ms. Lanjri of the CD&V tapped from another vessel and pointed out in particular the possible legal difficulties that the victims could face. She asked for a new study from Fedris.
Ms. De Jonge van de Open Vld called it a painful case and called for not to let the emotions take over. She feared that the victims with the adjustment will have more to lose than to gain.
Also Mrs Vanrobaeys van Vooruit and Mrs Bonaventure of the PS as well as Mrs Reuter of the MR feared that the bill would return to the state of pre-2007, which, by the way, was strongly opposed by the advocates.
Finally, Ms Fonck gave a very comprehensive statement, also to defend her amendment on the adjustments to the list of compensable conditions due to exposure to asbestos. The amendment was not voted at the time, but has been approved in a different way. She also expressed her support for the proposal.
Valerie Van Peel N-VA ⚙
The content has just been outlined by my colleague, but the content is not the problem, because it is very clear. This bill, which I tried to sell for the third time to some colleagues, is very clearly about the abolition of a scandalous protective measure for the asbestos industry.
That protective measure has seen the light of life after a lot of lobbying at the government-Verhofstadt. The Emsens family, not unknown to some Chamber Members, has played a major role in this. I have since heard a number of colleagues say the principle ‘the polluter pays’ at least six times in this Parliament. Well, the biggest polluter ever, with the most fatal casualties, across Europe, India, the rest of the world, but especially in our country, that is Eternit and the asbestos industry. They have not yet paid a euro cent in our country.
I will not go deeper into the content of the file. We want to correct a political situation. Victims of asbestos were given smuggling in exchange for renunciation of their legal and moral rights. That is the question here. I am confident that everyone here is well aware of this. The non-arguments on this proposal, which I had to hear again in the debate, are so easy to refute one by one. That is truly shameful.
I am not even asking for the vote on this proposal, so naive I am not after the last time. If even the presence of Eric Jonckheere, who has lost both his parents and two brothers and who himself is already sick, as well as his still alive brother, cannot convince you to approve the resolution, then I do not make illusions about the content.
The question is whether there are still members of parliament in the room who want to do something of their job. It is the relevance of this Parliament. For if we are not able to simply vote as we feel about a file of which nothing is stated in the government agreement, we can better abolish that box here.
So what is presented here today is what kind of parliamentary member you all want to be today. I know very well what my choice will be.
Rapporteur Hans Verreyt ⚙
This proposal did not survive the vote in the committee. What the plenary assembly thinks about this, we will immediately know.
Valerie Van Peel N-VA ⚙
The content has just been outlined by my colleague, but the content is not the problem, because it is very clear. This bill, which I tried to sell for the third time to some colleagues, is very clearly about the abolition of a scandalous protective measure for the asbestos industry.
That protective measure has seen the light of life after a lot of lobbying at the government-Verhofstadt. The Emsens family, not unknown to some Chamber Members, has played a major role in this. I have since heard a number of colleagues say the principle ‘the polluter pays’ at least six times in this Parliament. Well, the biggest polluter ever, with the most fatal casualties, across Europe, India, the rest of the world, but especially in our country, that is Eternit and the asbestos industry. They have not yet paid a euro cent in our country.
I will not go deeper into the content of the file. We want to correct a political situation. Victims of asbestos were given smuggling in exchange for renunciation of their legal and moral rights. That is the question here. I am confident that everyone here is well aware of this. The non-arguments on this proposal, which I had to hear again in the debate, are so easy to refute one by one. That is truly shameful.
I am not even asking for the vote on this proposal, so naive I am not after the last time. If even the presence of Eric Jonckheere, who has lost both his parents and two brothers and who himself is already sick, as well as his still alive brother, cannot convince you to approve the resolution, then I do not make illusions about the content.
The question is whether there are still members of parliament in the room who want to do something of their job. It is the relevance of this Parliament. For if we are not able to simply vote as we feel about a file of which nothing is stated in the government agreement, we can better abolish that box here.
So what is presented here today is what kind of parliamentary member you all want to be today. I know very well what my choice will be.