National Council rejects article on earthquakes (cross-border guide)

Context

In brief

• 99 opposed, 84 in favor and 8 abstentions in the National Council.
• The Confederation will not have the authority to finance repairs.
• The CAPTE-N proposal indicated 0.5% of the insured amount.
• The Federal Council's message provided for 0.7%.

Key facts

• Decision → constitutional article rejected
• CAPTE-N proposal → 0.5% of the insured amount
• Federal message → 0.7%
• Owners with a policy → 15%
• Coverage according to Jon Pult → 80% without coverage

99 votes against, 84 in favor and 8 abstentions: today the National Council rejected the constitutional article that would have given the Confederation the authority to finance the repair of buildings after major earthquakes. The vote closes the dossier: following the Council of States' previous decision not to consider the matter, this is the second negative decision and the matter has been definitively shelved.

The proposal put forward by the majority of the Committee for the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy, CAPTE-N, provided for a solidarity mechanism. In the event of a major earthquake, a contribution would have been levied on property owners amounting to 0.5% of the insured amount. It was a different solution from the Federal Council's message, which indicated 0.7%; the latter had already been rejected by the Council of States last December.

Positions expressed in the chamber

Stefan Müller-Altermatt, Centre/SO, defended the proposal on behalf of the committee majority. He recalled that there is currently no constitutional provision for such cases and that the burden remains with the owners. According to his account, only 15% of owners have taken out a policy, and the primary responsibility will continue to fall on them. The committee had taken as its extreme case an earthquake of an intensity expected to recur approximately once every hundred years.

Jon Pult, SP/GR, instead accused the sector lobby of confusing the insurability of properties with their actual coverage, arguing that 80% lack it. The minority, represented by Christian Wasserfallen, FDP/BE, pointed to the difference between the damage caused by an earthquake in an urban center and that in a rural area, as well as the uncertainty over who should accurately calculate the total damage.

Michael Graber, a Swiss People's Party member from VS, also believed that the legislation would have penalized those who had voluntarily chosen to protect themselves. This position prevailed. Keystone-ATS's report thus records the project's definitive end.

Operational details

What changes in practical terms

The 0,5% was not approved: it was CAPTE-N's proposal, calculated on the insured sum. The 0,7%, on the other hand, was provided for in the Federal Council's dispatch, already rejected by the Council of States. The final rejection of the matter closes both hypotheses without establishing the solidarity mechanism under discussion.

The practical result described in the debate is that the absence of a constitutional provision for these cases remains and owners retain primary responsibility. The issue was also presented as a distinction between insurability and actual coverage. Jon Pult accused the industry lobby of confusing the two concepts; Stefan Müller-Altermatt recalled that only 15% of owners have taken out an insurance policy. Pult added that 80% have none. The source reports the two percentages through different parliamentary interventions, linking them to the discussion about the degree of protection afforded to properties.

The crux of the differences between cantons

The minority position indicated why the project was considered uncertain. Christian Wasserfallen observed that an earthquake in an urban center would cause much greater damage than one in a rural area. He also pointed out that it is unclear who should determine the total amount of damage precisely. Added to this is the fact that several cantons do not have mandatory insurance for properties.

For the owner, therefore, the concrete fact is not a new percentage to apply, but the continuation of the primary responsibility indicated in the chamber. The source does not describe a shift toward federal financing of repairs: it describes a rejected proposal and the continuation of the situation referred to by the parliamentarians.

Michael Graber, a member of the Swiss People's Party from VS, had argued that a law would have penalized those who had voluntarily chosen to take precautions against the risk. His position prevailed together with the minority's objections, which considered the absence of legislation preferable to ineffective legislation. The vote leaves the issues of coverage, damage assessment and differences between cantons open in the federal debate.

Recommended tools

For an updated estimate, use the net salary calculator and the CHF-EUR exchange comparator.

Key points

How to navigate after the vote

The source does not describe a new federal procedure for requesting financing for repairs. The most concrete way to read the decision is to separate four elements.

1. Competence. The vote concerned the Confederation's ability to finance the repair of buildings after severe earthquakes. The constitutional article was not approved, so primary responsibility remains with the owners.

2. Percentages. The 0.5% was CAPTE-N's proposal based on the insured sum; the 0.7% appeared in the Federal Council's dispatch. The former remained in the rejected bill, while the latter had already been rejected by the Council of States.

3. Coverage. Müller-Altermatt indicated that only 15% of owners had taken out a policy. Pult distinguished insurability from actual coverage and argued that 80% lacked it. The source presents these figures through two different parliamentary positions.

4. Territory and damage. Several Cantons do not have compulsory insurance for properties. The minority added that an earthquake in an urban center would cause much greater damage than in a rural area and that it is unclear who should determine the total amount of the damage.

The operational point

For anyone who owns a property, the correct reading is not to look for a new percentage to apply: the vote rejected the measure. The source presents neither the 0.5% nor the 0.7% as a contribution that has entered into force; it places them in the comparison between CAPTE-N's proposal and the Federal Council's dispatch.

For anyone following federal decisions, the point to note is equally clear: after the Council of States, the National Council rejected the article by 99 votes to 84, with 8 abstentions. The dossier does not produce the proposed solidarity mechanism and leaves primary responsibility with the owners, as indicated in the debate.

The verification to carry out, staying within the information in the source, therefore concerns three questions: what responsibility remains with the owner, what difference exists between insurability and coverage, and who should quantify the damage. These are the concrete points left open by the rejection.

First day as a cross-border worker? Our practical guide walks you from cantonal registration to your first paycheck.

Source: swissinfo.ch