Proposition 51K1035

Projet de loi relatif à l'autorisation d'implantations commerciales.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

April 20, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

distribution business trade licence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V Ecolo FN VB

Abstained from voting

LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Jan Peeters (Vooruit) 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 ¶

July 15, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. It was agreed that after the introductory presentation by Minister Moerman hearings would be organized. The following associations were invited: Unizo, Fedis, Febelhout, Union des Classes Moyennes and la Commission Nationale de la Distribution. Their

In its presentation, the Minister pointed out that the current legislation is almost 20 years old and therefore no longer adapted to the changing needs of both consumers and the middle class. In fact, today we are increasingly confronted with large European retail chains preferring to settle at the entrance and exit of major entrance routes. Another reason why the current legislation needs to be adjusted is the fact that it is poorly transparent and very complex. In addition, the application carries a lot of administrative burden and the law does not provide any legal certainty. After all, when an unfavorable advice is delivered, there is no appeal possible. Their

The new draft law should therefore, first and foremost, mean an improvement for the applicant. On the one hand, there will be a less administrative burden and more transparent procedure, on the other hand, there will also be more legal certainty. There is a possibility of appeal in the event of an unfavorable advice. What are the most important innovations and simplifications? First, an authorisation must only be applied for establishments with a sales area exceeding 400m2. Second, the College of Mayor and Mayor Schepenen autonomously decides on granting permits for projects with an area between 400 and 1,000m2. Third, only a prior opinion of the National Social and Economic Committee for Distribution for establishments larger than 1,000m2 is needed. Finally, the delivery of the authorisation must also be made faster. Their

Following this introductory presentation, a number of hearings were organized. As the first speaker we received Mr. Bruno Wattemberg, representative of the Commission Nationale de la Distribution. He pointed out the fact that the draft wishes to address a number of objections that can be formulated on the current legislation. However, according to him, the draft still contains a number of disadvantages. Positive, on the other hand, are the heavier sanctions included in the draft. Their

The second speaker was Mr. Ardies of Unizo. Unizo is in favour of simplifying the licensing policy. In this context, he advocates for a framework law that can be further completed by the Regions. If the trade establishment policy remains entirely federal, the design needs to be adjusted in a number of points, according to Unizo. For example, they ask questions to the decision-making power of the municipalities concerning the establishments between 400 and 1,000m2. Finally, the speaker illustrated by some figures that there are already very many such shops in our country. Their

The next speaker, Mr Chris de Roock of Febelhout, considers the administrative simplification resulting from the new draft very positive. On the other hand, he fears that this project could have a negative impact on employment. Their

The fourth speaker was Pierre Colin of the Union des Classes Moyennes. He believes that the draft law is suitable for many improvements. For example, he pointed out the danger of the so-called silent consent if, in particular, no decision was taken within the prescribed deadline. Their

As the fifth speaker, Mr. Peter Haegeman of Fedis was finally heard. According to this speaker, the design contains a lot of positive elements. Fedis is satisfied with the use of the net trading area, as well as with the improved opportunities for the applicant. Following the hearing, the committee members were able to ask questions. Colleagues Bert Schoofs, Magda De Meyer and Georges Lenssen asked a number of questions for clarification.

During the general discussion of the draft law, several colleagues spoke. Collega Lenssen considers the design a very large improvement in terms of administrative simplification. The greater autonomy for the municipalities, the shorter decision-making deadlines and the net trade area as the only criterion are, according to him, very positive elements in this new law. Also Ms. De Meyer finds some positive elements back in the design. However, it expresses a concern with regard to the authority conferred on the College of Mayors and Schepenen, as regards the establishments with an area between 400 and 1 000 m2 . Collega Schoofs may find himself in the design, but believes that one should not harm retailers in the face of the large store chains.

Ms. Peters is not in favour of this law. They fear that this law will be detrimental to retailers. Therefore, it advocates for the strengthening of neighborhood shops and urban trading centers. It is in favor of a regionalization of the licensing policy.

Ms. Muriel Gerkens is of the opinion that the diversity of trade affairs should be preserved and that the existence of neighboring shops should be ⁇ ined. It is a good thing for the municipalities to have more autonomy. Their

Several members submitted amendments in the article-by-article discussion.

During the plenary session of 8 July, it was decided to send the draft law again to the committee to discuss a number of new amendments. This discussion took place last Wednesday and the entire amended bill was adopted with nine votes for and three votes against.

In the general discussion are included: Mr Lenssen, Mrs Pieters, Mr Bacquelaine, Mr Schoofs and Mrs Gerkens.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, today we are talking about a new law that is actually a replacement of the old law on commercial establishments of 1975, which was later amended in 1976. We believe that this law is urgently needed to be revised, because this law no longer meets the current commercial needs and ⁇ no longer meets the current consumption pattern. Contrary to what some argue, this law in the past has led to the emptying of city centers. So it is not that the previous law protected the city nuclei and the current law would promote this emptying of the city nuclei. On the contrary even. This law has many advantages. I would like to summarize them in four different points.

First, there is more transparency and clarity. Secondly, shorter, but above all, stricter deadlines are applied. Third, this law provides greater legal certainty. Fourth, we will have greater autonomy for the municipalities.

First of all, I want to talk about transparency and clarity. In the past, it was traded in gross surfaces, which often led to confusion. Now we have clearly opted for net surfaces. The net sales area now counts as the only criterion. In the absence of a decision of a college, a silent authorisation is granted if no response is given within the allowed deadlines. This also creates clarity for the applicant.

In the past, the territory was divided into different zones—zone 1, zone 2, and so on—all with different applications. This was also not good for transparency. Now it has been decided to eliminate those zones for all surfaces. All applications are subject to the same criteria, whether they are located in the centre or outside the centre.

Also here is a simplified procedure provided for expansions which, first, do not exceed 20% of the originally granted grant, with a maximum of 300 square meters and, secondly, for movements within the municipality if it takes place within a radius of 1,000 meters. For this, only a simple statement must be delivered to the College of Mayor and Creators. This is enough to be able to carry out this extension or relocation.

Second, there are shorter and stricter deadlines. It is also very important for the investor that he knows clearly how to plan his investments. If he submits an application and no specific authorisation is granted — if there is a lack of decision — he still receives an authorisation. He thus knows perfectly when he can start with his investment and when he can get his license or not.

Third, there is greater legal certainty. In the existing law, no appeal procedure was possible if there was a negative decision of the Social and Economic Committee. Well, colleague Lano, colleague Van Campenhout and myself at the time submitted a proposal in which we requested to make an appeal procedure possible in the existing law, but since this law has already provided for this, our proposal has actually become without object and we have naturally withdrawn our proposal. Today, therefore, an appeal is possible at any time, even if there is a negative decision. Eventually, the interministerial committee will take a decision.

Fourth, the autonomy of the municipalities. The municipal governments are obliged to report to the voter for the six years and will at this point ⁇ take into account the voter, as well as the local middle-state. The municipal governments will try to avoid making decisions that are detrimental to their own middle-state and can cause an emptiness of the city centers. On the contrary, the municipalities will ensure that city nuclei are strengthened and no hasty decisions are made that are bad for the development of their own municipality.

On this point, the VLD has full confidence in the responsibility given to the municipalities. We will ensure that they adapt to the structural plans that will be drawn up. By 2007 each municipality must have drawn up a structural plan. There are areas reserved for small trade zones. It will only allow new investments in the zones recognized as small trade zones. The autonomy of the municipalities will, in my opinion, lead to greater responsibility. However, we cannot help but conclude that because of the current law, very strange things have happened in the border areas. Belgium is a large border area. We have competition across borders. Everywhere in the periphery of our country, large chains arise that as if attack the purchasing power of our Belgian consumers. A lot of Belgians buy abroad and are helped by foreign workers.

With the new law, the VLD aims to give the independent entrepreneur the opportunity to grow, be dynamic and defend itself against foreign competitiveness and large chains. A self-employed entrepreneur who can grow and specialize is much better armed, even against the big chains.

It is claimed that this new law benefits the large chains. Most of the files that were rejected in the past were all related to companies who wanted to expand but were hindered in doing so. With this new law, we want to give the companies impact power and opportunity for growth and specialization. In this way, we contribute to the growth of employment.

We must ensure that the purchase flow from Belgium to abroad can be reversed and the foreign consumer is motivated to buy in our country. Everybody knows the situation of Courtois. The city center of Kortrijk has been almost completely empty as a result of the developments in Rijsel. We see the same in other border areas.

For the VLD, it is clear that this trend must be stopped. With this new law, we offer our own entrepreneurs and traders the opportunity to arm themselves against this trend. We are strong supporters of this law and will fully approve it.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the CD&V can agree with some of Mr. Lenssen’s statements. The CD&V is also in favour of a simplified procedure. However, the report clearly shows that we do not agree at all with the VLD position on a number of other points.

There has already been a lot of work to be done regarding the law on large trade installations. This law is not dated April 21, but from the previous legislature.

I would like to start with the following. This law was on the agenda of the plenary session last week. Because of circumstances — I don’t know if I should take this word into my mouth — because of the government’s applause of amendments, that discussion could not take place. That Thursday morning I woke up with a press quote: "This government is distinguished by lack of perseverance and technicality." These are just the two things, lack of persistence and lack of technique, which are characteristic of this bill.

First of all, I discuss the lack of persistence.

In fact, the bill was submitted in the previous legislature by the then Minister of Economy, Mr. Charles Picqué. That design has been hanging here for a long time and many hearings took place. There was no vote because the Minister also had come to the conclusion that the bill was not the best draft submitted to the House. Subsequently, the draft law was re-elected and it was scheduled on 21 April, the moment it entered the House, that is, four months ago. The draft law has thus taken four months in the committee for business. We could treat it especially hard because of the absence of the majority, sometimes because of the absence of the minister or because the minister could not stay later than 17:00. So it is just pushed on the long track, until suddenly last week Tuesday, on July 6, 2004, the draft law over water came against all agreements. The agenda included questions, interpellations and the draft law on copyright. The bill was placed on the agenda between the questions. Allow me to say it: with incredible arrogance, the VLD faction, followed by the rest of the majority, has pushed it through. None of us had any documents. The State Council’s criticism of an amendment submitted by Mr. Lenssen to provide a solution for the area of more than 2,000 square meters was not taken into account at all. The State Council did not approve this. We could have sought another solution to address that serious problem, but that was impossible because we were convoided without solutions, without documents, and without knowledge of what was on the agenda.

Finally, knowing well that at the Flemish Formation Council, where VLD, sp.a and CD&V are together at the table, the question of regionalization of large commercial installations has been included and knowing that that demand until now is still on the Flemish formation note and is actually acquired, the majority allows itself to put that bill on the agenda and move on to the agenda of the day.

We can only ask ourselves what lies behind this. For me, it has become clear that no one less than Prime Minister Verhofstadt himself is behind this. He is close friends with the boss of Décathlon Mr. Hanot.

The [...]

Mr. Lano, Mr. Georges Hanot of Décathlon wrote a letter to Mr. Guy Verhofstadt on 16 March 2003: "Dear Mr., Dear Guy." I will not read that letter entirely, but I would like to quote from it: "Amendment Act on the Commercial Establishments 1975. I am writing to you in connection with the bill amending the old law on commercial establishments from '75. It is known that the law severely impedes the establishment of large shopping companies. Facilities that, however, can create a bunch of new jobs. After months of discussions in the Parliament’s committee, this draft new law on commercial establishments has still not been approved. You understand that it is very difficult for a company like Décathlon and other colleagues in wholesale distribution to work with a socio-economic committee that arbitrarily and opaquely judges files. Décathlon has a program to develop 20 to 25 stores that could create 4,000 jobs over a five-year period, but the headquarters in France can’t wait and wants to see progress.”

It continues: “I would therefore strongly urge you to use your influence to speed up the work in the Parliament’s committee. Currently, the influence of municipalities, decision-making procedures, the role of the socio-economic committee for distribution, appeals in case of rejection of the file and so on are being debated. If one continues this way, the law cannot be passed before the elections of 18 May. You understand my disappointment over the work done so far and I would therefore strongly urge that this law be corrected and adjusted before Parliament will be dissolved, this is early April. Otherwise, the whole threatens to be lost back in new government negotiations and these committees. If you want, I am, of course, willing to give you personal explanation about this." Signed Georges Hanot, Delegated Director.

The second thing for which I am convinced that the prime minister himself is behind it is a dossier, drawn up by Décathlon to Techsys Consulting, to Alain Mahot and Michel Decat, drawn up in Brussels on 24 July 2001, with a new version of a bill draft in which the last page is forwarded for comment to the VLDdienst. I do not know whether the SPA or the PS are involved in this, but this is unilateral towards VLD from two angles. Therefore, I am convinced that Verhofstadt itself is behind it.

A second point that makes our eyebrows frons and makes us say that this file is not Kosjer, is that it was sold to Ikea. It is clear that the ships of Gent here do not take a leaf for mouth. He clearly declares that it is thanks to his good friend and his neighbor Guy Verhofstadt that Ikea comes there and that in compensation a park will be erected at Flanders Expo.

Why does Verhofstadt do that? Why is he putting pressure here? Tomorrow — but today it will be too late here — the Senate will be summoned to get this bill pushed through the throat, in order to get it approved before the recess in the Senate. Does Verhofstadt think that in September or October, when the work is resumed, he will no longer be able to print the bill through it? Is he afraid of that? This spectacle, which has been performed in the last few weeks, smells strongly — I use the words of Mr. Tant, in the committee — bribery. This was clearly stated in the committee. Then we heard thunder, thunder and thunder on the banks of the VLD, but no objection.

I want to answer courteously and serenely. I have doubts about the use of the word mutilation. You should not blame anyone if there is no evidence.

I have evidence. I mentioned them. I presented them. They lie here. A study ordered by Décathlon.

I would be more cautious in your place.

As this is being discussed again, I would like to say the following.

I have very strongly and consciously used the words political bribery for the following reasons. Media and statements from some Gent prominent figures have sufficiently demonstrated that Ikea has an explicit commitment to establish a recreational park in Gent as compensation for the opportunity offered to establish a new Ikea establishment. Colleagues, you can blame some words, but I find no other than to say that here a deal has been made in which one has committed to compensate for the timely preparation and approval of the bill. I can’t think of other words for this than political ruin. I do not say that the Prime Minister has an advantage in this, nor do I claim the opposite. It is strange, however, when a city is rewarded for the fact that Parliament approves a text in seven hurry and under personal pressure from the Prime Minister.

The [...]

You will definitely read the newspaper too!

Mr. Tommelein, you will have the word later.

Mr. Speaker, that one may have the statement on the following of Mr. Termont, ships of the city of Ghent!

Mr Tommelein, you have the word for a short interruption. Then Mr. Tante and then Mrs. Pieters continues.

Mr. Tant, when you use the words “political bribery” – I agree with what colleague Lano said – for things you take out of the newspaper, then those are heavy words, Mr. Tant. I think you currently do not have any, but therefore no evidence to accuse individuals here of bribery. I find this unheard of.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of what Ms. Pieters is saying and in the light of the abnormal way in which the procedure has ultimately been handled, I just want to hear the VLD’s response in this round of boxing. Please give the arguments against. The suspicion is indeed awakened. This will be interpreted in many places. I’m not saying it’s really about evidence, but the suspicions are indeed. You have no way to refute it. I will return to this later in my speech.

I am actually surprised and upset by the way our schizophrenic country reacts to brilliant ideas that have emerged elsewhere. What is wrong with the fact that IKEA establishes itself and develops a good idea? Similar initiatives already exist. What do you have against Décathlon, which has a good idea? Do you have any good ideas, Madame? Look at Brantano, a group that has established itself in Belgium and is successful? Are you against it? You can’t have a contradictory discourse, right? On the one hand, you are partisan of the expansion of new forms of distribution, which can also be discussed, and on the other hand, you break them down! This is not possible, Mrs. That is schizophrenia.

You said this afternoon that on this side of the hall we are all "minable". We have well understood this.

In addition, you should not anticipate my argument. That will come later. We will then show what happened to employment in the various files, at Brantano and other major Belgian distribution cases. But you are running before me. You will hear it later.

Mrs. Pieters, if you accuse the decline in employment in the past, you must take into account that this has happened by the previous grendel law.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will return to this later. I am just on page two of my presentation.

Let Mrs. Peters finish her reasoning.

You list the causes of problems that this law can do nothing to address!

I’ve used the words “not koosjer” and I hear that nobody refutes. Your ships himself from Gent, Mr. Termont, tells it everywhere.

He can no longer even keep silent about it.

( ... )

It is a Gent’s underdog.

( ... )

Mr. Tommelein, you are not here in a bar in Oostende. Sometimes you make me believe you are in a bar in Oostende.

We will no longer address Mr. Tommelein personally. We will send him a few postcards. He understands that better.

That will be the last of me too. With all that lack of perseverance, which was the first leak of my discourse, we would forget to come to the essence of the bill. The purpose of the many amendments we have submitted is to try to break down the bill and primarily to improve the gaps in it. In fact, Mr Hove’s report made it clear that all speakers in the hearings had a lot of concerns about the bill. They have taught us that this law leaves technical desire. Now I want to talk about this technique. In the previous legislature, Mr. Picqué submitted the bill. It was removed after devastating hearings. It was re-established in Gembloux by Mrs. Moerman, with a few minor changes. It was to be seen in Gembloux’s Objective 200,000: “Employment, Employment, Employment,” or “Work, Work, Work,” what was it? Together with the historical social status of the self-employed, which eventually became a ministry status, SMEs and small distribution firms would be hit. We will talk about this employment later.

Second, it is clearly a purple file. Socialists and liberals have gathered here, while Christian Democrats and Greens are against the bill. Socialists and liberals have therefore made it clear that they pay less attention to the problem of the small self-employed and the many SMEs in our country. For the liberals, I find it incomprehensible that they are involved in this and that they have not taken better care of their clientele and backbone. This law is another blow to their backbone. Mr Lenssen can then say that the border municipalities felt good that the foreign companies would be attracted, because it would increase employment. I have my doubts about this.

Finally, you have quoted Courtois.

Can I tell you that the middle state of Kortrijk is reviving and this is thanks to a successful mayor who invests enormously in it and creates enormously many new projects for the inner city? This is not done by wholesale plantations on the outskirts of the city.

I want to talk about employment.

It is a little heavy on the stomach that one always gives examples that are actually symptomatic and irritate the small self-employed as it were. I would like to give here dozens of examples of successful companies in the distribution of furniture, Flemish ⁇ that have not been able to expand in Belgium and who have established themselves in Japan. I quote Gaverview from Deerlijk which could not expand. They went to Wallonia because there was no place in Flanders. Do we want to cut down on our own business? Do we want to go so far that the specialized distribution has no more opportunities? Does one dare to engage in that debate, instead of focusing on some cases that may appeal to the people, but do not reflect the totality of the truth? (Applause of Applause)

I let you applaud. I suppose you also received the letter from Febelhout?

Mr Lano speaks of a distribution company that apparently had the choice to establish its distribution establishment in either Flanders or Japan. I think this is quite strange. The problem that arises here is the choice between branches in the inner cities or in the outer areas. That is the big problem: the threat of the cities! The cities are faced with all those peripheral developments, that developments in the peripheral municipalities, causing them to lose their attractiveness. This is one of the big problems. Making the facilities for the establishment of such large sales areas too easy and not incorporating them into a whole policy is a mistake.

On the problem that Mr. Lano raises in connection with employment, we will talk about it later.

It is clear that this was chosen for wholesale distribution rather than for the center store and for the strengthening of the center cities. If Guy Verhofstadt or the majority make efforts to bring Ikea, Carrefour and Décathlon to this country—they are, of course, already there and will come here in even greater numbers with the new law—then it may be...

Mr. Tommelein, when you stand here, you speak. If you want to interrupt, ask for it! The same applies to Mr. Tante.

When one makes an effort to let the wholesale distribution, I have just mentioned them, come here unbroken, then the majority, which makes a point of the knowledge economy, would actually have to bring the logistics of all those companies here, Mr. Lano. Brantano has a Belgian logistics, but Décathlon has a special large logistics. A thousand people work in the design and innovation of Décathlon in Villeneuve d'Asc. The same goes for Carrefour, and for Ikea in Sweden. Why hasn’t one tried to bring design and innovation here? Why try to bring only the products and sales here?

You have your mouths full of a knowledge society. The model state must become a knowledge society. Here you have left an important asset by not negotiating the design and product development centers, which accompany the wholesale distribution brought here.

Ms. Pieters, you focus only on Ikea and Décathlon, but do you know that the vast majority of the rejected files in the recent past were self-employed who wanted to expand? In the end, it is only about two large chains. The rest are self-employed persons who have not been granted expansion opportunities. We will come up for them.

Now I want to see the evidence. Which self-employed expansions have been refused? I thought you’d say it’s not about Décathlon and Ikea, but mainly about Carrefour. Carrefour will be the big winner. There are ⁇ sixty new establishments in Belgium, with surfaces ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 m2. Moreover, we have heard the response, Unizo has addressed you all months ago; the party chairs, the members of the committee and the various political groups. Unizo has obtained from those groups that the law would not be encrypted if a number of conditions were not met. First, they have asked the municipal governments not to let them decide autonomously. Second, they have explicitly requested that an inventory be made of the various locations with the various branches.

One should not be frightened when Unizo spreads a communiqué stating that the various partners who approve this bill in the House are committing word breaking. This is the least that can be said. The communique says the following: "Unizo on approval in Chamber Committee bill draft large commercial establishments. However, Prime Minister Verhofstadt, as well as the party chairs of the Flemish parties, had formally committed themselves just before the elections to adjust the bill so that the municipal governments for large shopping projects from 2,000m2 no longer could make the final decision on a permit. This commitment is not being fulfilled now. Thus, the majority chooses the lobby of a number of large, often international groups, and this," Unizo emphasizes, "to the detriment of the independent distribution". They take the word "wordbreaking" in their mouth here.

I wonder where is the credibility of this government? We have also experienced this in the previous elections with the hot dog debate. If it knows pertinently that the bill must pass, why does the majority then sign such letters? I am seriously concerned about the reliability of this majority and I wonder what awaits us in the future.

The fourth point relates to technology. Everyone supports the regionalization of the law. This idea is not of yesterday, which has lived for years at CD&V and also at Unizo. I repeat that this is included in the note of the formator and that it has been approved to this day by the parties negotiating at the Flemish table. Hic et nunc is approved in the Flemish Government Agreement. You may be able to erase this tonight, if you will give an agreement in your congress, but hic et nunc has been agreed by the partners. Then say that this may take another three years and that this cannot wait three years, well, we have been waiting for four years for a solid design from the majority.

The [...]

That song has almost been sung. I just wanted to ask if the partners of your parties sitting on the other side are air for you. Are you still taking that into account?

The [...]

What do you say? You have nothing to tell me. Look in my eyes and say it honestly.

I say, “You have to say that!”

Your colleagues have this...

We do not have a translation service for this.

Mrs. Pieters, you do not need to be constantly personal. Stay with the file.

I would like to conclude the fifth point. For us, the following is clear. When you need us—whether in September, October, January 2005 or January 2006—that law is wiped out by us. The law comes from the table. You can take poison. It is being revised.

The goal is to create 200,000 new workplaces. In this context, the law on the large commercial installations. The prime minister announced after Gembloers — in Petit-Leez or Grand-Leez — that the revision of the rejected applications from 2000, would create 5,500 new jobs. Research shows that there is no certainty and certainty that there are not 5.500, but a maximum of 3.062 promised on paper. We learned from the Minister that the files that are submitted again will be handled in accordance with the new law. Well, the applicants from the past are still interested; are those companies still there and are they still able to submit a file? Then, in any case, it will go according to the new law and in any case, there will be no 5,500 new jobs created.

Mr. Lano, there was a busy letter exchange about this dossier. I suppose that you, who are well placed in the business, have received the letter from Febelhout, in which it is very explicitly stated that the furniture sector — among other things Gaverzicht, but that produces not so much: it has here rather sales points — and especially the companies established here in our country, in terms of employment and production, will unnamely suffer from the contribution of all the Ikea mastodons. Have you heard Weba? Weba, the production company in Flanders that makes furniture similar to Ikea. Have they not told you that they are afraid that they should close their doors in this land? Well, if that is the net creation of employment, then I apply, then I do not participate anymore. It will have a negative effect. This will result in job losses in the industry. Febelhout has dedicated pages to it. I will not read them. I read them in the committee, but you did not respond. Now you can react again. In any case, it will have a negative employment effect.

Mrs. Pieters, your 30-minute speech time has already been exceeded a little. I leave Mr Lano to reply briefly and then I ask you to conclude your argument.

Mr. Speaker, it is our fault. We will listen attentively to Mrs. Pieters and I will not interrupt her anymore.

In any case, it sounds sad to me, because some people — and others here in the hall together with them — mean the right thing and want to address this matter neutrally and objectively, while one is not willing to seek a real solution.

I think Mrs. Peters goes a little further. I do not dare to use the word poujadism, but her language use goes in that direction. However, the debate on Febelhout that it concerns — I want to talk about it for hours — has nothing to do with this law. Febelhout warns of shifts in distribution and production. Where production shifts, distribution follows. This, therefore, has to do with completely different phenomena than those of the grendel law or its replacement. Mr. Pieters, it has to do with the WTO agreements and world trade. If you want to blow it up, I’m fine, but that’s another debate that doesn’t come up here. Febelhout has indeed been quite radical, but FEDIS, which is much larger and represents 200,000 points, has drawn up a much more moderate report. I hope we can stay calm and balanced.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we can, of course, try to make a judgment based on hypotheses and figures that sometimes contradict each other. However, I remember one thing, in particular that the sector of self-employed, small and medium-sized enterprises is really concerned about the bill. This cannot be overcome. These are the signals you and I receive.

We make a choice here. We take an option in favour of wholesale distribution and – one cannot be said without the other – we leave the protection of self-employed and small and medium-sized enterprises a lot behind us. We indeed choose another solution. That is the reason.

Mr. Lenssen, you don’t have to cry that way. The truth will pursue you. You will experience in those circles how your policy is assessed at that point. I already refer to some reactions today in the media and so on.

Second, Mrs. Pieters is absolutely right when she says you should look a little further than your nose is long. For example, Ikea is merely selling. Production takes place elsewhere. More than half of the products sold there are produced in low-wage countries. The socialists who will approve this text and who continually believe that they should be the great guardians and protectors of our social security system should actually know that by approving this they are actually making a direct attack on the survival of that social security. However, this is silently silenced. Their

Mr. Speaker, I am joining together. Colleagues, one can not otherwise, even on the VLD banks, then say that one moves at least accents. They shift the protection. It makes it easier for wholesale distributors to establish themselves and thus compete with the small ⁇ away from the market. They just do it. Cynically and purely opportunistically, I would say keep going. The account will be presented to you. You are ⁇ short-sighted if you forget that in the furniture sector a good portion of what is sold in those SMEs is also produced there. All of you are doing that. I think it’s a fantastic choice you made.

Mr. President, Mrs. Pieters, I found your explanation very logical. The purpose of the bill is to create more jobs, but we note that in terms of distribution in terms of jobs there is a shift from small distribution to large distribution. Net there is no job gain, only a shift. Their

Mr. Pieters, with your explanation it is clear that in terms of production this will lead to a loss of jobs as there will be a shift from production abroad. That explanation was very logical.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with what Mr. Tant just said about the shift in production. Mrs. De Meyer, do you know that the sports clothes that Décathlon sells in the various branches are entirely manufactured in China, that none of them are manufactured on site? It is all produced in low-wage countries. I just told you that the most regrettable thing about all that law is that one has not tried to get the know-how, to the design and product development, to get the knowledge that is in that company here through highly qualified employees, then I regret that the more.

I come to my decision. I said at the beginning of my presentation that there is a complete lack of persistence and technique. I did not invent it myself. The newspapers told me that. Their

I want to prove that this law is not applicable. The ultimate decision-making power, colleagues, lies with the municipalities. Then you can still advocate for the autonomy of the municipalities, but the municipalities today are not equipped to make such decisions. When such companies come here, the easiest thing for them is to choose a small municipality to print their file through. The municipalities have no framework; the municipalities still have no spatial structural plans and there is the far-reaching impact on the environment and on the surrounding municipalities. Aside from the fact that, thanks to Ms. Gerkens, they can look at the file in the municipalities where the file is being handled, I am convinced that the municipalities today do not have the capacity to take advantage of that power.

It seems to be a simplification, but the easing that is recorded in the law de facto just releases all the brakes and politicization is embedded in the new regulation. We are 100% convinced of this. The composition of the committees can only lead to this.

Mr. Lenssen says the deadlines are getting shorter. Indeed, I will consider it an improvement that the deadlines are getting shorter, but how many people have said in the hearing that those deadlines are not feasible? Can you impose a term of twenty days on a municipality, province or committee? It sometimes takes five to six days before the letters are opened in the municipalities. You cannot accomplish that.

Finally, we have been advocating for years that it would be linked to an urban planning permit, that the jurisdiction would be regionalized and that environmental permits, urban planning applications and socio-economic permits would become one package. That would make things easier, but that would indeed require a regionalization. You are behind it in Flanders, but here you will boycott it.

Finally, there is the serious criticism of the State Council. Apparently you have taken into account the State Council’s criticism of your amendment, but the State Council’s thorough criticism of the silent fictitious license is not taken into account.

I come — for the second time, Mr. Speaker — to my decision. The government is lacking in persistence and technique. The government lacks vision. I do not care, but no amendment was accepted from me. You do whatever you want, but I will submit them one by one again. Then you can still have the pleasure of voting one by one.

I regret, however, that the majority printed the text in the committee in an arrogant manner and, after Mr Lenssen, displayed a complete silence. No substantive comments were made and no amendments were submitted. I cannot imagine that when we were part of the majority, we never had amendments to majority bills. I call it slave and cruel. The word that Unizo takes in his mouth, word breaking, is right. You have been notified. If you appeal to us, we will revise the law.

It is a bad law, full of anomalies. You do not want to see it and do not want to hear it! CD&V is waiting for the program law. At that point, we will have to establish that the correction comes many months later.

I wonder what the citizen thinks about it and, above all, colleagues of the VLD, what the middle class thinks about it!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

First, I heard Mrs. Pieters and Mr. Talk about “political corruption.” I know that in all matters, we must let the orphans speak, but I will simply remind that the history of Belgium is filled with collusions between the CVP, which became CD&V, and major economic and social organizations. I could give a number of examples on this subject, but this is not the debate.

Second, I am struck, if not astonished, by the contempt displayed by Ms. Pieters towards the communes and municipal authorities. Per ⁇ Ms. Pieters knows better about the municipalities managed by CD&V. It may therefore have good reasons to think that they are unable to take responsibilities. For my part, I would say that, for many municipalists, this law is a real oxygen blow, a call to responsibility and that responsible municipalists are ready to take their responsibilities.

This chain law of 1975 proved to be quite harmful to all commercial establishments in our country and to allow for a good arrangement of the territory. I will recall that it is since this law that the cities have been empty of their commercial structures, that the periphery has sometimes prevented the development of cities and urban centers. There are therefore all the reasons to rejoice over the revision of this law and to get out of the arbitrary that has prevailed for so many years. Let us also come out of the opacity that has reigned on the socio-economic fabric for so many years and which has made that ultimately no one took responsibility in the matter, that no one knew who really decided. Everyone knows in their area more than one example, about which one can question the rule of law. It is time to review this legislation. This revision of the law will get us out of the opacity, of the occult networks that decided very often in the matter and will give a greater share of responsibility to communes and municipalities. This seems to me quite logical when one knows the link that unites all commercial settlements and the good landscape. by

This is typically a matter that must return to the communes, as part of the organization of their territory and the daily life of people concerned by commercial settlements, as well as by the maintenance of small merchants in their municipality. I know that, for many, municipalists are the lawyers of the associations of merchants and self-employed in their municipality: they will therefore know how to take their responsibilities in this regard.

I know that they will also know how to give the possibility to these small merchants, to these self-employed, to see sometimes further, to expand their commercial activity, which will enable each to develop and develop the economic activity in its sphere of distribution or commercial activity.

Getting out of opacity, getting out of arbitrary, giving more powers to municipalities, this seems to me to be the framework of the bill we are going to vote today. I believe that the councillors and municipal councils will be able to take their responsibilities in this matter.

I would like to remind you that the law that we are proposing today provides for a possibility of appeal. This was not always the case before, far from there. Many decisions have been taken against the opinion of colleges and municipal councils, against the opinion of local associations of merchants and this, on multiple occasions. We now have an opportunity, for everyone, to express their rights in matters of appeal, to be heard and to see their opinion taken into account before the municipality, the college and the mayor actually give their permission in matters of settlement.

The four-year deadline in terms of authorisation may be a bit long. I wish it was shorter. Indeed, if, for example, the person who applied for the authorisation does not make his investment immediately, the municipalities may have land unused for a certain time. There might be stuff to review things, but I always say that the best way to prevent a project from being accomplished is to require it to be perfect. This may not be the case, but it is a big step forward compared to the situation we knew before.

Mr. Minister, the MR group will vote on this project because it offers more transparency in the matter and it also allows for a real simplification.

Mr. Bacquelaine, I have a pertinent question for you. Mr Jeholet attended the discussions in the committee. He submitted a bunch of amendments because he did not agree with the law. None of his amendments were rejected by the members of your group. We have encouraged ourselves to adopt some of those amendments.

Why did your group not further defend Mr Jeholet’s amendments?

Moreover, Mr. Jeholet personally entrusted me that he did not like that law.

Mrs. Peters, you do not have to convince me in this regard. I know that we have actually submitted a number of amendments because we think — I just said it — that this text is not perfect, that it can still be improved. But, fundamentally, the framework of the project seems to us correct, in the sense that it aims at administrative simplification, greater transparency, a strengthening of the capacity of economic initiative of self-employed and merchants in our cities.

Overall, I think this is a progression compared to the situation we knew before. I am pleased that the government allows us to take a decision on this project.

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing you. The clearest proof that the law is being pushed by the throat of Parliament is that the MR does not even dare to hold on to his amendments. The law had to be approved.

Mr. Speaker, I remember from the previous speaker that he congratulated the government on half the work it has actually done because Mr. Jeholet’s amendments indeed, as colleague Pieters noted, indeed brought a number of amendments that can be called fundamental. The previous speaker congratulated the government with half work. One has to do it.

To begin my discussion with an anecdote, Mr. Chairman: "Georges, we are going to vote," so it sounded at the final vote, the vote as a whole in the committee from the VLD group. Collega Lenssen was already calling with his GSM and almost ran out of the room. He apparently forgot to vote. I still wonder if it might have been with the great leader of the 16 that he wanted to report the bad news. You don’t have to talk about it if it was someone else, colleague Lenssen. You should not feel immediately addressed by it. I had the impression that he was already calling Verhofstadt to say it was because of it. The VLD colleagues said, “Georges, we’re going to vote,” but in fact they must have shouted, “Georges, we’re going to vote.” The VLD had to vote. Mr Lenssen had to withdraw the amendments. He said that in the committee. “I have to withdraw my amendment.” But from whom did he have to withdraw that? The Council of State? No, colleagues, he did not have to withdraw them from the State Council. The Council of State pointed the way and said that, in order to deliver properly legislative work, in order to properly legislate, one must pass a special law. This was apparently not considered by the majority. No, the law had to be voted ne varietur, except for that small amendment that has just been approved at the committee meeting earlier this week. The law must be approved, almost ne varietur, as it was originally submitted. We have not followed the path that the State Council has shown. We have not been able to follow him, and you have not been allowed to follow him. Unfortunately, because the State Council had some sound comments.

Indeed, I do not need the letter of Mr. Hanot of Décathlon, but it remains a striking fact that such letters have been written in the past and that apparently no counter-argument can be developed against such correspondence. Also for me — one can convince me there from the CD&V corner — a number of machinations have been played here, especially when I see how the genesis of this legislative initiative has gone.

With the original text — and I would like to emphasize this, both with regard to the rapporteur, Mr Hove, and with regard to colleague Pieters — the Flemish Blok did not agree. We oppose this original text and therefore we will vote against it today. Collega Pieters had subsequently mentioned that both CD&V and the Greens are opposed to this Ikea law as it is called. Well, the Flemish Bloc also stands opposite, against the text originally submitted and against the text that lies on the table here today and which is almost the same. What we could take part in at some point was, of course, when the hearings were behind and the amendments were submitted. We could go along the road that was then opened.

I had the impression that the comments of the State Council would be taken into account in order to ⁇ regionalization. The State Council spoke as we expected. It was not a quick procedure, but it could still have become an efficient procedure by listening to the comments of the State Council, by submitting amendments that were welcomed by UNIZO and Febelhout. All the work we have done in the committee, all the intense sessions dedicated to it, were all wiped out in a table at a committee meeting. The amendments submitted were wiped off the table. The oral questions and interpellations of the majority were all withdrawn. Suddenly it had to go especially fast. Their

Of course questions arise. Of course, one asks who and what is behind it. The answer is very clear, I think. We should not search further. I will not reopen the discussion about the Sp. aschepene of Gent who proclaim with a loud voice that there will be a large establishment and that legislative law will be applied. Nor will I reopen the discussion about lobbyists found in the corner of companies mentioned today.

This can only be called an oekaze, otherwise I don’t know what I’ve experienced here for the last five years. The oekaze of today can only be because someone at the top wants to hunt it through. After all, all the constructive work is wiped out in a piece of table. I don’t know who else will be able to convince you of the opposite. This has come to the media today. I think everybody is convinced that the parliamentary work was undermined by a heckbijl and that the work of the Parliament was shortened.

On the question of whether we are the highest body in this country, we have no need to set up a tree for a long time. The committee has proved once again that this is not the case. It is a pity, because the regionalization for trade surfaces of more than 2,000 m2 could have taken a different course in Flanders. Then everyone in Flanders, ⁇ even the SMEs, would have seen the legislation with a calmer heart and a calmer mind. Then, at the Flemish level, a policy could be conducted that closely aligns with the SMEs, with the small self-employed, with the small trade nuclei. This is no longer the case.

Indeed, Mr Lenssen, in the course of the discussions I have also said that it is not bad that we anchor the purchasing power in Parliament. However, this was in the perspective that, if Flanders could conduct its own policy, one would think more and closely align with the spirit of retail for the large commercial areas. Furthermore, I suspected at that time—everything pointed out—that the municipalities would no longer be competent either.

This is the second leak. The municipalities now become competent and for 100 or 200 additional jobs, smaller municipalities will sometimes dare to march on the near-command of a large enterprise, whose assets of the local branch alone are often greater than the budget of some of those smaller municipalities.

So it went in the right direction, but at some point everything was wiped off the table. Three group chairmen subsequently presented themselves at the final vote. That is another additional argument to demonstrate that the law should indeed be pursued and that in Flanders no policy could or should be carried out.

Mr Lenssen, I myself have cited the argument of the border regions, such as the border region Kortrijk-Rijsel or the border region Tongeren-Maaseik, which for me is closer to home. As I said, I could go along in the anchoring of purchasing power. However, the cherry on the cake did not come. With the legislation we have now, purchasing power will also decrease in the long term. In fact, I am convinced — I refer to the arguments also cited by Ms. Pieters and Mr. Tant — that purchasing power will decrease in the long term, because employment will not increase at all. It will not be so at all. At most, a shift can take place from the retail to the large distribution. Whether that will generate net jobs, I’m not convinced of that, on the contrary.

From overseas to domestic? I am not so convinced of that. Foreign countries have already been ahead of us on these points. Per ⁇ , and at most, we are coming to the level of abroad. In the long term, however, I fear the loss of jobs rather than the creation of jobs. At some point, in a few municipalities, one will have the impression that a certain number of jobs will be added. However, what is lost in the retail and self-employed sectors will slowly split and evaporate. This will not be determined immediately. However, when the net figures are put side by side, I am convinced that it is not the purchasing power that primes, but employment and that that employment will be brought down.

I have heard Mr. Lano hold an extensive plea. Per ⁇ he did that as a representative of the gild of the small self-employed from West Flanders. To be honest, his argument is not credible to me.

Much has already been said by previous speakers. I suggest that half work is, therefore, bad work. Per ⁇ it will get another tail for the Arbitration Court. I think I know that UNIZO wants to initiate the proceedings because it considers that there has been a breach of word.

I already put the ball in the camp of CD&V who has stated that this law will not come, being sure that it will join the government. If CD&V breaks into the government, I would like the party to keep its word already, because the VLD has once again – not my words but those of UNIZO – committed a word breach.

Hert Vlaams Blok will therefore vote against the draft.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, one thing is mainly in the process of drafting the text of this bill amending the Law on Commercial Settlements. Discussions and work were carried out at the hussard, while already under the previous legislature, there was a bill that resembled this one but was even worse. During the previous legislature, we had months to discuss this. The Ecolo-Agalev group, in particular, had submitted numerous amendments and the discussions initiated at that time could suggest an improvement of the project.

Already under the previous government, the prime minister had insisted that this project be voted quickly, which then failed. This time, we find the same text with some technical improvements, while the context gave hope for interesting and serious discussions, amendments having been submitted both by the opposition and by the majority. We had conducted hearings that highlighted both positive and negative aspects. Everything was in place for an interesting discussion. Now, again, we find ourselves in a situation where it is necessary to adopt a bill by renouncing any improvement, even technical and sometimes legal improvements, to eventually result in a project that convinces no one, even though some feel obliged to say that they will adopt this bill because it represents an advance.

My intervention on the project will be structured as follows. On the one hand, the current law called "cadenas" was not good. It brought about decisions that either did not respect the communes, or resulted in authorizations of which one wondered on what criteria they were based. It had to be modernized, simplified and made more transparent.

In this regard, there was indeed a job to be done.

The bill under discussion contains positive elements, the most important being, in my opinion, the hearing of the parties by the National Committee. I think in particular of the hearing of neighboring municipalities for large-scale commercial settlement projects. The deadlines have been shortened and procedures are also planned to be simplified. All these elements are interesting.

The project presented to us today is mainly the subject of two major criticisms on our part.

1 of 1. It does not sufficiently include, in the criteria, the consideration of the consequences on mobility in the municipality that is the subject of a project of settlement as well as in neighboring municipalities. This element is, in my opinion, catastrophic. The Minister will ⁇ say that, before taking into account the location of the deployment projects, it will necessarily be taken into account the influence on traffic and mobility. I now allow myself to answer him that, for my part, I am not convinced of it. Indeed, nowadays, location is already taken into account, but this does not necessarily imply mobility. This, I repeat, is one of the negative aspects of this project.

2 of 2. If I can accept the fact that more autonomy and more responsibilities are given to municipalities, I share the analysis that all municipalities do not have the possibility to manage files relating to the establishment of ⁇ of 400 to 1,000 m2, which involves a whole series of impacts and economic consequences in terms of competition between ⁇ and on employment. In my opinion, I repeat, not all municipalities have the necessary means to examine these files in depth. It should also be noted that there is competition between municipalities. In addition to the fact that not all of them are able to make decisions in this matter, everyone knows — I am from the Liège region — that some municipalities offer more favourable conditions for a large area that wishes to settle in order to encourage it not to settle on the territory of the neighboring municipality. When the consequences in terms of mobility disturb the latter rather than itself, it is even better.

We know of such phenomena. In a way, it is part of human mechanisms, therefore also political mechanisms. I think that a supra-communal vision is necessary for the correct management of a region and sub-regions, in connection with projects of economic development, in connection with the economic actors present in that territory. This bill gives total autonomy, without having the guarantee that the resources will be given to the communes or ensuring a more comprehensive vision.

For me, these are the most negative elements of this project. At no time was it really possible to deepen the debate because the parliamentarians of the majority withdrew their amendments and the minister refused amendments, except for a small amendment that I introduced – which was reduced to its congruent portion, but I am still satisfied with it – tending to impose, so that neighboring municipalities can request to be heard, that they are informed of the project and that the municipality that introduces the project of installation warns its neighbors of its intention.

Thus, in commission, we found ourselves as two round-of-flanks, without being able to confront our arguments. What annoys me in this debate is that it is said that the old law, called loicadenas, did not help to safeguard the whole of existing small ⁇ , to develop larger commercial structures where it should have been done or, on the contrary, allowed excesses, and that therefore we must stop criticizing the new project put on the table! As if it was forbidden to leave an old project that is no longer good to replace it with a better one. The fact that you oppose a project does not mean that you want to keep the status quo!

I also think that in the reflection and discussion, it would have been interesting to look at things in a deeper and more comprehensive way. Commercial structures and modes of production and consumption are changing. It is true that many small or medium-sized shops are disappearing today, but this is not at all due to the law-cadenas. And there is no other law that can save them. Simply put, some traders may not or may not have the ability to adapt to market changes.

Since we are talking about a law on commercial settlements with the desire to result in a diversified trade tissue, it would have been interesting to wonder what can be done to encourage diversified trade places and to study the possibilities for leading to a policy of development and evolution of commercial practices.

Furthermore, I also do not want to defend 100% all the associations of traders who, sometimes, feel abusively threatened. I saw it recently in Liège. I’m telling this anecdote to prove that I’m not a 100% anti-Decathlon. In a neighborhood abandoned by shops, Decathlon introduced a deployment project. The association of merchants of Liège and the neighborhood opposed it with great virulence, fearing that sports goods stores should close their doors after this installation. In the negotiation, it was highlighted that the target customer base was not the same, that small merchants had the opportunity to orient their trade in a more specific way. In fact, this Decathlon installed in Liège brought life back to the neighborhood and allowed the opening, in the same area, other small shops of horeca type.

I believe that this matter can be approached with an open mind that is not limited to defending the "small" or "big" and wanting to oppose them. It can be viewed from a perspective of commercial diversity. This means – this point is ⁇ important for environmentalists – a diversity of products, a diversity of production modes and a diversity of the quality of products placed on the market.

When I observe how these policies are sometimes managed, I really fear that by privileging the commercial settlements of medium and large surfaces, without taking into account the totality of the territory, we find ourselves with commercial structures draining uniform products — we find the same thing almost in all stores — without taking into account the modes of production and their place of production.

On the one hand, there are rules and resolutions calling for respect for fair trade; there are rules for product qualities and standards. But, on the other hand, it is sometimes facilitated the installation of stores selling products that do not meet these criteria at all but that can be sold cheaper and thus give the illusion that the interests of the consumer are taken into account.

The issue of employment remains a mystery. It is true that a large area necessarily employs more personnel than a small business or a SME. But we also know that when this settlement is bad, without taking into account the commercial structure existing in the municipality and in the neighboring municipalities, conditions are created for other ⁇ or SMEs to close their doors and therefore, effectively, jobs are lost. It is always difficult to know what, in the end, was the most positive. Have jobs been created or eliminated? This reflection must be able to be made for each particular situation. One must be able to determine what kind of needs the existence of a trade meets and what kind of workers are called upon when defending this or that project.

I am ⁇ frustrated with the discussions and the outcome of the work. In fact, I hoped that we could have a real discussion, a real innovation, the real creation of a tool that would have allowed to have a vision of global economic development and that would have integrated the defense of the diversity of places of sale, the diversity and the quality of products, of a management of mobility, of a respect for the quality of life and a maintenance of economic, social and cultural life in the cities and villages because the presence of shops, that is also!

I am all the more frustrated that in Liège, for example, we started a policy on safety in cities from women; merchants tell us that women are the first buyers in shops. All the plans that exist in Europe but also in the United States and Canada to try to create security in cities in a positive way integrate women and merchants, the latter being both actors who can be relays for people who feel insecure, places that create security because they create the passage and life, but also people who, in the evening, when there are no more inhabitants, thanks to their vitrines and their economic lighting, can maintain conviviality and a new insurance in the cities.

That’s all that I wanted to talk about around this bill and that’s all that I was deprived of. by

In conclusion, reflecting on all this, when the government tells us that it can take into account all dimensions of sustainable development without the Greens, I realize that this is not true.

I understand your unspoken wish. Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of speaking anymore. Since some still lied to the sunlight on a clear day about the introduction to the discussion, the submission of the draft, its blurring, the failed first discussion, and so on, I would like to remind you of a few precise facts. Their

The draft is indeed, Mrs. Pieters, hanging in the committee since March of this year. That design has long remained undiscussed for dark reasons. In any case, an initial discussion has taught us that first on the banks of MRcollega's at least there was doubt about the opportunity of the text that prefixed. It was no coincidence that colleague Jeholet, a man who has worked very well in our committee, submitted a series of amendments that advocated legal corrections but in general wanted to direct the spirit, the philosophy of the design. The MR was, in any case, more concerned about the effects of this bill on the large commercial establishments on SMEs and the small self-employed than the VLD. That was the philosophy from which Mr. Jeholet operated, it is a pity that it has not been ⁇ ined. You will not contradict me, colleague De Meyer, if I may address you for a moment, when, listening to your considerations, questions and suggestions, I found at least doubts about the opportunity of this text. Their

In any case, it is true that in the first period, it was not possible to mobilize the political families in sufficient numbers to be able to discuss the text. I would like to remind you that for a long time there was no consensus in the majority to put a hand on the team here. That suddenly changed at some point. Their

That does not go away, I assume, that there is still a lot of restraint, colleagues of the SP. I’m a little less sure about the PS, but I’m sure that’s the case with the MR as well. Their

It will also not be the first time during this legislature that a majority of the majority does not actually agree with the text, but still approves it. There are beautiful examples of that. There is the example, Mr. Speaker, of the electoral legislation, which you had first sworn that it could not pass through the bucket. I am talking about the introduction of provincial electoral districts. When it was on the table here, you approved it, and you also made it very clear that a good portion of the simple members of parliament—which they may be, I don’t know—did not agree but just had to follow the family. Their

Mr. Speaker, it hurts a little to have to hear after the elections how this system really did not virtue in any way. I thought that responsible parliamentarians should also take responsibility for what they decided with, a fortiori for what they approved with. Giving comments afterwards is for in the cafe once things have known their course. But here we have another responsibility. It is my deep conviction, based on very concrete experiences, that even in this case a majority within the majority does not actually agree or at least has doubts. Their

I will not mention the fact — which I must mention necessarily — that this bill was not urgent for the competent minister for a long time. She agreed with the chairman of the committee that the work of the law on copyright would be preferably and priority. For her, this design was not urgent at all. Consequently, as a committee chairman, if I can say it for myself, one should, from time to time, make a number of agreements on the priority of the points to be discussed. Their

A good fourteen days ago, Mr. Speaker, after speaking back with the Minister who had said that for her copyright was an absolute priority, after consulting the committee and having heard that everyone agreed to handle that draft copyright first, we came to the day when that agenda had to be put into practice. Then we had to experience that, indeed, between the soup and the potatoes, between the questions in, suddenly Mr. Lano of the VLD took the floor and said: We necessarily want an agenda change. A good understander, of course, only needs half a word: if the majority wants something, one can try to counter it with substantial arguments, but then one must also make the debate possible.

This debate was not possible in the committee. The text should and should be approved as soon as possible. The original timing was, by the way, that he should be approved here in the plenary session last week and that he should be approved in the Senate this week. The big question is: why suddenly that hurry? Does anyone have an explanation for this? What are the real arguments for this acceleration? It was said in the committee, colleagues, that there was an agreement between the members of the majority of that committee. I am so free to say that this is not true. By the way, when I looked in the eyes of the members of the committees — from the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair of the chair. No one should blame us for asking why it is so. Why has this bill suddenly become so important? I’m not going to spend much more words on that — or actually I have to say: on dirt, for that would be a more appropriate expression in this. Ms. Pieters and Mr. Schoofs have sufficiently cited the real arguments. Among them is Decathlon. This is the author of the text. Do you dare to say that it is not true? The text is from Décathlon. There is no need to lie to the sunlight.

We try to listen to what is said and read what is published. We have heard very accurately how promises were actually made to the city of Ghent by IKEA and how that could the world was done by certain prominent responsible politicians from Ghent. For those who would not know: the prime minister also comes from Gent and the minister almost. She has taken a little more distance in the meantime, but that may be only a temporary phenomenon.

In any case, it is quite recent. By the way, Nazareth is not far from Jerusalem, Mrs. Minister.

The fact is that nothing can be seen besides lobbying. More even, it is claimed to be the reward for a quick passing of the law. Whether you like it or not, I will repeat it. There is only one word for it: to let itself glue, to quote Willem Elsschot.

Then you have to see all the works of Willem Elsschot...

This also belongs. Let yourself glue: you know what that means. A more Flemish expression has been fooled. What makes people cheat and deceive? Through promises! You cannot look beyond that.

Among other things, the VLD banks are asking me to prove my verdict. To be honest, I do not have any written evidence. How could I have them! However, the opposite was also not claimed. I have heard no one explicitly say that it is not true that the reward consists of what IKEA will accomplish in the Gentese countryside. It may be a new initiative to support some local initiatives such as the sports hall and the VZWs that will rub into the hands with the arrival of such new branches. However, this is ignored...

Mr. Speaker, in principle.

Modernizing and simplifying the law seems to me worthwhile. This was also the position of Mrs. Peters.

The question is whether this will be true in the facts. Will the decision-making systems function properly? For this purpose, you have not implemented the guarantees on all points. The opinion of the State Council on the original text was sufficiently clear. You forget that the basis on which the college of mayor and creatures must make the balance of whether or not to allow a settlement was in the original text.

You have subsequently taken them out, you completely wrongly invoking the opinion of the State Council. That appeal to the State Council is wrong because the negative criticism of the State Council did not relate to the arguments, the standards, the weights, the criteria on the basis of which the decision should be taken, but was based on the consideration that there should be no motivation obligation imposed on the colleges, as they already have them. There is a general, legal obligation which requires the municipal bodies, when they make a decision, to also justify it.

Mrs. Minister, you have said – I hope it is so stated in the report, because I have not read it anymore – that in any case the colleges are expected to use the same criteria in the motivation of a decision as those that should be used by the committee, the socio-economic committee, which must issue an opinion on the matter. At least this is not stated in the text.

If it is your sincere opinion, which I would like to take for further order, that the weighing should be done on the basis thereof, what prevents you then, except the stubbornness based on the fact that the amendment of CD&V was, to inscribe that also in the text? You say that it is stated in the law, and more specifically with regard to the text on the socio-economic committee. That is correct.

Most of you have something to do with the local level, the municipal level. You know that some decision-making procedures also need to be consulted. Anyone wishing to obtain a building permit must, in a significant number of cases, especially in an agricultural municipality, obtain a prior consultation from Urban Planning. Urban planning should use fixed criteria in order to establish and deliver that advice to the municipalities. Who dares to assert that the municipalities, in this case the colleges of mayor and creators, must apply the same criteria when they ultimately allow or refuse the building permit?

It is not so. If you want to do so, you must specify it in the text. At that point, you might face a number of surprises. I would like to emphasize that the text is, on other points, of a rather questionable legal quality. Mrs. Pieters, I fear indeed that a few more program laws will be needed to make the necessary technical and other adjustments here and there.

Second, I would like to address in particular the colleagues who are elected in Flanders. I have heard here for fifteen to twenty years that the engine of economic development in Flanders are our SMEs. Not the big companies, but the small and medium-sized enterprises are the engine. Nobody speaks against me. Well, all small and medium-sized enterprises are shown a bad service. You emphasize choosing the large trading establishments, this at the detriment of the smaller ones. Whoever denies this, denies the sunlight.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to reassure you. The approval of that text, assuming that it was also affected by the Senate despite its legal defects, will not, in its final form, cause a massacre. In that you can be reassured. However, it will cause small business and SMEs to disappear here and there at an increased rate. It will hardly be noticed. After all, the people behind it also have the problem of a certain pride. They do not sell their problems and will therefore disappear in silence. That will be the great contribution of those, and I address here in particular to the VLD’s in this assembly, who claim to give the SMEs and the self-employed a warm heart. I wish you a lot of success. However, if you are honest, you can only bear in mind that small and medium-sized enterprises will find it more or less difficult to stand up in the face of the major trade affairs.

Not to mention a few side effects. I do not have to say much more about this. I am quite inclined to believe the people who know the sectors well when it comes to employment because they may know it better or at least better than a parliamentary like me. I assume that if they say something about it, and they did it during the hearing, they know what they are talking about. Their

Mrs. Gerkens, you are absolutely right. We agree on the urban core reinforcement. It is now believed that from the federal and Flemish government a metropolitan policy must be carried out in order to keep the nuclei alive. You can only say that this is entirely contrary. This is called the wait for the trade affairs that are still trying to keep themselves standing in urban agglomerations, or at least make them more difficult. Their

Mr. Gerkens, the problem of mobility has not been discussed here yet, but in the committee. Ladies and gentlemen, you know everything. People are encouraged to return to live in the city. There are good reasons to pursue this type of policy. The attractiveness of the big city is that one has everything at hand there or has it so far. However, I fear that this will be reduced by this law rather than strengthened. Small and medium-sized stores in major cities will have less supply. Mr. De Padt, you say it is not true. It is true. Their

Collega Lenssen has taken the example of Kortrijk to the tone. Mr. Speaker, I have had the advantage of teaching a few years in Kortrijk. I got to know that city. That city has had a very lively not only middle-class life, but also lively "shopping streets" for a while. It was one of the first cities to use this name. The city was full of activity and dynamism. Their

It has become different over the last few years. I hope you can actually turn the tide, Mrs. Pieters. There are conscious efforts to do so. However, the federal government makes the net rather slightly more difficult. If Kortrijk is backward in terms of its shopping street, this is related to the establishment of a number of wholesale stores in the city’s periphery. Mr. Lenssen, that is also related to the establishment of a number of very large wholesale stores, such as Auchan.

The [...]

I come to that. The comparative advantage of, among other things, our wages does not apply to France, where the comparison of the overall wage evolution in recent years is at our disadvantage. And then you pretend, after having determined this, that we will soon be able to cope with the competition better.

A second comment. When it comes to competition, Auchan is an excellent illustration. Some of you may know that storehouse. You pass by when you drive towards the sun. This is a real large commercial establishment that has bled a number of SMEs in the widespread environment. It cannot be brought back now! You do not believe that! If one tries to understand and balance this, one can only say that one touches the soul of a city centre. These are not only the churches and cultural centers, but also the commercial activities. People can meet in a neighborhood store and hear the latest news there. They can also show solidarity with each other. This is a mentality that cannot be found in Auchan. The atmosphere is different there.

You must know this well. I said it in the committee, Mr. Speaker. It is best possible that one acts on this issue while one does not know what the consequences will be. As soon as you realize it, it is too late.

Mr. Speaker, my predecessor Jan Verroken once said in this House — not about these matters, but it is well applied to them — that in a particular issue it will be like a cow with its tail. She knew what he was serving for when she lost him. Once you have determined the effects in the field, the cow will stand without her tail. She will know what he served for, but then it will be too late.

Can you make a decision, Mr. Tante?

I would like to draw your attention to another side effect.

Mr. Lano gave the example of Gaverview. He told Mrs. Pieters that one can find examples of everything, but he did not know that in the meantime he himself was giving the example of Gaverzicht. Gaverzicht is moving to Japan, Mr. Lano said. I have not yet known any SME that could do so. This is actually a good illustration. This is not possible for our SMEs. They remain in place. The potential mobility for a SME, Mr. Lano — you know that very well — is much smaller than for some of our larger trade and craft companies. That is so. With the greatest ease they move from one place to another, because there is no personal capital anchored in it. You are also mistaken on that point.

Finally, I would like to point out the schizophrenia, which is present in this. During one of the first discussions in the committee, Mr. Lenssen submitted an amendment, also signed by almost all political families, ⁇ from the Flemish side. We wanted to regionalize this issue. The Region had to acquire, especially for the major trade establishments, a serious control power. In consultation, the committee then decided to seek the opinion of the Council of State. The State Council has said that this could not be realized through this text, which is of course correct. In fact, it is one of the fixed rules that, within the framework of a ordinary law, an amendment cannot be made to the special law, since it requires a special majority. The State Council’s opinion came back, but just coincided with the moment Mr. Verhofstadt had given his instructions. The amendment was therefore reversed. This is a first determination.

Ms. Pieters, on the other side of the street, as you call it, has already been negotiated in the meantime on the basis of a text, in which the regionalization is registered. Your negotiators may have now — or will do so in the foreseeable future — given their approval to that text. They therefore agree that in the short term, a number of things should be updated in the field of state reform and the division of powers. That is the case, if I hear them speak, because the community problems, of course, they will not be able to shed four years ahead of them. The population would, by the way, especially blame us when all traditional families swear expensive oaths about the fact that everything in the field of state reform and the distribution of powers must be adjusted, and therefore wait four years.

We cannot afford that. So it is ⁇ schizophrenic to quickly withdraw the amendments at the first sign instead of, as we did with an amendment by Ms. Pieters, looking for an alternative track. Everything was immediately stored. This, according to the directive of Verhofstadt, had to be approved now, in the short term, because something was promised to the friends, isn’t it? This is also partly the cause of the incomprehension among the population, with regard to the policy carried out. People don’t understand that they say white here and black on the other side of the street. You’ve all said that people don’t know the difference between those levels. After the election, I have heard that claim everywhere, especially because of the majority. To a large extent, this is true. The question is who is responsible for this. Everything is confused in terms of candidatures and mandates, and so on, and then it is assumed that the voter knows the difference between them. However, I will not extend this further. Their

My question is, why are you in a hurry? There was, however, some time to see whether we could not settle this issue through a transfer of power — which I think is not opposed to south of the language border. What is it that prevents you from going on at that point? Why Why ? You refer to the greater autonomy of the municipalities.

Yes, ⁇ not immediately, but time will do its job and the tooth — with a d behind — much more.

The following is my final observation.

The tooth of time bites the time of speech.

Yes, and especially if one is constantly beaten out of the lead by “backbank” comments. I say back seats.

This topic deserved a better discussion. We could have exchanged thoughts more calmly in the committee, but that was not wanted. This may also be due to the fact that you did not agree. The instructions of the chef, however, are the instructions of the chef and will in any case have the effect that we will again know a legislation with errata. Here and there, some errors, some large or small camels or dromedars, will come to light and there will therefore still be some work at the store. Their

We must not do this to ourselves. I do not want to do anything moralizing or educating, but I find that in this Chamber, in general terms, we have much too little courage to put the text to the ground. We call ourselves the legislators. We have the last word in all circumstances, but where do I make another committee where we support each other to take the text thoroughly through, let alone to analyze? If you are wondering why politics is losing credibility little by little, then not only because of it, but also because of it. That is also your responsibility. There are a number of missed opportunities. In particular, our SMEs and self-employed workers would have earned better. thank you .