Proposition 51K1534

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 25 juin 1993 sur l'exercice d'activités ambulantes et l'organisation des marchés publics.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 23, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

trade regulations trading operation itinerant trade

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Willy Cortois (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Guy Hove (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Georges Lenssen (Open Vld) 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 ¶

March 24, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

( ... ...

Unfortunately, they are unable to join us. This is a case of force majeure. by

In these special circumstances, which no one can foresee, and which constitute an entirely valid excuse, I will ask that Mrs. Ghenne’s report be a written report.

I will call Mrs. Gerkens, who has signed up for the general discussion.

The word is yielded to Mr. Tommelein.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, now is the draft law concerning the exercise of the ambulant trade and the organization of public markets.

This is a dossier with specific characteristics that therefore requires a specific approach and, consequently, specific legislation. To this end, it was opted for a framework law containing the basic principles, to be completed by royal decrees according to the intended objectives. This allows us to respond accurately and quickly to changing conditions that occur in the sector.

Today’s vote on that bill is not a day too early, as the sector is hoping for a new, expanded legislation. In the last decades, we have faced declining figures in terms of sales growth and start-ups. At first, this is surprising, because the public interest increased and there was a need for all kinds of mess markets and brocant markets, local initiatives that look at the regional products, and so on.

This leads us to examine what led to the decline of the sector. The obsolete and strict legislation turned out to be at the bottom of it. By imposing numerous, although well-meaning, conditions and restrictions to prevent abuse and illicit trade, the strap became increasingly tight for the ambulance trade. New opportunities for deployment were not in line with reality or, worse even, the markets were abolished without providing a worthy alternative.

Furthermore, the granting procedure for an authorisation was the delicate point. In order to maintain the sector of the ambulatory trade, which is characterized by its family character, the expansion of a flourishing business was prevented. For example, only the self-employed trader was eligible for obtaining a so-called “lean card” and could employ only a limited number of persons. It goes without saying that this created problems in case of peaks in the high season or in case of illness.

In short, situations arose that do not belong to the modern societal context and that disrupt freedom of enterprise and free trade.

Through the present draft law, the legislation on this subject is modernized, taking into account the situation on the ground, on the one hand, and eased, on the other. In addition, the above situation is dealt with by an expansion of the system. For the sector, the lean card remains of importance, because it represents a recognition of professional competence — to which I will return soon — which nevertheless brings with it some pride.

We must not ignore the fact that in this sector mainly low-skilled people are employed, who must seize the opportunities to create their professional activity with both hands.

The second part of the draft law consists in the inclusion of the kermis output users in the legislation. The industry has long been a demanding party for this. It now provides for a uniform system of allocation of seats on carpets, which is attached to the existing system for market places. The draft law, as originally submitted, provides a new balance between the various actors within the ambulance sector. Both the sedentary merchants, the associations as well as the ambulant merchants, the foorkramers and the local authorities know what to do and what to do. In addition, the consumer interests are also safeguarded.

However, in the draft law — and my group is not satisfied with that at all — an amendment has been adopted which practically prohibits the sale from door to door. As liberals, we have difficulty with this. We understand that there are misleading practices in home-to-home sales that give a misconception of the activity on its own. I have already said in my speech that their card is of great importance. The people who have a lean card work in a correct way and are in order with the social legislation and tax legislation. In this activity the consumer is already very well protected: whoever buys something at home, a product or a service, has the right to refuse to buy. He has seven days to give up if he has purchased a product or service. In addition, the payment — which is all regulated by law — is never made immediately. A purchase is concluded and the trader concerned may not receive cash. He must wait until the sale is finally closed, being after the seven-day withdrawal period.

Dear colleagues, I and my group understand that measures are being taken to protect consumers as best as possible. However, the question remains for a piece where the responsibility of the consumer is. We can continue to invent new rules, new laws that disrupt a particular sector and activity – as I think it is now – and make customers and consumers feel false security. This means that we ruin them so that they no longer have any reflex of responsibility. For an act you make, you are still responsible for yourself.

However, I understand the proposers of the amendment. I understand, Mrs. De Meyer, that you say that there are many misleading practices. Let us go to the core of the matter. In the commission was first proposed to ban home-to-home sales above 100 euros.

The final result is a sale up to 250 euros. That means that all bonafide traders who are okay with everything, sell correctly and arrange everything correctly, which today can no longer, unless - and that is the argument of the submissions of the amendment - the minister permits derogations. At first glance, one could say that is not bad.

Colleagues, let us now put this into practice, we now say that when someone wants to do business, everything is in order, has a scam card and pays his social security contribution and his taxes, he must apply for additional permits and derogations and additional begging to be able to do business, because the product or service he offers exceeds a certain amount. This is contrary to how it should be.

I have submitted a proposal to change that, to say that home-to-home sale remains permitted within the framework of the freedom of enterprise, but that the minister will by royal decree determine which products and services are not intended for home-to-home sale and determine the product and price categories. That seems to be the right path, the right direction. It is no longer about people who are okay with everything and yet need to apply for additional permits. These are people whom we suspect they are engaging in misleading practices with certain products or services. It is about products that we say are not suitable for home-to-home sales, because they are too expensive and because the technical knowledge of the buyers is too limited.

Mr. Minister, I think that is the right path. I still try to persuade my colleagues to replace the amendment prohibiting home-to-home sales above 250 euros d'office. It is not a good way of acting. It creates additional administrative burdens due to additional permits. That is not the right path.

Thanks to the proposal of the Flemish liberals, it can be done much better and more efficiently. A sale up to 250 euros is still allowed. The sale of detergents, soaps or brushing products is still possible, while there are many misleading practices in this sector. Often, 10 to 30 kilograms of soap are sold to people who don’t need them at the moment. With a legally regulated home-to-home sale – which is already well regulated, given the cancellation period and the ban on cash sales – one can indeed let the minister decide for which products home-to-home sale cannot.

In my view, the proposers of the amendment have good intentions which I support. A lot of people work in this sector. In the textile sector alone, there are about 3,000 people who will no longer be able to perform their jobs. I think this is important. I have already pointed out that it is primarily about low-skilled people who, thanks to good commercial qualities and creativity, which is still important in our society, are able to earn their bread in a correct and good way. I find it very difficult that we do not give these people the opportunity to exercise their profession. Maleficent traders will continue to come. This amendment affects the right trader. However, cross-border traders who do not have a leather card and are trying to educate people will continue to come. and concrete. From this speech, I make a call to reflect again, also you, Mrs. Minister, on the step that is taken with this bill. The VLD supports this project. We would not want otherwise. After all, you know very well that it is a draft on which the former minister, now our group chairman, is based. VLD has no problems with the bill which contains a lot of good things. However, the amendment violated the bill. Moreover, it has nothing to do with our original purpose of the design.

The VLD group is debating. You should take your responsibility and seriously consider whether it would be better for us to apply the reverse order instead of making an entire sector unable to further exercise their profession. VLD will wait for the arguments of other colleagues and your response.

There has been a quiproquo.

Despite her condition, Mrs. Ghenne had the kindness to come to join us. She is where duty calls her. But she had already been replaced by Mrs. Pécriaux who came to report it to me while I was looking for Mrs. Ghenne. Can I let Mrs. Percriaux make the report?

Mr. President, you are making an unnecessary turn. As far as I know, Mrs. Pécriaux is the rapporteur on this matter. It would be normal that she speaks here as the rapporteur, not Ms. Ghenne.

My problem is that in my note here Mrs. Ghenne was mentioned for the first time, but that she was replaced by Mrs. Pécriaux in the course of the debate, after her accident. Their

Conclusion: Are you listening to Mrs. Percriaux reporting?

and yes. It is up to him to do it.

On behalf of our group, we wish a quick recovery to Mrs. Ghenne.

If this generous spirit persists during these debates, we will benefit from it.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, we discussed this bill during the meetings of February 22 and March 8, 2005. A proposal by Ms. Pieters to organise hearings was rejected by eight votes against three.

In her introductory presentation presented on 22 February, the Minister of the Middle Class and Agriculture specified that this was a project developed by Minister Daems responsible for these matters during the previous legislature and that executed one of the points of the government statement.

The present project is structured around two main poles: the first aimed at giving the furnace activity a status and a legislative framework, the second aimed at reforming the mobile trade to enable this sector to return to growth. The profession of foreman has evolved sharply in recent years. The administrative framework relating to it remained dated and disparate. The latter could even constitute an obstacle to the proper functioning of the sector, for example, by the uncertainties it left to flourish with regard to the allocation of sites or the transmission of them.

The project aims, at the request of the sector, on the one hand to establish a minimum basis of municipal rules that is common to all trade fair regulations, in order to meet the expectations of the farmers while guaranteeing the autonomy of the municipalities. On the other hand, forensics are endowed with a status equal to that of ambulant merchants and adapted according to the specificities of the profession.

The part of the project dedicated to ambulant trade aims to give the sector the means to overcome the crisis it has experienced for a few years, as evidenced by the figures of renewal of maps and starters cited by the Minister. The analysis of the latter attributes this decline to excessive framework and protectionist veil, at the very moment when this type of activity experiences a regain of interest, as shown by the development of seasonal or regional markets.

The Minister explained that this legislative carcass is ⁇ verified in terms of employment and the scope of activity. In terms of employment, restrictions protecting the sector excluded the use of different statutes, such as the status of assisting spouse or temporary spouse. With regard to the scope of these activities, the new law aims to frame practices that already exist today under a more or less legal coverage. For this project, the Minister intends to provide the sector with a more flexible framework that is compatible with the needs of a modern enterprise, without forgetting the control entrusted to the administration, which will have tools such as the Bank-Carrefour des Entreprises or the DIMONA system.

In order to ⁇ a balance between all stakeholders, this project has been the subject of a very broad consultation. The Minister listened to the representative organizations of walking and sedentary merchants, forensics, municipalities, consumers and the distribution, in particular through the Consumer Council.

As for the form, the choice of the Minister was based on a framework law. According to her, this legislative form is the most suitable and allows to define general principles while guaranteeing the necessary flexibility. The Minister concluded her introductory exhibition with a quick round of the horizon of the ambulant trade sector, insisting on the particular case represented by the brocantes whose framework will need to be specified in a decree. She illustrated this industry overview by giving a few figures, while pointing out that it was difficult to gather relevant, complete and up-to-date numerical data on the sector. For further details, I refer you to the written report. As for the joint bill proposed by Ms. Barzin et consorts, she presented the joint bill that aims to accelerate the procedure for the replacement of a sick or injured employee.

Then we went to the general discussion. On behalf of my group — which I represent here — I approved the approach aimed at providing a clear legislative framework for outbound activities, while pointing out the diversity of them and therefore the difficulty of understanding them all in the same text. The recourse to a framework law is therefore justified here even if it will be necessary to be ⁇ attentive to its implementation through execution orders. Furthermore, I insisted that, in the name of the flexibility necessary for economic activity, consumer protection should not be neglected and the necessary controls should be ensured.

Ms. De Meyer supports this project on behalf of her group, the result of a concertation between the parties. However, she would like to make two comments. The first concerns have been expressed regarding private markets that could constitute unfair competition. Furthermore, Ms. De Meyer expressed her concerns about the practice of some merchants ceding the trading fund without ceding all the locations, the latter being later ceded to others, thereby causing significant imbalances.

De Meyer’s second observation concerns the practice of door-to-door, which often leads to fraudulent practices against which the consumer should be protected. It therefore announces the filing of an amendment aimed at introducing a maximum amount for this type of sale.

Ms. Pieters endorses the administrative simplification brought by this text but makes reservations, in particular with regard to the extension of the scope of activity. It also regrets that a system of authorization ⁇ ined by the law is ⁇ heavy.

After challenging the figures given by the minister, Ms. Pieters read the various opinions relating to the bill, including that of the Consumer Council, the Superior Council of Independents and SMEs and the State Council. She subsequently proposed to the committee to arrange the hearing of certain interested bodies.

by Mr. Lenssen expressed his satisfaction with the project, believing that administrative simplification and consumer protection are very important elements. It withdraws its amendment No. 1, the objective being met through the possibility of derogation provided for in Article 9.

On the door-to-door issue, the VLD group opposes its ban but sees no disadvantage in improving controls in order to avoid abuses.

The President of the Commission, Mr. Paul Tant, then drew the Minister’s attention on the legal implications of the State Council opinion regarding the extremely broad authorizations given to the King by the project, wishing that the Minister should give the commission the explanations regarding the royal decrees. In her responses, the minister said that private markets, which raise some concern, would be framed and controlled as rigorously as others. As regards door-to-door, it stated that it was not opposed to the fixing of a maximum amount in order to increase consumer protection, provided that derogations can be granted to sectors that would need it to operate.

Responding to the concern of the chairman of the committee, the minister specified that it was not possible to submit each draft implementation order to the committee. On the other hand, it accepted the proposal of the President to have a discussion on the general content of the arrests.

For the details of the interventions and for the responses of the Minister, I refer you to the written report.

As for the discussion of articles, some articles have not been discussed or amended. The main amendments and comments will be submitted shortly.

In Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4, we have no amendment or discussion.

In Article 5, it was a legal notice that the Chamber’s services will correct.

No amendment or discussion.

In article 7, the amendment filed by Ms. Pieters aims to oblige the Minister of the Middle Classes to inform the applicant for authorisation of the state of progress of his application, within three months. The Minister does not object to this amendment since the time limit corresponds to the current practice which would therefore be confirmed.

In Article 8, the amendment filed by Ms. De Meyer concerns the sale of door-to-door and aims to protect the consumer against abusive practices, by fixing a ceiling of 100 euros. The Minister does not object to this amendment as long as derogations are possible and the planned ceiling is raised.

If the objective is met, Mr. Lenssen cannot agree with the method, preferring, in turn, a better organization of controls.

Ms. Pieters supports this amendment, pointing out that a ceiling of 250 euros constitutes a maximum. After discussion, Ms. De Meyer introduced a sub-amendment providing for a ceiling of 250 euros. The minister said that some sectors could benefit from derogations granted by royal decree.

Article 9, following the explanations of the Minister, Mr. Lenssen withdrew the filed amendment aimed at excluding occasional non-commercial sales from the law.

Asked by Ms. Pieters whether a derogation could be granted quickly in the event of charitable action, following natural disasters, the minister assured that this was the case. At the request of Ms. Pieters following a concern of the Consumer Council regarding the outbound sale in the premises of another trade, the minister specified that the project merely formalizes the current administrative practice.

Regarding Article 10, Ms. Pieters mentioned the possibility of filing an amendment to allow the King to introduce the sale of certain goods by walking merchants. The Minister explained that its draft envisaged the possibility of prohibiting the sale of certain non-conforming products and agreed to include in the Royal Execution Decree those products whose prohibition would be justified by reasons of public order.

In Article 11, Amendment No. 4 of Ms. Pieters provided for the tax exemption of products for purely charitable purposes. In addition to the fact that there is no tax on these sales, the minister recalled that no law can go against other laws, for example tax laws. The amendment was therefore withdrawn.

Article 12 has not been subject to any amendment or discussion.

In Article 13, two technical amendments were submitted by Ms. Pieters.

In Article 14, a linguistic correction amendment was submitted by Ms. Pieters.

Article 15 has not been the subject of any amendment or discussion.

In Article 16, Mr. Pieters submitted an amendment No. 9 aiming to prevent contracts held on private land from being subject to the rules laid down for other markets. The Minister considered this amendment unnecessary, inasmuch as the current system gives a greater breadth of action to the municipalities, which will be able to adapt their regulations to the circumstances and the local context, in particular in matters of competition, a concern expressed by several members of the commission. On the basis of these explanations, Amendment No. 9 was withdrawn.

Article 17 has not been the subject of any amendment or discussion.

In Article 18, an amendment No. 10 was submitted by Ms. Pieters. This allows municipalities to send their violation minutes both by recommended mail and by recommended e-mail. It was accepted by the Minister.

Articles 19, 20 and 21 have not been amended or discussed.

Article 22 was the subject of an amendment No. 11 of linguistic correction.

Articles 23, 24 and 25 have not been the subject of any amendment or discussion. In Article 26, an amendment No. 12 was deposited by Ms. Pieters to make the entry into force of the law coincide with the publication of the Royal Decrees of Execution, a approach with which the Minister fully agrees. The amendment is therefore withdrawn.

Amendments no. 3, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of Ms. Pieters as well as Amendment no. 2 and Subamendment no. 13 of Ms. De Meyer were adopted.

The bill was adopted unanimously. Consequently, the attached bill amending the law of 25 June 1993 on the exercise of ambulant activity and the organization of public procurement, in order to allow ambulant merchants to hire an interim worker in place of a sick or injured worker, becomes obsolete.

Mr. Speaker, if I want to speak today, it is because I was unfortunately unable to participate in the work of the commission. You cannot be present everywhere and I had to be in another committee at that time.

That said, this bill holds me ⁇ at heart given that, during the previous legislature, I had filed a bill on the markets and on certain specialized markets in early 2001. On this occasion, I had been arrested by the representatives of the forests, by the representatives of the walking merchants of different sectors of activity and by the brocanteurs. I realized that the entire legislation on this subject had to be revised. I had found a very receptive interlocutor within the administration, and I must thank Mr. De Nerinck, who was ⁇ interested and motivated by the modernization of this law. I had the opportunity to work several months with him and with Mrs. Hory from Minister Daems’s office at the time.

This was due to result in the submission of the project in September 2002 since our work had been completed by that date. I was satisfied because I told myself that I had participated in the drafting of a bill that would be brought by the minister and reached the Parliament. Nothing happened at the end, hence my disappointment.

I knew I could trust Mr. From Nerinck as well as the representatives of the forensics, the ambulants and the brocanteurs. Mrs Laruelle thus took the relay and the project that is on the table is actually the result of these consultations and this collective work. So I wasn’t too worried about my absence in the committee because I knew the result would satisfy me.

In relation to the interests in this project, I would like to highlight, through all the meetings I have had the opportunity to organize during these years of work, that the way in which the municipalities would take over or not take over the management of the markets they authorized and the way in which these markets could organize themselves on their territory were ⁇ varied. In some communes, there were excesses that sparked the non-respect of individuals, the non-respect, sometimes, of private life, as well as the vices towards some walkers and some outsiders.

It was therefore important to me that a framework law such as this would allow the legislator to set the rules that the municipalities must observe to grant the places, to properly fix the days, the places, the hours of the markets, so that everyone has access to a market plan, so that there is the possibility to organize specialized markets, whether private or specific to the products sold. All this should be resolved on the basis of objective criteria. It was also necessary that the notice periods and the manner in which the places were put for sale were well organized by an extra-communal instance and that the municipality specifies all these elements in a municipal regulation that can be consulted both by the ambulants, by the sedentary merchants and by the representatives of the municipal administrations.

This is what this project is doing and I look forward to it. by

I also welcome the established concertation mechanism and the regulation submitted to the Minister’s opinion or approval through the administration. This may help municipalities who do not always have the ability to develop these tools.

Furthermore, I also welcome the easing of authorisations – from now on, ambulants will no longer be required to start new procedures every six years – the expansion of staff statutes and the authorisation given to ambulant merchants to hire temporary workers.

Another topic of satisfaction concerns forensics whose status was, until now, not sufficiently recognized. Its integration into this law will guarantee them quality of work, safety, rights and the possibility to benefit from the management in the organization of the feast, as is the case for the markets.

However, one aspect remains to be followed. I think of the brokers and the sale of grinder funds. I must admit that after many years of discussions with the people of the field, I have no ideal solution to offer in this matter. The demand of the brokers is entirely legitimate. The latter, in fact, demand that their independent status be taken into account, the fact that they pay contributions and taxes, that they therefore exercise a real profession. Moreover, it is true that individuals can sell the goods they no longer want, which I am not opposed to. However, it should be noted that some carry out such sales throughout the year. Therefore, it is clear that a parallel trade is being established in full legality.

How can we set limits on this? I remember that in the past, we had tried to limit the number of markets that could be made with a pointing card. It is obvious that this system did not like and that it was complicated to organize. The brokers demanded that the possibility of selling as a non-professional be limited to the inhabitants of the locality where the brokerage took place. Moreover, this system was too restrictive and too unequal between the municipalities.

The system proposed today requires the professional seller to register as such, the economic inspections to be used to spot the individual who participates in a brocante every week by offering, for example, valuable goods.

There will be an evaluation on this subject. I suppose the brokers are not fully satisfied with the measures adopted. The organizers of brocantes, who, in turn, accepted professionals and individuals, may find themselves there a little more. It is also possible that brokers attribute, in a slightly excessive manner, the difficulties they encounter in the exercise of their business to this opportunity offered to individuals to sell some of their property.

I therefore insist that this problem be followed closely and that provisions be taken if too large abuses of individuals are found.

We will support this bill by thanking you for making it pass so quickly and for drafting it in consultation with the field actors.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the sp.a is very pleased with the present draft. We are 200% behind it. We are pleased that there is finally a good arrangement for the public and private markets, where a central role is assigned to the municipalities. Their

There was indeed quite a bit of concern, we have also expressed it in the committee, with the regular market crammers about the wild growth of the private markets. There was some concern about this. With the arrangement now incorporated in the draft law, namely the central role, the coordinating role and the regulatory role of the municipalities, we absolutely meet the horror of the regular market cracker in relation to the private market. The local government will be given the opportunity to keep in hand the supply that manifests itself in the municipality, to arrange, to see that there is no unfair competition, and so on. This is a wonderful arrangement. Their

Another very good point in the present design is the arrangement around the forkramers. They are delighted that after 20 years they finally get a serious status. They do not have it too easily in our society with the increasing competition of the amusement parks and the like. They face different regulations, depending on municipality to municipality. They are often uncertain if they can get a standing position. However, it is really a risky profession in which you are constantly facing new challenges because you expect the forkramers to constantly come with new attraction to the market, one as more spectacular than the other. The protection of the fork grinder, in this design, is a brilliant thing. Their

I now come to the delicate point, to the point of discussion between a number of people, namely the door-to-door sale. The door-to-door sale is a fantastic invention. After all, door-to-door sales ensure that less mobile people and people living remotely still have the chance to buy products. That is a good thing. They should not move for that. That is wonderful. Their

The problem with door-to-door sales, however, is that that beautiful sector that still employs a few thousand people is mortgaged, tortured by a number of malafide sellers who clearly abuse door-to-door sales. That’s where the shoe runs. This is what we intended to do with our amendment, to save the sector as a whole by eliminating the cowboys. Their

For the sake of good order of affairs, I would like to remind you that consumer organisations have been asking for years for a total ban on door-to-door sales. Consumer organisations do not want to know. They have their stomachs full of it because the abuses are legion. The people who are featured in all sorts of television programs, such as Ombudsjan at the time, spoke book parts. The consumer organisations have repeatedly stated in the Consumer Council that they want to quit, that they want a total ban. Their

We said then that this is a bit extensive. After all, door-to-door sales can provide added value for people living remotely and for less mobile people. We said then that we would better look for a way to keep the sector alive and remove the bad apples. Their

Then the idea has grown to set a limit to the door-door sales so that no one can benefit from people. Indeed, I had submitted a bill on this subject. Mr Tommelein correctly pointed out that the limit in my bill was 100 euros. What happened to that bill under the auspices of our excellent President Paul Tant? A series of hearings were held in the committee on this bill. We have heard all sorts of interesting people, ranging from the consumer organisations across the sector to the Economic Inspection. This is what I really want to talk about.

The Inspectorate presented a report during the hearings in the Committee on Business, which, however, said a number of flagrant things. She said that as an inspection she is facing a washlist of complaints regarding door-to-door sales. What are the complaints about? The complaints are about a number of classics — about which we will talk later — but especially about the fact that at the door things are sold in large quantities or of inferior quality at exorbitant prices. When I say exorbitant prices, I mean exorbitant prices. The Inspection had talked about goods sold at the door between 1000 and 1250 euros. Someone who comes to your door calls, who you have not asked for and who solves you something between 1000 and 1250 euros.

Miss, if you say that most complaints are about amounts between 1000 and 1250 euros, why do you submit a bill to ban products of more than 100 euros? What I mean by this is that I understand your intentions. You can give some examples of what is going wrong but I can also give dozens or even thousands of examples of sales that are okay, even of more than 250 euros.

You now say clearly that most problems occur above 1000 euros and you want to protect the weaker consumer a little more by reducing the amount to 100 euros. That is the proposal you made. I mean by this, Madame, that the price of a product does not depend on whether or not there is a malafide practice. I understand that the risk to the consumer may become too high if the price of the product is too high. In that I follow you. If you are talking about 100 or 250 euros you can still hardly talk about taking very serious risks. I would understand your point of view if you want to ban all products above 1000 euros. This can be done through my proposal of Royal Decree. But no, you are very arbitrarily proposing an amount in your proposal and that amount determines whether or not something is misleading. I do not agree with this.

Mr Tommelein, for the good order of affairs. When I quoted the Economic Inspection in my argument, I didn’t say that most complaints occur above 1000 to 1.250 euros. I have said that the Economic Inspection has even given examples of sales up to 1000 and 1.250 euros. I just wanted to illustrate that we are not talking about a peel shell here when we are talking about things that are sold at the door. Moreover, and still according to the Economic Inspection and not Magda De Meyer, it is about complaints about products of poor quality at totally excessively high prices.

The Economic Inspection was talking about profit margins of 1,000%. Which products are mostly abused? The classics facing the economic inspection are wines, maintenance products and vacuum cleaners. If I can, I would like to give a few very concrete examples of this.

A man comes to the door with a vacuum cleaner of the brand X, at the amount of 1,000 euros. The seller at the door says, “Look, I have the exclusive rights to this brand. This is, of course, a fantastic brand and actually this is a spot price: 1,000 euros, which you will not find anywhere. I only sell that in Belgium, I am the sole controller on this and you will not find it anywhere at this price." Well, the angry consumer is convinced and thinks he has done a purchase here, a fantastic thing, exclusively in Belgium. What is revealed? A month later, the consumer who has been told this, sees the same vacuum cleaner in the store on the street stands for 400 euros, to give you just an example. I am not picking it out of the air; it is a concrete example.

Another example, still from the vacuum cleaner industry, is the classic example of the man who comes home and says, “Mrs. I come to vacuum your house.” That man is working there for an hour or two and dusting the house from top to bottom. After those two hours, it is ⁇ difficult to get that man out. He has been there all the morning and would like to bring something to the man. In the end, it turns out that the consumer gets a vacuum cleaner from, please hold, 495 euro advance and then 12 monthly payments of 211 euro. These are no longer serious things. The consumer did not buy an airplane, he bought a vacuum cleaner. What amounts are we talking about now? This can no longer be called serious.

Another example is the wine seller.

We’ll talk about that, about responsibility. Thank you for that comment. I ⁇ want to get into that.

Another example is the wine seller. The wine seller approaches an eighty-year-old and says, “Mrs. You probably have some black money in some shirt under your mattress. I have for you actually the ideal investment for the future, for your children and grandchildren. Buy now a few boxes of wine, and you will give your offspring an unbelievable pleasure, for you will have long been under the sows, if your offspring will still drink on your health."

The problem is (...)

What is happening? That lady sees her grandchildren in front of her, she already sees toasts on the good luck of the bomb, and indeed leaves herself convinced. She buys several boxes of wine for an amount of 480 euros. By the way, and passant asks that seller still, between hooks: illegally, an advance of 100 euros. She then sits there with her whole basement full of boxes of wine for the amount of 480 euros and she herself has a pension of 1,000 euros. This is about it.

You say, it is indeed the responsibility of the consumer. Well, that is precisely the problem, and that is also stated in the inspection report we heard during our committee. There are a lot of complaints coming into the economic inspection, not so much from the consumer itself, but from social services, from social assistants, from OCMWs, from home nurses who call the economic inspection and say, “It is a shame what is happening here with our customers, a real shame.” Their

This is precisely why we have tried to find a solution.

I will give another last example.

Mr Tommelein wishes to interrupt you.

I do not know, Mrs, if you are familiar with the sector of the sale of electronic products. I want to come back to what you said. Someone with an income of 1,000 euros suddenly decides to make a purchase of 480 euros. This happens in a store as well. You should spend a whole day in such an electronics business. The people who come in buy, buy, buy, until indeed their monthly bet is almost completely over. Then they go home and they must find that with all those electronic products they are nothing, because they do not actually need them.

You have given a few examples that will be correct. These examples will be good. But I can also give examples of people who are not visited at home but who enter a store themselves and who spend there more than they enter. There are so many people in our society. Should we overprotect all those people, tame them, and deprive the sellers of their ability to carry out their activity because those people are not able to make correct decisions and are actually escaping their responsibility? Because that is actually what it is about. You can give a thousand examples. I can also quote ten thousand things where everything is done correctly. It is about that. That is my argument: that with a very arbitrary measure of 250 euros you blacken the whole sector. In fact, you say that everything that is sold at home is all fraud, that it is all things that are not right. That’s why you say now: let’s just ban the home-to-home sale because there are malafide practices.

You know what, we will abolish the unemployment benefits, because there too many misleading practices happen. Per ⁇ should we do that? There are misleading practices in the unemployment aid. Let us therefore just abolish the unemployment allowance and question case by case and again let us examine whether someone can still receive unemployment allowance. That is the way of reasoning you are following right now.

Thank you, Mr Tommelein, for this intervention. I would like to say two things on this. First, I totally disagree with your last argument. I started by saying that I think the sector has absolutely added value. I want to save the industry from its bad image. I want this sector to flourish because it has a place in our society. So, I absolutely do not want a ban. But I want the rotten apples out. I do not want to affect the whole sector.

Secondly, the example you give is correct when you say: a consumer who enters an electronics store and buys his wallet there should not be so stupid. You are 200% right. But what is the crucial difference? The crucial difference is that in this case, a 92-year-old woman does not go to an electronics store, but that an electronics store comes to her and says, please, and she dissolves those products. That is the big difference, of course.

The [...]

But no, she did not take a step.

I’m sorry to have cut you in the middle of a sentence, but it’s been a little while that I discreetly try to attract the attention of the president, in vain. In fact, I would like to complete Mrs. De Meyer’s speech. by

There is a difference between someone who goes to a store, who can get out of it as he wants, and then who makes the move of... and the person who receives a merchant in his home, who enters the sphere of his private life. It is also true that these sellers are trained to sell and overcome the resistance that is opposed to them. Therefore, I think it is a good idea to have this ceiling established.

Nevertheless, the law stipulates that "exceptions are possible if the type of goods allows," if I have understood correctly. This means that the trader who sells a vacuum cleaner — this is an example — or another device for a price of more than 250 euros would obtain an exemption so that the sale at home could still take place. I would like to have confirmation that my understanding is correct.

I would like to add another point to Mr. by Tommelein. It’s about the fact that people are also buying out of time in a store; that’s true. Furthermore, we have taken steps to combat over-indebtedness in a way that takes into account repayment capabilities, at least when these people buy on credit.

In my opinion, all this does not in any way remove the responsibility or freedom of the commercial activity. These are measures that allow everyone to acquire what they need without being placed in a situation of no longer being able to assume the refund of their purchases. It is the responsibility of the legislator to take such measures.

Thank you colleague. I could go on for a while, but I’ll still stick to the last example of maintenance products because there’s a lot of abuse there too.

In the classic example of the maintenance products one comes to offer themselves at home and it is said that it is for the sick children. If one then asks to show some evidence of it, they are usually not to be found, but it is for the sick children that one must buy a liter of maintenance product at a very expensive price. If the point comes to the pile and one agrees to buy it in favor of the sick children, then the seller goes back to his car and returns with a 10-liter bus, multiplying the amount that one originally wanted to spend by ten. There are thousands of examples. The complaints concern excessively expensive consumer goods of poor quality in excessive quantities, sometimes with profit margins of 1000 euros.

Mr Tommelein wants to intervene again.

I listen to all your examples with great interest. I think you are going through a number of things, especially when it comes to charities that come to sell products.

Now you have to show me how you can, with that 250 euro ceiling, fairly put an end to all those malicious practices. Explain it to me now.

The great advantage, Mr. Tommelein, of this kind of affairs is that a ceiling is set for the abuses. More than 250 euros can no longer work through door-to-door sales. That cannot be done anymore because I think the added value of door-to-door sales lies elsewhere. It could perfectly be that there are certain sectors that are therefore excluded, but we are also addressing them.

Mrs. De Meyer, I think it would be much wiser to conduct some sort of awareness-raising campaign to make people aware that those who come to the door must either have an acknowledgment card, or have a recognition from the congregation. The municipality may issue permits for organizing lotteries and door-to-door sales. If we launch a awareness-raising campaign to make it clear to people that they can only buy when someone can legitimize themselves, then I think we are much further than now to set a maximum of 250 euros.

Mrs. De Meyer, try to decide if you can.

I try, but they interrupt me.

The problem is that these people have a scam card. This is also the problem of the inspection. The inspection has clearly told us that with the current legal arsenal it cannot take action against these abuses. The inspection clearly stated during the hearings that the introduction of a threshold could provide sunshine and that they could therefore act faster.

Again, this is not about the fixed rounds. This is not about previously announced visits. It is also not about the Tupperware parties. This is a cold prospect. Someone comes unwanted to your home.

Finally, after the discussion in the committee with all members, we raised my original proposal of 100 euros, which is ⁇ on the low side — with which I would like to agree 200% — to 250 euros. We had a large majority there to install the threshold of 250 euros. The great advantage of our amendment, allowing us to address those we may leave in the cold while they may indeed mean an added value in our overall trade offer, is that the King can provide for exceptions. In this regard, I have full confidence in the competent minister, who, by the way, is present here. Minister Laruelle has, I think, excellent contacts with the sector concerned and has, by the way, organized extensive consultations with that sector. She has all the contacts and knows who to speak to. She can quietly sit around the table with the sector and see where problems arise and where something can be done.

Minister Laruelle has explicitly told us in the committee that the framework law will be published together with the implementing decisions. There can therefore be no problem there too, as soon as we talk about co-worker traders that add value to our trading offer.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I think that this law responds to door-to-door sales and ensures that those who act correctly can continue to exist, that our door-to-door sales become healthy again, that the cowboys go out and that this trade can flourish.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, due to the constant evolution of commercial practices, it had become very urgent to reform the bourgeois law of 1993 in order to allow modern commercial management to persons engaged in traveling commercial activity. Indeed, the latest available figures inform us that in six years, the number of renewals of permits for walking activities has fallen by 30%. However, this worrying statistic is not a consequence of a lack of public interest in ambulant activities. On the contrary, in recent years there has been a regaining of consumer interest in everything related to the terroir markets, Christmas markets, brocantes and other events of the same type.

Instead, it is the current legislation that should be addressed. Indeed, the primary objective of the 1993 law was to restrict the scope of ambulant activities in such a way that they could be strictly framed. In the long run, this framework has become a real carcass that ignores the reality of the terrain and therefore, prevents the natural development of walking activity. By generating ambiguous situations, certain activities are also considered illegal or at least completely out of the control of the law.

The MR group therefore considered that a change in the law was necessary and is looking forward to seeing this bill in discussion this afternoon. The principles set out in this project will, in our view, contribute to the recovery of the commercial activity and to the recognition of the activity of the foreman, not to mention an increased protection of the consumer. Indeed, the new legislation will allow, inter alia, the extension of the range of the offer to the markets by allowing the provision of services relating to the products sold there in an accessory manner, the abandonment of the limit of the number of persons authorised to operate on the markets for the same undertaking, which, in my opinion, constitutes a very important advance. This new legislation will also allow for the easing of the authorisation principle in order to solve the problem of replacement personnel for short- and medium-term absences. In this regard, Mrs. Minister, I will allow myself to return to the bill I submitted with my colleagues Richard Fournaux and Philippe Collard. This proposal aims to simplify the life of ambulants who want to replace a sick or injured employee by allowing them to address their application for temporary card directly to the federal public service and more to the municipality. This administrative simplification would save a considerable amount of time for traders. I hope that you will not forget this when writing the Royal Execution Orders.

Finally, the last point that I will address, the extension of the scope of the law to outdoor activities and holidays is one of the most important advances of this project. For at least twenty years the world of forensics has been demanding legislation that frame the profession. It should not be forgotten that there are currently about 1,200 officially registered operators in Belgium who ensure the management of some 2,500 attractions. The present text offers forensics a real recognition of their profession by public authorities. They will also benefit from legal protection at trade fairs comparable to that of their counterparts on markets. They will also be subject to uniform rules in all municipalities for the allocation of their seats. For example, they will have the right to agree to obtain a location for a minimum of five years, which is very important for them given the fact that they must be assured to profit the cost of certain attractions, now very high.

The same willingness to improve their situation also led to giving them the faculty to assign a location at the same time as their trade.

Just a few words about the amendment that we have long discussed recently.

I personally support this amendment in so far as it provides for a maximum amount of 250 euros and the minister has the possibility to file royal decrees providing for derogations. In my opinion, this will help protect the weakest consumers who need it.

I will not return to all the arguments developed by Ms. De Meyer or by my colleague Muriel Gerkens. This is a step forward in consumer protection.

In conclusion, the Reform Movement and I fully support the bill amending the law of 25 June 1993 on the exercise of roaming activities and the organization of public procurement. We are convinced that this law will constitute a considerable advance and that the measures envisaged will produce positive effects, both in terms of the economic development of the mobile and outdoor activity and in terms of consumer protection.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I will be brief.

The bill provides for a thorough reform of the ambulance trade for the market crammers and the home-to-home sellers. This is a good thing that N-VA fully supports.

The draft law provides for a number of simplifications, including the validity period of the Lean Card, which is no longer limited to six years. This type of administrative simplification enjoys our full support. The status of the forecrafters is also legally recognised, in itself a very good thing.

The positive elements are, in my opinion, overturned by the limitation of home-to-home sales to a value below 250 euros. Such a ban threatens domestic trade. It is the unfair traders that must be addressed. The limitation of the amount does not affect this. This measure, in my opinion, especially threatens jobs. I did not expect that from this side.

It is said that with the restriction you want to get the cowboys out. In my opinion, with a limit of up to 250 euros, you will not get the cowboys out there. That is not the way. I think the whole attitude is quite overwhelming for the citizen.

We talked about budgeting. Budgeting is sometimes lacking even in a regular shop situation. It has been talked about sellers who are very well trained to do door-to-door sales. However, the sellers in the shops are also well trained to sell. The situation as a whole is too overwhelming.

Current legislation already provides adequate protection. The Commercial Practices Act provides for a reflection period for the consumer of 7 days. At this moment, the customer already has the possibility to cancel the purchase.

In its entirety, it is a very good bill, but one amendment is too much.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, if you allow it, I would now like to leave my role as a rapporteur to bring here a few more personal comments on this bill.

The bill that we are dealing with today aims to frame the economic life of a particular sector; and it would rather be necessary to talk about economic sectors as the walking activities can be diverse. Indeed, settling in a single text of activities both as similar and so diverse as fairs, community markets and brocantes is a matter of betting.

Walking trade is a form of economic activity both ancestral and very promising not only in terms of job creation but also economic development, especially at the local level. It is therefore essential to provide it with a suitable legislative framework – a goal that the current legislation no longer allows. Excessively tactile, it constitutes in some aspects an obstacle to activity, and it is now necessary to update it.

This modernization must result in the implementation of delicate balances. Businesses, consumers and local authorities must be taken into account. In addition, it is also necessary to incorporate the fact that markets and fairs are diverse events that are distinguished by their size, economic impact, history or the amount of audience they are interested in. In this finding, we can only be satisfied that all the representative associations have been associated with the development of the project and consulted for this purpose.

As for the method, the path you have chosen, Mrs. Minister, is both pragmatic and bold. A loicadre clearly presents the advantage of flexibility: many measures are here returned to the King and the application of the principles belongs to the communes, who will be able to adapt the concretization of the law to the realities of the field.

This pathway, however, presents the risk of denaturation if implementation is not strictly monitored. Therefore, I will allow myself to recall here, Mrs. Minister, that you have undertaken to present to the Committee of the Economy the contents of the execution orders. We welcome this commitment and will be ⁇ attentive to the content of the arrests. We will ensure, among other things, that the measures taken by this means are well in line with the spirit of the law and are respectful to all parties concerned.

I said it a few moments ago: the nature or nature of walking activity requires flexibility.

However, the sector is also conducive to certain uncertainties and does not always enjoy a pleasant image among consumers and public authorities. It is therefore necessary to provide for a clear regulatory framework that allows controls for the protection of consumers, compliance with social legislation, public order and competition. Combining flexibility and control is never easy, and it is ⁇ delicate in the matter we are dealing with today.

Consumer protection remains one of our main concerns and we need to be even more strict on this principle when the sale is carried out outside a traditional business structure. It is undeniable that a lot of progress has been made in this area in recent years. Nevertheless, the effort must be continued so that everyone benefits from it, consumers and sellers.

We are also ⁇ pleased to see the activity of the foreman recognized and thus put an end to a legislative bizarre that provided only the sale on the public road and not the show or really the services. The establishment of a uniform legislative framework and a specific status will be a positive contribution for both the sector as a whole and for the workers active in this field as well as for the local authorities.

Let me finish by mentioning the particular case of the broccoli. For several years, various measures have been considered or taken to try to regulate the markets for fleas and other vacuum-grinder in which many individuals and a few professionals are involved, the latter taking advantage of the legislative blur. It is legitimate and desirable that these professionals can no longer take an undue advantage of this situation. However, I believe that the means must remain proportionate to the objectives and that the organization and participation in the brocantes should not be made too heavy for good-faith individuals.

I will conclude by saying that this project is only the beginning. It opens doors and we should be happy. But the work is just beginning, the framework is put in place. It will be necessary to ensure in the near future that appropriate measures take place, allowing the sector to benefit from an appropriate and comprehensive regulatory framework for harmonious development and operation.

The last speaker in the general discussion is Ms. Trees Pieters.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will be ⁇ brief, because the bill has already caused some commotion. I am amused from the opposition to see how the majority quarrels here.

Mr. Tommelein says that the bill is not submitted, discussed and approved a day too early. I would like to point out that the draft law was written by the former Minister of Middle-Earth and that all the opinions were obtained during your reign, Mr. Daems. It was completed in the second or third year of your reign. It was submitted in December 2004, a time after the second purple government took office. Not a day too early? However, I have questions, because the design has actually been circulating for three years.

The design took away my approval, as it initially meant a simplification. Any simplification for self-employed is welcome. Secondly, there is an expansion to ceremonial activities and an adaptation to the socio-economic developments.

We had a discussion in the committee. I continue to add that the figure material dates from the period of the draft law of Hendrik Daems, that it only reaches to 2000 and is not adapted to the situation in 2005. I like to work with current figures, but apparently there are those that are not available. At least they are not included in the bill. One can only remedy when one has concrete numerical data. We have discussed this issue several times in the past, Mrs. Minister.

I also had doubts about the fact that it was a framework law. You have given a response to that. I accepted it, as Mrs. Pécriaux said. It is a diverse given, because you have included a number of sectors. You are working with a framework law and you have also said that you will publish the royal decrees at the same time.

I also had another problem with the private markets, because they are less regulated than the normal markets, but you explained to me that it will be accompanied by an authorization from the municipalities. I agree with the question of one of the speakers. I would be pleased if after a few months we could get an evaluation, to see if the authorization from the municipalities is sufficient.

We have approved the bill in all its aspects.

The bill was unanimously approved by the committee.

Mrs. Minister, it was a breathtaking for me that you in the committee had a good discussion with all parties, and above all with myself. You have also been able to agree to some efficient changes. You at least realized that some of CD&V’s amendments were useful and good. You also accepted them. Honestly, I thank you for that.

First of all, I would like to thank Rik Daems. He has done a good job in the design.

I believe that what belongs to Caesar must always be returned to Caesar, and that it is useless to reinvent hot water when it is already invented.

Ten second wil i also of volksvertegenwoordigers bedanken voor het constructive werk tijdens de commisievergaderingen. Nadat iedereen zijn zeg had done, werd het wetsontwerp unaniem goedgekeurd in commission. There remains one point of discussion. All the speakers showed how necessary and indispensable this legislation was, how much it brought points of substantial improvement and was expected on the ground. However, there is still a point of divergence with two different ways and means to ⁇ , I think, the same goal.

This objective is to avoid, as far as possible, "mafia" practices or, in any case, bad commercial practices when it comes to door-to-door trade. This objective is to ⁇ , if possible, a balance between, on the one hand, respecting and promoting the freedom to undertake - which Mr. Tommelein highlights with his amendment in which he plans to allow, without limit, door-to-door, while giving the government the opportunity to take derogations limiting or prohibiting a number of practices – and, on the other hand, consumer protection that was highlighted in an amendment by Ms. De Meyer that, in her first proposal, was limited to 100 euros for door-to-door trade.

As for the position of the government, it consists in saying that this balance must be achieved and the freedom to undertake is allowed. It is true that there are similar limits in other countries. In the commission, I recalled that I found Mrs. De Meyer’s proposal too limited to 100 euros; in Germany, for example, and this is the number I cited, the limit is 500 euros. However, I also said that the government would not oppose such an amendment if, and only if, the limit was lifted and it was allowed to take a royal decree providing for derogations.

In other words, the objective is the same. Two options are presented today. Either allow everything but take a royal decree providing with derogations to limit or prohibit a number of door-to-door commercial practices, or limit to 250 euros but allow the government to remove or increase this limit for a number of door-to-door commercial practices.

It seems to me that, given that in both cases derogations will be open, either to allow or to prohibit, one should, whatever the choice that will be made by the parliamentarians, reach the same objective, that is to say, to prohibit a number of door-to-door commercial practices that pose problems to everyone while allowing, without limitation, a number of door-to-door commercial practices that do not pose problems to anyone.

I am of the opinion that if we reach agreement later on a royal decree, whatever the path chosen, we will ⁇ the same goal. However, I would not want, whatever the choice that will be made, the added value of this project to be questioned in any way whatsoever.

Thank you, Mrs Minister. I have thus understood that you are indeed aware that what I propose with my group and what is already announced today, in fact, aims at the same purpose. The only difference is whether one must prohibit the undertaking at certain times or whether one should allow it and prohibit exceptions. It seems to me more logical and more efficient to include in the royal decree — which then very soon will have to be drawn up — that one prohibits what is truly malafide and what cannot pass through the beugle. Their

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will, together with my group, submit an amendment.