Proposition 51K2486

Projet de loi relatif aux heures d'ouverture dans le commerce, l'artisanat et les services.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

May 16, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

distributive trades retail trade supermarket trading hours weekly rest period independent retailer Sunday working

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V Ecolo LE N-VA FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 6, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, much has not been left of the great announcements that stores in this country must now be able to remain open unlimited. Minister Laruelle’s first version of keeping food stores of less than 150 square meters open 24 hours a day has been snuffed. The proposal of colleague Tommelein was announced, explained and disappeared immediately in the garbage cart. What has now been voted for has been so weakened by the working field that it is almost impossible to believe that the VLD has been so low. The opening hours have not even changed in the current design. Fortunately, however, the unbounded liberalism of the original texts has largely been kept in tame.

This new law on opening hours in trade, craft and service, has the merit of taking into account the necessary balance between the private life of the independent trader and the interests of the consumer. In addition, the draft also includes a good simplification regarding a general weekly rest day and there may be restrictions imposed on night shops through a municipal regulation.

Nevertheless, we cannot agree with the proposed arrangement on a number of crucial points.

First and foremost there is the completion of a new KB on the tourist centers. The criteria of the Minister of Medium Standing remain. Of the two current KBs concerning the tourist centres, one is now being made, faster and simpler, but the aspects concerning employment have yet to be completed by the Minister of Work.

I interviewed the Minister of Labour on this issue this week in the Social Affairs Committee. He answered me that there is indeed a proposal with the NAR, but he did not show in his cards. We do not know what the Minister of Labour will do with this. The Minister of Middle-Earth has also not answered this, so it is searching for the content of the proposal of KB, which was submitted by the Minister of Work for advice to the NAR. It is certain that it will be discussed at the Council of Ministers on 20 July, but fortunately these KBs will be submitted to the High Council for Self-Employed Persons and SMEs.

The question in our group remains why the King should determine what is meant by beach resorts and tourist centres. All the basic principles of the definition should be contained in the law itself.

Our fear is, therefore, that along that path the entire regulation of opening hours and the weekly rest day may be exhausted on the discretionary basis of a minister. Colleague Tommelein — since we have not received the report here, I can specify something — provided us with more clarity about the reasons for those royal decrees. During the discussion he said — I literally cite the report — that “the VLD has only accepted the text on the condition that the King could determine exceptions”. The question is then clear — and I also asked them last week, following an interpellation — what do we do here? As an exception to the exception can be made, if the minister afterwards can put the text to her hand, or can put it to the hand of the government, as afterwards...

I am not a member of the government, Mrs. I am a member of parliament.

You are a member of parliament.

You say in the hands of the government. I am a member of parliament. I am not the government.

You must listen.

I represented the group in this debate.

Hope makes life.

You must listen. You have said what you have said and the conclusion is that we are being put out of play and that it is the government that will decide what comes into those royal decrees.

No, Mrs. You must learn to distinguish between the government and a group here in Parliament. In this debate, I represented the opinion of my group. I am not the government.

No, you are not the government. But you have made clear what your group wants, in particular a maximum of royal decrees so that Parliament no longer has insight into what will be decided here around those concrete points.

That is your position.

and yes.

Thus, the royal decrees are fulfilled by the government. Parliament has nothing to say about this. You have pledged for maximum royal decisions.

and yes. But you must also be complete. I have also said in that committee — and if you are complete, you say that too — that I am absolutely not in favour of legislation through royal decrees. I have said that too. Of course, you do not say that.

No, I’ll get out...

I said, after that discussion, that I, as a spokesman for the largest majority party in Flanders, stated that we do not agree with the amendment you supported from the opposition. It was very clear that we did not agree with this. I have said that I will agree to the full text of the bill, provided that this amendment is made clear through that royal decree. That is the condition.

If you assume that the government is still influencing it, that is not correct. As a member of a majority group, I have the right to say that I support that bill but that we want some exceptions to it? Is that wrong? Do you think that is not democratic?

I quote literally from the report. It is very regrettable that the rapporteur does not explain his report and the discussion in the committee. I repeat that I literally draw from the report that it is your intention to leave everything to the government so that the Parliament has no participation. This is how I understood it too. Did you say it in Dutch or in French?

Mrs. Pieters, I have said that I am not in favour of legislation through KB. I said that in the committee.

Why don’t you say the same here?

It is there. You refer to the report and you draw a sentence out of it.

If you wish, you can intervene. In the past, it was customary for the rapporteur to sit next to the minister in the hemisphere. They revealed what would have been the truth. By definition, that is the truth.

He does not know where the conscious passage is to be found in the report.

It is inside.

I will try to rest a little.

This is new, Mr. Tante.

I will at least make an attempt. During the conscious committee meeting, Mr Tommelein intervened. I had referred to the opinion of the State Council which states that too many matters, regulations, regulations are left to the government and that the oatmeal is referred to the King. Then Mr Tommelein replicated that the VLD is explicitly requesting party on this point. According to Mr Tommelein, the VLD would never have approved this text if it had not provided for the possibility of allowing a derogation from KB. It was about that. I think we agree on this.

The only thing that can be noticed about this — we may differ in opinion — is that you can send the decisions because you are part of the majority. The Council of State has repeatedly pointed out, with regard to various drafts discussed in my committee, that often, in an unauthorized manner, power transfers to the King take place. The consequence of this is that the Parliament has less and less to say. Is this a good evolution? I am afraid of not. The fact is that it is not useful for this House.

Mrs. Pieters, Mr. Tommelein, I think that this way the conflict can be concluded.

The floor is yielded to Mr Lenssen, who is the rapporteur.

Mr. Tommelein has begun to say that he is not in favour of an extensive delegation to the King. However, he is in favour of the fact that the King may make a number of exceptions here.

What have I said? I have said that the VLD has only accepted the text on the condition that the King could determine an exception. I am talking about this text – which is literally taken from your report – based on – as the President says – concerns of the State Council, which repeatedly criticizes the way of working.

When Mr. Lenssen quotes Mr. Tommelein, he should not begin by reading what he said first, but by what he said in the end. There was a significant difference between the two, wasn’t it? Georges, you have to get to know your friend. That will improve when he is mayor of Ostende.

We are not in the committee, we are now in the plenary session. We are working on the basis of the report.

A second important comment we have made and we continue to express on sales by gas stations. For the so-called shops at gas stations, the regulation on opening hours does not apply. They can be open 24 hours a day. According to the present design, a gas station is a gas station if 50% of the turnover is derived from the sale of fuel. This, in our opinion, allows an unauthorized extension of so-called side activities. Mr. Wathelet, we just talked about it. One can perfectly place a supermarket next to a gas station when the cash or accounting is the same. That so-called side activity should therefore be 50%. As a result of the new provision, the gas station annex shop will bring heavy competition to the neighborhood shop. If we ask the minister why it is 50% then the answer is that it easily counts. If the argument is that it easily counts, then for us it is a ⁇ weak argument.

There is also with all of us, the united opposition, the fear that oil companies and the major gasoline distributors may abuse the legislation to contractually compel the small merchants, regardless of whether they are the owner of the business or the manager, to keep their business open 24 hours a day. Through an amendment, we want to reduce the percentage of side activity to 20%. Despite a vague comment from the sp.a. group on this point, the amendment, which we submitted with the united opposition, was rejected and rejected as a misplaced calculation. Mr. Lano is not there. Very recently, a few days ago, someone from the field called me and gave the signal that the 50% rule is not good and too arbitrary.

A night shop buyer tells me to get 50% of his revenue from the sale of tobacco products. Now imagine that the municipality with its new powers to regulate that, sanctions against that night shop. He immediately has a way out. He shall comply with the 50 percent rule, be registered as a newspaper tobacco store in accordance with Article 16, with the exception of paragraph 2 and then he may remain open unlimited, day and night. Thus, with the new regulation on the main activity, it is possible to bypass the regulation on the night shops. I didn’t invent that; I wasn’t so clever at the time to make that deduction. That was signaled to me by a night shop outbater, who told me that if he is kicked on his fingers by the municipal administration, he had a fantastic way out. Thus, with the new regulation on the main activity, it is possible to bypass the regulation on the night shops.

Initially, I only submitted an amendment to change the 50 percent rule for gas stations. I amended that and submitted a new amendment, allowing to avoid all points of Article 16(2) also for newspaper stores, video libraries and so on. The otherwise good goal of allowing, for example, a video library to sell another bag of chips to customers after 20 hours is not affected here. However, a main activity is only a main activity if it represents at least 80% of the turnover, otherwise it will lead to all sorts of abuses.

The Minister will argue that there are other criteria in the text to define the main activity. Let me immediately replicate that those criteria are ⁇ vague and easy to bypass.

Finally, we also made a comment on the very heavy fines in case of infringement. A fine of 250 to 10,000 euros: who was talking about a police state? They want to impose fines, in Freya’s words, of 400,000 Belgian francs. This criticism, by the way, was also formulated by the State Council: this is exaggerated. Also, according to the Council of State, the competence of the economic inspection to enter land, buildings and even private apartments is difficult to bring in conformity with Article 8 of the ECHR on the inviolability of the home, yet one of the basic principles of our law. Their

We also find it difficult that, for the sake of administrative simplification, the obligation to report the weekly rest day to the municipal government is abolished. This will complicate the control of the municipalities. I think it’s not so difficult for a shop outlet to send a message to the municipal government no more than twice a year, to notify that another closing day is chosen. It cannot be so difficult.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will decide. Although the proposals on opening hours have been sharply weakened compared to the initial announcement and we are here dealing with a law that has improved in the field of Sunday rest, night shops and phone shops, we will nevertheless again submit our amendments, in order to ⁇ a breakthrough in the crucial matters that I have just cited, namely the gas stations, the 50% rule, the tourist centers and the penalty measures, otherwise we will continue to abstain in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, this text only arouses little enthusiasm but it allows everyone to “live with”. Everyone can "daarmee leven", be it large companies, SMEs, small self-employed because this text has tried to balance, difficult, between a possibility of opening as wide as possible and a life that does not force every merchant, every SME or every store, to open day, night and Sunday. A kind of balance could be achieved by clearly stating what were the permitted opening hours and giving more competence to municipal authorities, in particular to the college of mayors and chefs, which I find positive.

However, a negative side of the text lies in the fact that it grants enormous powers to the King. I am afraid that disagreements within the majority will result in this text not being executed correctly.

I can cite a few examples. First, there are the statements of the prime minister, who absolutely wanted to go towards total freedom at the level of opening hours. The text does not say that. The execution orders will compensate for this to fulfill the wishes of Mr. Tommelin for example? Second, in another employment case, the government has difficulty agreeing on whether or not one can work on Sundays.

I think the government will not be able to come to an agreement on the implementation level of this text, given that the principles are too broad and the implementation has yet to be arbitrated.

For example, Article 16 provides for a series of legal derogations, but the law allows the King to add them. Thus, besides the derogations that were considered to be legal, others could be instituted by royal decree. You will have either a regulatory derogation or a legal derogation. This will depend on the regime that will be applied to you. Finally, there was this more specific derogation for service stations. What was the main activity and what was the accessory? When 50% of the turnover is generated by a product, can we talk about the main activity? For my part, yes. This criterion of 50% is not bad except for a particular sector, the fuel sector in which the turnover is very quickly high but the profit is very low. We quickly reach 50% of the turnover with fuel; on the other hand, it is very difficult to reach 50% of the profit. We would have preferred a particular system for fuels for which the profit does not follow the turnover. by

A last question to the minister that was not discussed in the committee: gas stations on highways are mentioned in paragraph 1 er of Article 16. A surface condition is mentioned (250 m 2 ) while there is no surface condition for the derogation of gasoline pumps that are not located on a highway. It could be imagined that some gasoline pumps on motorways prefer to use the derogation in paragraph 2 in order not to be subject to an area restriction if, however, the sale of fuel contributes to less than 50% of the turnover. by

I ask the Minister if she confirms that a gasoline pump located along a highway falls within the scope of paragraph 1 and that she cannot invoke paragraph 2 even if she finds it more favourable for her. In other words, once you are on a highway, paragraph 1 is applicable exclusively. I wish I had a clear response from the Minister.

First of all, I fully trust the King to take the most appropriate and relevant royal decrees.

You are rarely better served than by yourself, isn’t it?

Everyone has their interpretation.

The king remains, the governments change.

I have full confidence in the King. by

As regards service stations located along highways, a specific point is dedicated to them in Article 16, § 1 er, f. It imposes more precise restrictions on food, alcohol greater than 6°, maximum area. Those stations are therefore subject to these provisions and may not choose to use such a provision and not another. In fact, there is not only a restriction in terms of area, but also for the sale of alcohol. It is clear.

Without wanting to intervene, this is indeed my reading of the article; I re-read the paragraph you had cited, Mr. Wathelet.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, it is clear that the existing closure legislation needed a decoration. This draft law is an undeniable improvement of regulation. The spread legislation, Mrs. Pieters, is now poured into a text and the principle of the closing day is reversed. In your presentation you immediately refer to the fact that my bill, which I submitted together with Mrs. Meeus, Mr. Lenssen and Mr. Van Campenhout, referred the closure legislation more drastically to the garbage cart. I can point out that I immediately, at the beginning of the discussions in the committee, supported the government’s bill and said that I naturally liked my bill much better. This is logical because I have written it myself.

The [...]

This is not true, because three colleagues have signed my proposal, Mr. Tant.

So I said in the committee that I would still support the bill.

I read that the Belgian bishops were also against my proposal. In the 21st century, however, this is not politically relevant. Church and State are separated. This means, among other things, that believers and non-believers must respect each other’s free choice. Sunday is a holy day for certain religious communities— ⁇ one of the largest in our country, but then it is still not a state religion of course—but there are also other religions that have their holy day on another day.

I remain convinced that it would be a good thing for our shoppers if they could choose when they are open. Then they will also be open at the times when the most people come to the store and they will close on the less busy days.

I am somewhat frightened, in the course of the debate and the months preceding it, by the fierce resistance of some shoppers and self-employed. However, I can also understand it. For many people, the certainty of today’s benevolent store weighs against the uncertainty of whether or not the new law will bring healing.

Some interest organizations would like to suggest that all self-employed would be against more shopping Sundays. I think that is not true. You know that I live in Oostende, of course the most beautiful city of Flanders, where shops can be open on Sundays. Those shoppers there talk to me every day about the question of being able to open more Sundays, with staff.

After all, we have legislation that allows that in certain, tourist areas, the business can be open on Sundays. However, our social legislation has not been adapted to that legislation. A business may be open, but you can only employ a limited number of employees on Sundays. Understand who can.

In addition, for that reason I have submitted a bill that will be discussed as soon as possible — the chairman of the committee, Mr. Bonte, has informed me of the agenda — so that we can align the economic legislation with our social legislation.

( ... )

Mr. Tante, I don’t see how we can maintain the arrangement, when we — fortunately — allow shops to open in certain regions, but at the same time prohibit the same shops from employing staff. It does not go. If a shopkeeper opens his shop, he must still be able to hire staff. Of course, the staff must be paid. That is not a single problem. However, if the government introduces legislation that allows stores to be open but then prohibits employment on certain Sundays, then something is wrong with our legislation.

Curiously, in the same discussion, the local department of the mid-range organization concerned draws the map of greater flexibility, while that is in contradiction with the national discourse I hear about it. My fellow citizens and also the shoppers of the other coastal municipalities, by the way, know very well that they have a high turnover on such days and on Sundays. They also want to secure the conscious day, which is of the utmost importance for the survival of their cause.

Opponents argue that overall sales will not rise due to more shopping Sundays. Consumers will only make their purchases more distributed. The aforementioned claim is covered with the belief and pretension that it would be a scientifically proven evidence.

I do not agree with this at all. It is therefore important to clearly and clearly refute the aforementioned claim here during the plenary session.

Colleagues, that the consumer has a fixed amount of needs is a misconception that belongs to a communist manual on economics. Fortunately, economists know better. There is absolutely no fixed question to which the supply should respond. Supply can also create demand. It is my duty as a liberal to paint this statement again: supply can also create demand.

On Sundays there are a lot of funshoppers. Whoever enters a store only during the week very soon after work—there are even people who work longer than shops can be open at this time in our country—will only buy the things he or she really needs. The fact that some people cannot shop at all during their working hours is proved by the success of the night shops.

Those who on a free day, such as on a Sunday, can take a thorough look at what is in the shops rows, will buy things that they would never have thought of in a quick shopping operation.

The success of the increasing number of night shops proves that there is a need for shops that are open at different hours than usual. The socio-economic reality, where families had a feeder and a housewife, has changed. Believe it or don’t believe it. However, there are people who seem to want to stick to that pattern, but that is no longer the case. There are other forms of families arising in this society. People who start working with two can only go shopping on abnormal hours unless they obviously have a job where they also have leave during the normal hours.

We don’t actually have to discuss or conduct surveys about whether or not there is a demand for more opening hours on Sundays. Dear colleagues, after all, the reality is clear: wherever shops open on Sundays – whether within the existing legislation or in exceptional cases because it is permitted – you can walk on your heads. If people continue to tell me and continue to say that there is no question at all, I think we are doing the wrong thing.

It is not because a number of self-employed people prefer the security of an existing legal framework that we, as representatives of society, must put our heads in the sand for the social and economic evolution that occurs not only in Flanders or Belgium, Mrs. De Meyer, but throughout the world. In Dubai, there will be no problem with whether or not shops are open on Sundays.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get into this. I live in a border municipality that has applied for a tourist recognition. This request was unanimously approved in the municipal council twice. The local middle-level also supports this request. We live in a border municipality and the buying behavior goes across borders. We should not think that we have a unique buying behavior in Belgium or Flanders. The buying behavior transcends national borders, both in terms of mobility and price comparison. I am convinced that we will miss the boat if we do not follow.

Another aspect that has been underestimated in the discussions is the fact that flexibility has two sides. We are always concerned about the shopkeeper who should be able to keep open if he wants to. However, we must also mention that we should also be able to provide that shopper with the possibility to close when he wants to. I repeat that today we have legislation with almost the greatest possible number of opening hours in Europe. In all other countries, shops have fewer opening hours.

( ... )

Mrs. De Meyer, we just have too many mandatory opening hours and that’s the point. Mrs. De Meyer, you prove in the discussion again and again that you have not read my bill, let alone understood it.

I have submitted a bill limiting the number of hours a case can be opened and reducing to the European average. You have no ears for it. With my bill, I intend only more possibilities to choose the opening hours and not — I will return to that again in the discussion, Mr. Tant — a legislation that opens up a lot of possibilities and where royal decrees must provide in a set of exceptions, because the present text does not correspond at all to the social reality. This was also the case in the discussion about ambulance trade. Amendments are approved that do not correspond to the reality on the ground, and then the King must intervene to allow exceptions. This also applies to the text on opening hours.

In this case, a social choice must be made. Do independent shoppers still have the right to participate in that part of social life when social and cultural activities are organized and other things are accessible, especially on weekends, or do they say: in fact, only commerce applies? That is your philosophy. I respect them, because for now I cannot do otherwise, Mr. Tommelein, but I do not in any way share your opinion.

I think that even a self-employed shopkeeper has the right to go somewhere from time to time, along with his children, for example. That is, of course, the weekend. It is a social choice, which is ours. You hold another.

You are actually challenging me a little when you refer to the ambulance trade. Mr. Speaker, can I draw your attention to this? In the framework of the draft law on the ambulant trade, an amendment was accepted on the basis of a majority group, which established a limit on the value of the goods that may be sold home to home. This amendment was approved by a large majority in the committee and therefore also in the plenary. What happened afterwards? It is a beautiful example. Through a royal decree – for the text provided for that possibility – the upper limit was changed again in a very significant way. This is totally contrary to the express will of the Parliament, as demonstrated by the adoption of the amendment.

I know very well that this is a pain point for some colleagues in the majority, who have presented the amendment with good intentions, have found support and then have to suffer from the government making silent compromises and abandoning the express will of the Parliament. One must realize what is happening here.

This is a debate in the debate. Can I let the Minister answer this first, Mr. Tommelein? I want to be clear about this first. Mr. Minister, you have the word.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the discussion on the ambulant trade, the government has accepted Mrs. De Meyer’s amendment, but only if we can have a derogation for some sectors such as electricity and gas. We have included this in the report of the committee’s work. The government has only accepted this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why Mr. Tommelein stands on the tribune and still defends his proposal. I do not understand that. Mr. Tommelein, your proposal is in the garbage cart. You did not get it.

Then, Mr. Tommelein, you continue your argument while approving the bill. What do you want to say here? You agree with the majority because you should, because you can’t otherwise, but you continue to defend your own views on this tribune.

Mrs. Peters, I apparently have a different view of politics and politics than you. I respect your way of thinking. However, it is not because I support a bill that I cannot find my bill better. Again, because you have apparently not listened, I will support this bill as it is a noticeable and undeniable improvement of regulation. I have said that I prefer my bill and I explain why.

It is not because I support a majority bill that makes something better, that I can no longer continue to defend personal or even liberal ideas here on this tribune. It is not because one is part of a government that one can no longer have a personal opinion or that my group can no longer have a personal opinion. This may be different with CD&V. The question is whether you have or should have an opinion on certain matters with your party.

Mr. Tommelein, I find this last question intriguing. I think you cannot blame me for not having an opinion that is not always consistent with the opinion of my party, but for trying to convince my party of my opinion if necessary.

But you didn’t get it, so simple it is.

You shouldn’t cry that it’s such a fantastic change after so many years. Actually nothing has changed. The only new is the regulation for the night shops and for the phoneshops. The rest remained as it was. I would like to add the gas stations. For the rest, the opening hours are as they were before.

Mr. Tante, Coman, do you really want to speak? We never get the agenda done. We will have to introduce a closing time here!

Mr. Speaker, I will keep it very brief.

Mr. Minister, I would like to say the following. This is a beautiful illustration. You actually say that the government has accepted that amendment because it immediately offered it the opportunity to derogate from it. This is the top point as an explanation, and as an appreciation of the Parliament.

Mr Tommelein, it is too common, especially in my committee, that you and other colleagues submit wonderful proposals. But in the moment they could lead to something, they are immediately withdrawn.

The [...]

We have always been much more consistent on this point.

Mr. Tommelein, you should not try to imagine it differently. You submitted a proposal that was much more extensive. You are allowed to leave with the tail between your legs. It’s like someone who goes to a restaurant with a lot of appetite — he wants to eat well — but when he comes out he must conclude that he is still very hungry, but that it was a great restaurant. It will happen to you, right?

Mr. Speaker, nothing prevents Mr. Tommelein from agreeing to the bill and saying that he wants to go a little further than the bill provides, that he wants to provide even greater flexibility. I think it is still possible for someone to put their own views in their argument. Mr. Tante, you want to do that, but Mr. Tommelein can do that too.

You were the applicant of a proposal relating to the equalization of the status of the self-employed. When it was to be voted, it was immediately withdrawn. I know that retreating at the last moment is indeed rather Christian behavior—until recently, because much has changed in the meantime. Mr. Lenssen, at that point you spread a very Christian behavior, I must say.

We have heard a lot of behavior. I give the word back to Mr Tommelein.

Mr. Speaker, I will not continue the discussion about ambulant trade and the current discussion. I just want to point out that it is intended that we can give Parliament our opinion and that it is good that the outside world knows what the liberals stand for and where we want to go. It is important to know the positions of the parties.

I do not always share the opinion of the coalition partner, as much as I always share opinions with CD&V. This does not mean that I agree with Mrs. Pieters on the principle of reversing the choice of closing day, which is also included in this bill. You seem to find this unimportant while I find it important.

If a trader is allowed to be open on days when he can realize his biggest turnover, he can afford to do it a little more calmly on other days, not always on Sundays. Mr. Tante, you still assume that Sunday is the day that everyone should rest, whether they want it or not. You think you should rest on Sunday. I claim that there are also people who can close their business on Monday or Tuesday in a perfect combination with their family life. Mr. Tante, I invite you to come from Kruishoutem to Oostende this summer. I will take you to a number of self-employed people who will explain to you that they close on Wednesday because the children are free on Wednesday afternoon and also close on Friday because the children come out of school sooner. Don’t pretend that the family does everything together on Sunday. There are families that don’t see each other on Sunday because one has to go to the scouts, another to the football and they don’t have time for each other.

The proposed legislation seeks to ⁇ a balance. The bill I submitted together with my colleagues allows the self-employed person to determine their optimal hours. This can be done within a shelf — listen carefully — of 13 hours a day. That is much less than the current regulation and less than proposed in the present Minister’s draft law. Also regarding the mandatory closing day, the design leaves the choice to the trader. Even a split of the closing day from Monday afternoon to Tuesday afternoon is possible.

Therefore, it is a mistake to depict this design as unaccountable and to invoke horror images of an unsurvivable competitive struggle with wholesale shops. Large chains and warehouses need staff. Employing staff costs a lot of money. Too much money according to the liberals, especially during the weekends.

Mr. Tante, you can try to prove a lot. In order to prove that we did not reduce the taxes on labour during this legislature, you will have to raise another piece of currency!

In addition, people should look at their tax returns, which are currently being accounted for. They will know that the taxes on labor have been effectively reduced. I invite you to come to me with your tax letter. Mr. Bogert has also been invited by my colleague Daems on this subject. You will get back from the tax office, Mr. Tant. You will get back. Please be calm.

I will bring my tax letter to Oostende, if I am allowed to enter on your invitation, on the condition that it is not only cafes that we visit, because I fear that it will be, Mr. Tommelein.

No, that is not true.

Come on colleagues.

It is not so obvious for those large chains to be open 7 days on 7 days. They will in any case, like the small self-employed, have to make a balance of higher personnel costs with more hours of work.

There are examples abroad. I refer, for example, to our neighboring Netherlands, the bright example of the Christian Democrats. It has been shown that, despite a more flexible legislation, stores still open fewer hours. That is also logical, because no one can handle a rhythm of 7 days on 7 and 24 hours on 24. Salespeople make choices at that time. No one wants to force shoppers to be more open. Certainly not the liberals either. Please let the shopkeepers choose themselves and when to open and when to close.

I regret that the support for my proposal has not yet been received, Mrs. Peters. Because this society...

No, that is not true. We are apparently dealing here with colleagues who cannot accept that a colleague, a group, has a different opinion than theirs. I blame you for nothing. I regret that our bill has not yet been supported. We will, together with our group, support the present bill.

Mrs. De Meyer wishes to interrupt you. Come, it has to go a little forward.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to Mr. Tommelein that I absolutely give him the right to express his own opinion. I would very much like him to say that very clearly, as it is now, because it is a very clear position. I find that fantastic. That is what the liberals stand for. And we will later say what the Socialists stand for. That is important. I think this can be done in this Parliament, absolutely.

Thank you, Mrs De Meyer. It would be regrettable that we would have to evolve towards a unified thinking.

This draft law makes an undeniable improvement. It simplifies and harmonises existing regulations.

It is clear that the debate on this issue is not a closed matter. The Liberals remain convinced that greater flexibility plays a role in both the self-employed and the consumer, and will also try to persuade the relevant professional organisations and some colleagues politicians after the adoption of this bill. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the Socialist Group is delighted to see this day come in plenary session, following many negotiations and harsh discussions, a project that allows the renewal of legislations dating back more than 30 years and which no longer really responded to the socio-economic evolution of our society.

Finally, in a single law, all the provisions relating to opening hours are gathered, knowing that the draft applies to retail trade and leaves the King the possibility to extend the scope of application to the services that he determines. It also applies to night shops and private telecommunications offices.

In order to meet the concerns of sectors not organized into federations, the project imposes a weekly rest day for all, while allowing derogations for certain sectors. In this sense, it helps to maintain one of the major concerns of our group, namely the necessary reconciliation and the right balance between work and family life. by

The project is still satisfactory in that it takes into account, in relation to the problem of nightshops and telecommunications offices, the needs of consumers, but also the inconveniences that the latter could experience in the implementation of this freedom to undertake, giving more powers to municipalities. From now on, they will be able to take measures by means of municipal regulations taken on the basis of determined objective criteria. The legal basis given by the project to local authorities in terms of their power of action in the framework of the regulation of opening hours, mainly in the possibility thus granted to pronounce motivated prohibitions in order to guarantee the safety and tranquility of neighbors, is therefore a great advance in terms of legal certainty. Indeed, before the existence of this regulation, it was frequent that the acts taken by local authorities in matters of compulsory closure were systematically broken by the State Council as a result of a legal basis defect limiting the freedom to undertake.

Following this same reasoning, my group would like to recall the existence of a proposal from Ms. Saudoyer aimed at extending the municipal competences covered in the project to sectors such as dancings, mega-dancings and drinks flows.

This proposal aims to address many problems of public safety, public health and road safety, generated by the uninterrupted opening of certain establishments. by

I would simply like to point out that the aim is not to integrate these sectors into the general regulation on opening hours, but to take into account the socio-economic reality inherent in each municipality in order to ensure the best of the general interest.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the present draft is indeed fundamentally different from the original preliminary draft, as submitted by Mrs. Minister, who originally indeed planned to drastically extend the opening hours of all shops so that we would de facto have fallen into a kind of 24-hour consumer society, where the self-employed is degraded to a kind of Duracel rabbit that must continue to walk and continue to work continuously.

We are therefore pleased that the Minister has taken gas back and has taken into account all the opinions that have come in on this matter. It is a pleasure to the Minister that she did it. I followed all the advice. It was a thick file. All opinions were actually all going in the same direction. We have been in the society for once. The middle-classers, the consumers, the trade unions and the Family Union found some prejudice unacceptable, not to be plummeted, harmful to family life and with no economic added value.

The existing Belgian legislation already allows commercial ⁇ to be open 91 hours a week. There is already a wide range available to the traders who want to. Indeed, our trade stores in our country are effectively open on average 67 hours a week, 11 hours longer than the current European average. We are already a leader in the European retail group. We think it has really been enough and the middle-classers today actually think so. Other speakers referred here to the overseas and mentioned the bright example of the Netherlands. I must tell you that in the Netherlands it was indeed also thought that by extending the opening hours of shops one would ⁇ a higher turnover, but after evaluation it has been shown that that surplus turnover, which was effective at the beginning, in the meantime has fallen again. It is clear that today in the Netherlands a number of chains return from the extended opening hours, both for shopping evenings and for shopping Sundays. It comes back from an experiment that appears to have not been so successful.

It is important, both for the self-employed and for all people, to have rest points in our already too busy existence. In the past, a lot of struggle was fought for the right to a free day: a day when you should not work, a day when you have time to do other things, to be free, to do something with family, friends, acquaintances and colleagues, where you can eat cakes with grandmother, where you can go through with friends, where you can go to the zoo with your children. Their

We are very pleased with the position of the bishops. According to some colleagues, this is politically irrelevant. I find the position of our bishops politically ⁇ relevant. I am very happy, as a non-believer, that the bishops have taken that position. It is my fundamental belief, even though I do not believe that bishops can also participate in the social fabric of our society. Their

A second note concerns the tankshops. For us, this is another point of trouble in the present draft, but we were sensitive to the argument also made by the minister in connection with the exception for the tankshops. We were sensitive to the argument of safety at night: it is an important argument that for the gas stations with a connected store the safety is increased. That seems to me correct.

Mrs. De Meyer, of course, I have great respect for your position and your blessed statements about the bishops. I would like to ask you, who are so happy with that, how do you explain the increasing success of the number of night shops and the increasing number of customers who go there? If everyone is so satisfied with the current situation and the fact that those shops must close on Sundays, I would like to know why shops that are open outside the normal opening hours have such success. What do you think is the explanation for this?

When one creates an offer, it is indeed taken into account. The question is: is it a social good to do this? This is a social choice that is made, in which I fully agree with Mr. Tant. Does one create the supply of a twenty-four urine consumption society, or does one choose a different model? We choose a different model. That’s what separates us and fortunately we differ in opinions.

I find that you willingly continue to claim that I want to go to a twenty-four-hour economy, while I will not go there with my bill, and that is also clearly stated in my speech, but you continue to repeat that willingly. I repeat and hope that your voters will remember this at the next municipal council elections: the socialist group is against night shops and therefore does not want people to go shopping outside the normal opening hours. I make that determination here.

I will soon go into the item of the night shops.

You all make new speeches without signing up.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tommelein, when you talk about night shops, you should ask yourself why it is considered useful and necessary to be able to regulate there. Their

The reason is, in part, the social distress that causes this kind of thing. Mrs. Minister, you will not lie about this. To set forth absolute freedom as the only goal to be pursued is clearly not our line, nor actually that of the minister. Their

Mr Tommelein, I was able to say this in the committee. It will only happen to you that you live next to such a night shop. As a municipality, one can actually try to act as a regulator by making police regulations that criminalize certain behaviors. However, this does not solve the problem. This does not solve the problem of young people. Their

If this is the success of your night shops, then I don’t know if one can see that as an enrichment, Mr. Tommelein. When young people gather there, it is primarily because they are often there on the streets ...

The [...]

Mr. Tommelein, I can give you a few other considerations. I promised to be short. Look at how people react in the vicinity of such a night shop. The good thing about this bill is that it can be regulated from now on. My only fear is that I wonder if one can do it enough. Will we have sufficient tools, not to combat criminal behavior, but to ⁇ address its disturbing effect? Their

Mr. Tommelein, I just wanted to tell you the following. If one is a responsible politician, one can not only have an eye for maximizing the freedom of one or the other, then there are also other social aspects that one should keep an eye on.

Mrs. De Meyer is speaking.

Mr. De Meyer may continue her speech at once. She answered my question. Their

Mr. Tante, I just want to tell you that it is a shame how you automatically link the profession of a night shop exploiter to crime and crime. It is a shame!

We talked about the tanks. I just said that this is a bit of a sensitive point, also for us. Mrs. Minister, we found certain of your arguments really valid, including a sense of safety in those gas stations, even at night and of course the element of employment. This, of course, is also an argument that we are absolutely sensitive to. Their

We also have some doubts about the provision of the 50%, but we have heard clearly in that discussion that publicity should only be made for the tank activity. This is very important for us. Only a limited range of other goods may be offered. The ham question will indeed be what is a limited range. Therefore, we find it very good, unlike CD&V, that there are strict sanctions in the draft. We also find the expansion of the possibilities for inspection very good, precisely because we find it very important that the tanks can be properly controlled.

We will follow the entire evolution with arguments. I think we will see in a year or two how it goes. Is it indeed a small shop as colleague Lano portrays it, where the car driver who happens to come by and tanks there enters to make some emergency purchases? Or will it grow into the night shop of the adjacent village? This must ⁇ not be. We will look at it with arguments and we will evaluate it once and again after a year.

Finally, I come to the delicate point of the nightshops and the phoneshops, which colleague Tant had just mentioned. Not all nightshops and phoneshops should be shaved on the same chest. There are night shops and phoneshops with which there is no problem. However, there are also others that cause discomfort. Until now, there were little or no possibilities for the municipal government to do anything about this. The draft law now makes this possible by allowing municipalities to draw up a regulation. I think that is a very good element in the bill.

For all these reasons, for the preservation of the opening hours, for the respect for the family life of the self-employed, for the possible regulation regarding nightshops and phoneshops at the municipal level and for the limitation for the tankshops, with the footnote I have placed therein, we will therefore approve the draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill on the opening hours of shops, which we are discussing today, is the result of two years of negotiations.

Some will probably think that it doesn’t go far enough in some areas, such as mega dancings. Nevertheless, the compromise achieved in this text responds very satisfactorily to several issues.

This bill repeals the law of 22 June 1960 on weekly rest and the law of 24 July 1973 establishing compulsory evening shutdown and replaces them by a single text. These two laws aimed at ⁇ ining a balance between consumer interests and the well-being of trade workers, both self-employed and self-employed. They provided spaces of freedom to the interested parties in order to offer them a family and social life after the opening hours of the place of their activity, as well as opportunities for continuous vocational training. Other colleagues have alluded before me to this indispensable balance between the professional and private life of self-employed.

The bill ⁇ ins these achievements, while modernising these more than 30 years old legislations and adapting them to the current socio-economic reality.

Now I would like to highlight some elements of this project that I find important.

First, I would like to say a few words about the weekly rest. Currently, it is imposed only on sectors that have requested it through their professional federation. However, not all sectors are organized in professional federations. It therefore results in a problem of equality and equity between sectors that are organized in professional federation and those that are not. This project solves the problem by overturning the system and imposing a weekly rest day on all sectors, while leaving the King the opportunity to grant exemptions to sectors in need. This is an important step forward for workers.

I would also like to draw attention to the administrative simplifications introduced in this project. At this level, the project induces a number of positive changes such as the uniformization and integration of the existing regulation into a single legislation, the generalization of the principle of the weekly rest day and the planned uniformization of the conditions and the recognition procedure for tourist centres.

In practice, this means that merchants will no longer need to go to the municipality to declare their closing day. The attachment of a visible poster on the front door of the store will suffice. by

Another example: in order to benefit from the exemptions as tourist centres, they will no longer have to submit several different applications, as is still the case today. by

Regarding the night shops and phone-shops, I can only express my satisfaction to see that the college of mayors and shevins will now be able to make arrangements through a municipal regulation. As already stated by other colleagues, it is obvious that this type of trade meets consumer demand. by

However, it is also true that some of these shops are generators of inconvenience and insecurity for the inhabitants of the surrounding area; but let us not generalize. In addition, in some cases, too many settlements of shops of this type can deflect the historical center of some municipalities.

To legislate uniformly in this matter was, in our opinion, inopportune. The solution selected in the bill is interesting in that the municipalities will have the possibility, and not the obligation, to adopt a municipal regulation subjecting the opening of the evening to the authorization of the college of mayors and chefs. by

This regulation will set objective criteria, such as the spatial location of the establishment, the maintenance of order, security and tranquility, on the basis of which the authorisation to operate a night-shop may be refused by the college. At this level, it should also be recalled that this possibility for the municipality to make a settlement cannot in any case lead to a general ban or a quantitative limitation of this type of establishments on the territory of the municipality.

Finally, I would also like to remind you that the bill does not aim to increase the number of opening hours. The latter remains unchanged, namely from 5 to 21 hours on Fridays and the working day preceding a public holiday, and from 5 to 20 hours on other days. On this point, I would especially draw your attention to the fact that the Minister has thus respected the will of many professional federations.

Furthermore, this bill helps to address practical difficulties encountered by some traders due to the provisions currently in force. In particular, I think of the prohibition of re-supply of automatic distributors after 20:00, a prohibition that will be removed if we adopt this bill tonight.

I will also cite the provision of the draft stipulating that only the main activity of a trade should be taken into account in determining whether the legislation is applicable. Indeed, in recent years, shops whose main activity is the rental of video films, but which accessorily sell sweets, had been convicted by the courts for violation of the evening closing law because they were considered food stores. The bill clarifies the situation in this regard. by

For all these reasons, and mainly because the text ⁇ ins a balance between the interests of consumers and the well-being of workers in the trade sector, the MR group will vote in favour of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the discussions on the subject are lively but things are worth it because it is a real social debate. It is not only about whether it is appropriate to keep privileged moments, with or without shops, to maintain a family life and leisure activities other than shopping, but also about knowing what will be consumed and how, overall, consumption and food will be integrated into the well-being of the population.

I will return to the stores that benefit from exemptions such as video clubs, bookstores or service stations. I don’t have anything against the fact that they sell “gougouilles” in a video movie store but I wonder if it’s really necessary to facilitate their purchase and, besides that, to fund a nutrition plan to fight obesity. The debate is very broad and will not be resolved easily. by

Nevertheless, our discussions also focus on the possibilities for business diversification – for example, stores that sell quality products – and on business-specific schedules that respect privacy. It is also part of the consumer choice. by

I would like to make another general comment before coming to the debate that we are dealing with. This project is not intended to push the Belgian citizen to consume more and more. It is obvious that if you open on Sunday, people will consume on Sunday and not another day. I have no problem with this. But trying to imagine a project so that the Belgian consumer spends more and more so that merchants can live, is an orientation that I cannot follow.

I know that the project that is being submitted to our vote today is the result of many compromises and that it is difficult to find another formula.

It is suitable for ECOLO due to positive elements such as ⁇ ining existing time ranges. I also regret that merchants do not use permitted hours as they can open up to 20:00 (21:00 on Friday); very few of them do so, except for medium and large surfaces. They can open on Saturday, Sunday, provided they compensate for another day of closure. This possibility already exists for traders and I regret that they are not testing it and they are not trying to adopt a slightly more dynamic trading policy. Per ⁇ these discussions will allow them to introduce flexibility into their business habits. by

This is a compromise that helps to protect the small merchant facing the large distribution. There is also the challenge: if the opening hours of the stores are completely deregulated, some will have the financial and human resources that will allow them to be open permanently and small merchants will feel compelled to follow the hours of the large surfaces to hold the blow. And then it is the escalation. Hence the interest of fixed timetables that protect the weakest against the larger. Trade unions also agree to this agreement. The large distribution itself realized that increasing opening hours would result in a spread in sales, which would force the staff to work longer while the turnover would not increase. This is a positive aspect. Another interesting aspect despite its limitations is the fact that it has given the power and capacity to municipal authorities to authorize or prohibit the installation on their territory of shops such as night shops and phoneshops and to play on exceptions regarding Sundays or opening hours. This measure is ⁇ interesting because it allows municipal authorities to no longer be completely deprived of the concentration of night shops on the same crossroads. However, I am confused about how municipalities are forced to do this work.

We had already talked about this at the time of discussions on the law on commercial settlements. We have just talked about it again. I believe it is our duty to require, at the federal and regional level, that the municipalities set up plans for economic or socio-economic development in which they describe their ambitions on their territory, in terms of economic and commercial activities. Therefore, when they accept or refuse settlements, night shops, phone shops or even different opening and closing hours, it will be in the context of a socio-economic development known to all.

For now, structural schemes or development plans are suggested or advised, but there is no constraint. If it existed, we would be obliged to give the communes the means to realize these plans and, therefore, to correctly apply federal laws relating to the settlements or the opening hours of the stores.

To illustrate my concern, I take as an example the tourist areas. For some tourist areas, this is obvious. Ostende is a city where tourists go on Sundays to shop. On the other hand, in my municipality, there is really not much going on: no tourists visit the places. There is no additional population; it is the resident of the municipality who buys on Sunday or Thursday. The opening of Sunday is therefore different for the tourist area.

In addition, some municipalities have submitted applications to be considered as tourist areas. Some of these requests sometimes seem strange and less legitimate to me. As an example, I can cite the city of Ciney where trade fairs take place from time to time, especially some weekends. A commercial complex project is also under consideration. This shopping centre would be decentralized in relation to the city and located around the site hosting the fairs. Their reasoning is therefore to say that if they are recognized as a tourist area, they will be able to open the shops of the shopping center when the fairs are held. Is it smart? I do not know. It is still the case that the merchants in the city center, who are now animating the city, are afraid to be blurred, ⁇ wrongly.

In any case, it is a city that has not presented a trade policy plan taking into account at the same time its desire to be considered as a tourist area but also the desire of its merchants. Devices are sometimes used in the interests of certain actors rather than in the general interest.

Regarding night shops and phoneshops, I appreciate that the municipality has the opportunity to make arrangements. However, the provisions provided for in the law relate essentially to public order, tranquility. They must be taken through a municipal regulation that clearly provides for the analysis of data. There is therefore a demand for objectivity, but only in terms of respect for public order. I have fears. There are negative assumptions. Sometimes there is noise around night shops, but it is not due to the proper activity of the trade; it is rather the result of people dragging on the sidewalk, knocking a door, having conversations, and sometimes arguing. The trader must also suffer these inconveniences. by

I know that in some municipalities, and in particular my own, some are looking forward to the possibility of closing this kind of trade rather than having to implement an appropriate policy and having to question why young people aged 17 to 24 gather in front of the night shop. Rather than creating meeting places and giving these young people the opportunity to find themselves elsewhere, we prefer to close the night shop responsible for annoyances.

If the municipality should justify the decision to accept or refuse a night shop on the basis of a socio-economic development plan, other criteria should be taken into account, including respect for those who have the courage to work every night. by

In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about the shops that will benefit from an exemption; I think in particular of the gas stations and the shops that sell tobacco, newspapers, videos, etc.

Defining a complementary activity on the basis that an activity becomes primary from the moment the turnover of that activity reaches 50% is, in my view, logically unacceptable. One main activity accounts for more than half. That is, half of the turnover minus 0.1% can be made up of the sale of chips, for example, and half of the turnover plus 0.1% can come from the sale of gasoline, newspapers or tobacco.

It is therefore insufficient to mention that a lot of things can be sold thanks to this activity that benefits from the exemption, which must correspond to about half of the turnover. In this regard, there is a risk of unfair competition against merchants who sell what the gas station or newspaper store can sell with the benefit of this exemption. Moreover, this competition will go through products of poor quality: it will be cheap products and that will have to try the customer. This will lead to the consumption of bad products. I am, of course, out of the strict framework of this law. However, we are also facing this problem.

That is why I introduced, with Ms. Pieters, the amendment specifying that if a main activity leads to an exemption, it is imperative that it represents at least 80% of the turnover.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, we will abstain from this project, given the missing dimensions and those precautions which, in our opinion, should have been taken and which I do not think would have caused harm to the Minister’s compromise.

Mr. Speaker, I think the general analysis is that the distribution landscape is changing, that the supply is increasing both qualitatively and quantitatively, and that the distribution can also be varied and modern. It surprises me, however, that no one has made an economic contribution and that one has only spoken of the principle. The margins are ripped off. That is, people need to optimize their distribution. That optimization does not necessarily lead to escalation, as others argue here. This does not happen automatically. One must have the courage to regularly update the legislation and the legal arsenal and that is what is happening now.

I would like to make three comments. My first comment concerns the gas stations. I am surprised that one does not have the courage to say that they must be livable first of all. Then I accept the argument that one wants to limit something. I understand that. First and foremost, one must respect the guest who works there. He must have the opportunity to survive. I heard no one say it here. Everyone thinks this is normal.

Second, no one is talking about the new forms of distribution where no staff is employed. Shops without people. How are they opposed to this?

A third point that also disturbs me is the following. By the way, I do not target anyone, because I want to stay moderate. I have great respect for the “plagues” of family joy and balance. Politicians give a good example of respect for Sunday rest; we are well placed to teach lessons to others, right? This troubles me somewhat. Our country cannot function without people who work day and night. In the healthcare sector and the economy, people work on Saturdays, Sundays and nights. Are they also not in balance? There are far more people working in the organised economy and in the industry than in the sectors we are talking about here. I find that little respectful to the people who engage day and night and also on Sunday for the country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add two small things to the attention of Mr. Speaker. by Lano.

First, I also think that people who sell fuel must be able to live a dignified life from selling fuel. We must tell oil companies that they must pay properly to the people who sell their products. These people should not live through the sale of other products.

Secondly, I would like to point out that Sunday opening is already possible right now!

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the argument of Mrs. Gerkens. We have already discussed this in the discussion.

I showed how much it costs to open a pump station. Then here dare to claim that the oil companies do not compensate the people properly is shameful. Ask the people concerned: they will be rewarded; they will have a good reward. However, they must also be motivated to eventually earn even more. That is what is allowed. It is allowed to encourage the stakeholders to stay engaged. This is not only a quantitative, but also a qualitative timeframe.

We now devoted an hour and three quarters of time to the debate during the plenary session.

Mr. Speaker, the debates we have here show how difficult it is to reach a balance that satisfies everyone. This text tries to ⁇ a certain balance, but things can obviously evolve.

Regarding the 50% for gas stations and for video clubs among others, I recall, as Ms. De Meyer did very correctly, that there are other criteria.

I would also like to reassure parliamentarians who did not attend committee meetings by clarifying two things. It is not, in this text, about changing the possibility or the prohibition of Sunday afternoon work. As Ms. Gerkens said very well, an independent trader can already open his trade on Sunday afternoon and he will still be able to do so but without employing staff. The problem of employment of personnel on Sunday afternoon remains a competence of my colleague of Employment and this point will not be addressed in this project.

As for tourist areas, it is exactly the same thing. If this text is voted, there will be only one derogation given by the Middle Class regarding opening hours and weekly rest instead of two today. The text says nothing else. by

I would like to clarify to Ms. Gerkens that Ciney has been recognized as a tourist city by my employment colleague since 2000 — I was not yet a member of the government at that time — with regard to Sunday afternoon employment and this has not created any problem, no particular tension. Of course, these are opportunities that are given, not obligations. I mean as proof that few shops open on Sunday afternoon and employ staff, except when there is a demand.