Proposition 54K1155

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 10 novembre 2006 relative aux heures d'ouverture dans le commerce, l'artisanat et les services en ce qui concerne la limitation des heures d'ouverture dans les stations balnéaires et les centres touristiques.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Benoît Friart
N-VA Daphné Dumery, Rita Gantois, Werner Janssen, Johan Klaps, Bert Wollants

Submission date

June 10, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

retail trade local authority trading hours tourist region leisure

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

PP 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 ¶

March 17, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Mrs Vanheste and Mr Vande Lanotte and they refer to the written report.

The amendment of the Act of 10 November 2006 on opening hours in trade, crafts and services, as regards the limitation of opening hours in resorts and tourist centers, will benefit many cities and municipalities. The beach towns and tourist centers are even demanding parties for the legislative change. In other words, the mayors of the cities and municipalities concerned, regardless of their political colour, can only conclude that there is a problem with the current legislation and that it needs to be amended.

Today in the towns and municipalities there are regular opening hours. This means that all stores will not be allowed to open their doors until 5 a.m. and will have to close at 20 a.m. and at 21 a.m. on Friday. There are, of course, a few exceptions to that rule, such as gas stations and newspaper stores. The biggest exception, however, are the so-called beach towns, places on our Flemish coast, and tourist centers. The latter term refers to municipalities or cities that have been fully or partially recognised as “tourist zones”. To obtain the latter status, an application must be submitted and various tourist requirements must be met. A city or municipality in Flanders that complies with this will receive a positive and binding advice from the Flemish government. The Minister responsible for self-employed persons and SMEs will then recognize that city, municipality or parts thereof as a tourist area.

Recognition has significant consequences. As I mentioned earlier, these cities and municipalities are subject to an exception to the opening hours law. There are no opening hours today. In theory, traders can therefore keep their stores open 24 hours a day and seven days a day, which in practice, of course, is very rare. Traders have a great deal of flexibility. The great advantage is that both on the dike along the North Sea and in the historic centre of Antwerp, for example, or in a crowded village in the Ardennes, merchants can keep their stores open longer than normal and better tailor them to their customers. Tourists also like to walk around at night and buy souvenirs. Traders see their sales increase. The experience of the municipality or the city is moving forward. This is of course a win-win situation.

You may be wondering why we want to change this law.

Colleagues, one of the few disadvantages of the law has major implications for the cities and municipalities involved. Local regulations can be avoided. In addition, the local governments are best placed, to determine what is important in their city. Therefore, it is important that cities and municipalities can manage their economies themselves.

Let me outline the problem. In many cities and municipalities, night shops must apply for a permit. This is necessary to prevent the wild growth of those shops. Absolutely do not misunderstand me: night shops have a very relevant social function, in the sense that they give citizens more freedom to buy certain items after the conventional opening hours. I think most of our colleagues are too late at home on a standard working day to be able to go shopping during the usual hours. However, because these shops are open at night, they can also cause inconvenience. Therefore, it is important that a municipality can direct through a licensing policy where and how many night shops are allowed.

In the beach towns and tourist centers, this is a problem today. There are no opening hours. A regular store may be open there at night, so not only the night shops. When the operators remove the sign ‘night shop’, the case becomes a regular store and they can still remain open at night, while they no longer have to comply with the licensing obligation. The possibility of limiting the number of night shops and avoiding inconvenience is therefore absent for those municipalities. That creates a real wave of dusty night shops, resulting in more inconvenience. In order to be honest, we must also admit that a one-sided offer of shops does not contribute to a pleasant experience of the city for tourists. The intended win-win situation for traders and consumers is therefore under great pressure.

In this way, there is also discrimination. After all, the night shop outside a tourist zone must apply for a permit, comply with the rules of the game and also pay taxes. A night shop in a tourist area does not need to. In this way, the night shops are removed from the non-tourist edge and a concentration in the tourist zone is created, aggravating the problem. Through the current new law, we will eliminate discrimination and restore equal playing conditions for all night shops.

With the proposed amendment, we close the backdoors and finally give the seaside cities and tourist centres the power to direct their own economies. They are and remain in the best position to determine what is good for the city, its inhabitants and its visitors. The new text gives beach towns and tourist centers the power to impose, for their own needs, restrictions on the opening hours not yet existing.

So it is only up to the respective municipalities and cities to decide when shops should be open and when they should close. Of course, it is important to note that the restrictions should not go beyond the mandatory closing hours outside the tourist zones. Between 5 a.m. and 20 a.m. shops should be open. All applicable exceptions for, for example, nightly releases of a book or film will of course continue to apply. You do not have to worry about this.

This change is possible, but it is not an obligation. It is up to each municipality itself to make that consideration. Where necessary, we can now control wildlife growth and ensure that the discrimination between shops inside and outside the tourist zone disappears.

Another major benefit of the new legislation is that the municipalities themselves will be able to sanction hardleer traders. If a municipality chooses to limit opening hours, traders must comply with it. With the proposed text, the municipalities themselves will have the possibility to move to sanctions for violations through the GAS Act. This can range from a fine for a first infringement to even closure, in extreme cases for repeated infringements. Again, it is the municipality, which is best placed here to determine which penalties are needed.

With the amendment, a gap in existing legislation, which could undermine municipal regulations, is poised. Furthermore, it addresses the existing discrimination between night shops inside and outside the tourist zone. Bathing cities and tourist cities now finally get what they are entitled to, namely the ability to direct the local economy to the image of the city to realize the best possible harmony. Opening hours may be imposed and the sanctioning power also belongs to them.

Many mayors and shipping colleges of all political facets have been facing an unwanted situation for years, with which they themselves could do nothing. With this legislative amendment, we offer them a solution.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, our Economy Committee has spent a lot of time studying the issue of opening hours in stores.

Initially, hearings were held at the initiative of the Open Vld group with its bill aimed at extending the opening hours, a proposal that, in the end, received little support from the members of the committee (majority and opposition): a single vote in favour, no one was convinced of the well-founded arguments put forward by the authors! Therefore, you will not be able to purchase a smartphone in Belgium on a Sunday at 4 a.m. as in New York! by Ouf!

In a second time, six other bills were examined starting with the bill initiated by the N-VA group aimed at limiting the opening hours in resorts and tourist centres. The least we can say is that a certain cacophonie or a certain cacophonie reigned within the majority around these different bills, the Minister Borsus announcing a bill that ultimately never arrived.

In short, all this work gave birth to a mouse. This is somehow a missed opportunity. In fact, the other legislative proposals of the opposition contained concrete elements. We could have performed a quality parliamentary work (majority and opposition), because the objectives, the findings were not the subject of any divergence of points of view. Per ⁇ there were the means to ⁇ this. We could have worked together to review, amend, correct the Basic Act of 2006 on the opening hours of shops. This is not the path that was chosen by the majority who refused to discuss the legislation proposals of the opposition. I can only regret him.

We had prepared a summary document of each other’s proposals in order to examine how to address a series of problems that arise. We are looking for consensus. This has not succeeded. I repeat, this is a missed opportunity. A gemist chance, my lord Klaps! Sorry enough!

This work of synthesis and seeking consensus was swept from one side of the hand and, eventually, only the proposal of the N-VA was examined.

On the subject that concerns us, the problem was recalled by the first author, Mr. by Klaps. The resorts and tourist areas benefit from an exceptional regime concerning opening hours. Night shops subject to a municipal authorization quickly understood the advantage that they could draw from this specificity, so that they could also open twenty-four hours in twenty-four and no longer fall within the scope of Article 18, which requires in particular a municipal authorization. They quickly abandoned the term "night store" and this trick allows them to empty from their substance the municipal policies that aim to limit and regulate the presence of night shops by subjecting them to a municipal authorization.

Mr. Klaps, we totally agreed to make this conclusion together. Is this problem specific to the Belgian coast or tourist centers? and no. There are ⁇ particular problems here, but I believe that all our cities and municipalities are facing this type of problem.

In many municipalities, tourist or non-tourist, night shops have benefited from the perverse effect of this law of 10 November 2006 by sinking into the open gap by the exceptions listed in its article 16, § 2. These night shops have thus been transformed into tobacco shops or video-clubs, thus escaping the imposition of opening hours and weekly rest but also, or even above all, escaping the prior authorisation of operation issued by the municipal college as well as the possible closure decisions in case of violation of the municipal regulation. In this little game, one must find that the imagination is too big to bypass the regulation.

In order to solve this problem on the whole country, and not on certain parts of it, the socialist group, on the initiative of my colleague Paul-Olivier Delannois, submitted two bills. These legislation proposals aim to compel shops that open at night to obtain a prior authorization to operate. We thus wanted to give the necessary tools to the municipalities to enable them to prevent possible annoyances and thus avoid the installation of night shops in clearly inappropriate places.

The N-VA group did not find this solution interesting and preferred to persist in its mistake – Mr. Klaps, I tell you. In any case, I give my analysis of this case. It proposed to the coastal and tourist municipalities to be able to impose closing hours on traditional stores and not benefiting from the derogations referred to in Article 16.

I read this excerpt because the words it contains are very important: "not benefiting from the derogations referred to in article 16 of the 2006 law". These fundamental terms alone sign the ineffectiveness of the bill that the majority is about to vote.

Even worse, there has been an unequal treatment of sanctions between commercial units located in the tourist area and the others, the first ones falling under the Act on Municipal Administrative Sanctions, while the latter ones will continue to fall under the Act of 2006. From my point of view, this is contrary to a constitutional prohibition of discrimination – a fact that has been clearly struck by the legal services. The authors preferred to ignore this aspect of the case.

The script can be written as follows. Within a few months, night shops will be immersed in the derogations provided for in Article 16, § 2. The Belgian coast, Vlaamse kust, and other tourist centers will see flourishing tobacco shops and video-clubs that can continue, as if nothing was, to open twenty-four hours of twenty-four as they want. Per ⁇ the proposed solution will be useful for a few months, but it will not be sustainable.

So we will evaluate this law in a few months, in six months or a year. Let us make an appointment to see the failure of the bill that is submitted to us today.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill proposal that was initiated by Mr. Klaps, and for which a consensus was quickly found in the majority, contrary to what Mr. Delizée says, is part of a desire to grant increased autonomy to the local authorities of tourist areas, including resorts.

Due to their specificity, these territories benefit from a regime derogating from common law provided for by the law of 10 November 2006 regarding weekly opening hours and weekly closing days. Traditional shops located in these territories may remain open 24 hours a day and 7 days a day. While this exception represents a certain interest for merchants and for consumers, it must be noted that tourist areas have nevertheless faced in recent years a phenomenon that can sometimes present some disadvantages for the inhabitants of these territories. Indeed, following the measures taken by certain local authorities located outside the tourist areas to combat the excessive development of night shops, it happens that the municipalities located in tourist areas are now facing a proliferation of this type of commerce. However, it turns out that a number of night-shops, once located in the tourist areas, bypass the municipal regulations on night shops, including the prior municipal authorization attached to them, making themselves seem to be traditional shops. They thus empty the 2006 law of its substance by taking advantage of the derogatory regimes provided for tourist areas.

Mr Freeman, you are a municipalist. You are not blind! You should know that outside the tourist areas, a number of municipalities where night-shops are located suffer a whole series of annoyances. What are you doing for them? Do you consider that this is not a concern and leave the question aside?

and no.

Allow me to continue. The President has not yet taken the word from me and he is still the chairman of this Assembly.

Mr. Friart, today you are giving tools to these beach resorts, to these tourist centres. In reality, you haven’t taken a single second to measure the needs of the other municipalities that are exactly the same. In fact, the problem of the annoyances, the problem of the night-shops are met in the same way. It would therefore be important that municipalities, no matter in which area they are located, can have real tools to end these totally unacceptable inconveniences for a very large number of citizens.

It is obvious that the mayors can intervene since they are the ones who determine the opening hours of the night-shops in their municipality. It is the law that provides for this.

It still seems important to us to support this text aiming to amend the 2006 law in order to allow municipalities recognized as tourist areas to limit opening hours according to their needs. With this text, we ensure that local authorities are empowered to take into account their specificities and to use the tools to address the concrete problems they face.

Like other establishments, night-shops have a full economic role. It is important not to stigmatize all night traders who, like all self-employed, contribute to the dynamism of our SME tissue, but also sometimes to the creation of jobs.

That being said, we are also aware of some discomfort generated by the proliferation of this type of ⁇ in neighborhoods that are not necessarily adapted to the development of these establishments.

In addition, some municipalities are sometimes confronted with certain social fraud.

The bill provides the possibility for local authorities to set opening hours in tourist areas. It was important to ensure that they could not, however, go below the scheduled opening hours for the territories located outside these zones. For this purpose, together with other colleagues, we submitted an amendment to clarify these elements in the bill.

We also ensured that certain types of shops, already benefiting from the exemption for opening hours outside tourist areas, are not penalized.

Finally, the bill offers the possibility for local authorities to sanction violations of their municipal regulations fixing opening hours in accordance with the law of 24 June 2013 on municipal administrative sanctions.

We have taken care to clarify, during our committee work, that this new sanctions regime cannot in any way be considered to be contrary to the regime provided for by the criminal provisions referred to in Article 22 of the Law of 10 November 2006. This ad hoc regime is explained by the specific situation faced by municipalities located in a tourist area, since these local authorities must provide for an ad hoc regulation on opening hours in order to derogate from the Act of 2006, unlike other municipalities, whose regime is already governed by that legislation.

The unions of Brussels, Flemish and Walloon cities and municipalities welcomed this legislative initiative. It must be said that the local authorities, in the first line in this case, constitute field actors obviously sensitive to the management of this type of problem.

It is essential that they have the right tools to respond quickly and effectively to the problems they face on a daily basis.

This is why the MR Group will support this text, because it provides an appropriate tool for local authorities in tourist areas to deal with new issues.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, CD&V supports the bill initiated by Mr. Klaps because there are actually a number of problems and abuses possible and also have been observed in a number of beaches and tourist centers.

The problems arise especially in night shops that act as both day and night shops and are not forced to apply for a specific permit that is necessary in non-tourist zones. This was a problem that was addressed and that we also acknowledge. We have tried to find a solution to prevent such problems in the future.

We also submitted a majority amendment on Mr Klaps’s bill with the majority to clarify a number of issues. We would ⁇ like to clarify that a restriction on the global freedom of opening hours in those zones and centers through the municipal regulations, thus not through the mayor, can be allowed by those cities or municipalities, when it concerns all establishment units in that city or municipality and thus is not aimed at individual commercial affairs. We believe it is important that this is a general restriction on that territory and not a restriction on individual business. This is what we wanted to clarify and add in this majority amendment. Through this amendment, we fully agree with the proposal. We think this can be a reduction of abuse in those tourist zones.

We have worked very constructively on the proposal. We also submitted amendments. We also approved the proposal in the committee. We will also approve this in the plenary session.

I would like to ask the majority to take into account what Mr Delizée also said. Indeed, I think that the institutions covered by Article 16 of the law most likely still have a number of possibilities, so that people who now escape some control through the gaps will also do that through Article 16. Article 16 cannot be abolished. A number of things must ⁇ continue, but it will still be necessary to refine Article 16.

These exceptions are still very vague and general, even too general. We need to look carefully at it in the coming months, otherwise we will see a shift relatively quickly and have solved very little. Many cities will now adjust and try to implement their regulations on night shops. It will be very annoying to see new escape routes emerge.

My call and request to the majority is to review this article again. We don’t want to throw away the baby with the bath water. We think this is a step forward. However, looking carefully at this article will ensure that the system is closed.

Mr. Speaker, as already stated, several proposals from the majority and the opposition had been submitted regarding the opening of ⁇ in the Belgian cities and municipalities.

I regret that we have not been able – even though preparatory meetings have been organised – to draw up more points of convergence to lead to a broader text. Today, we are speaking only of the text. by Klaps. It would have been appropriate to discuss a larger proposal, taking inspiration from the others that had been drafted.

Three fundamental principles have guided my group in the analysis of the text, because they are dear to it. The first concerns the development of local trade, the economic activity of small self-employed in the city centers.

The second concerns their quality of life, the balance between their family life and their work. For example, they must benefit from sustainable employment.

The third is the autonomy of municipalities and local authorities. It is important for them to be able to make decisions in the event of nighttime annoyances and the proliferation of some unwanted ⁇ .

These principles lead us to a more comprehensive reflection. As many have said, the text is not perfect. This can lead to some relative confusion. Several types of trading could bypass the rule; we know that is already the case. However, as we want to be constructive, we will support this proposal as far as it goes in the right direction. I agree with the request for an assessment. Within a year or two, the effect of these provisions on tourist areas and resorts will need to be measured. In any case, we will support this text in a positive spirit.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. He told me that I admire his candlestick. I wonder if you, Mr. Friart, have examined the overall dimension of the problem for all municipalities. When you adjust this dimension with a “appropriate tool” – I return to the terms by which you concluded your intervention – I think the tool is not appropriate today. Remember that in this sector, and especially the night shop sector, we are not in the world of Bisounours!

Mr. De Lamotte, I think it is not a question of candlestick. It may be a question that you read the text well, that you read it thoroughly and that you understand it well. With regard to non-tourist areas, the text remains as it is. It is also clear that at the level of tourist areas, one cannot go below what is planned for non-tourist areas. I think the text is very clear. If you read it thoroughly, I think it does not pose any problem.

I have some fears when you explain it. I don’t think it’s clearer, Mr. Freeman. Sorry, you think we are in the country of Bisounours, but this is not the case. As a commission, we really tried to do a common job, to put ourselves around the table to develop a comprehensive solution. We were rejected. I find it a pity, but there was a way to do something more constructed and responding to all concerns.

I return to my speech. This problem is far from being new, it has been mentioned, and in particular the problem of night shops. I would like to tell you that this concern has not found a solution so far. You say that the unions of the cities and municipalities of the different regions agree. However, they also emphasize that there is currently no solution to this problem of night shops.

I remember, we were faced with six texts. The group I represented had already submitted two of them in the previous legislature.

The problems encountered by municipalities are numerous and, in this sector, the inconveniences are sometimes multiple. Some municipalities are faced with disruptions of public order, given these night shops: tapage, public drunkenness, fights, flooding, etc., disruptions caused by the presence of unregulated shops. In addition, incidents at higher degrees involving criminal offences are also recorded. You just have to check it on the ground.

Certainly, municipal regulations can be taken to regulate night shops on the basis of ⁇ ining public order. Public safety, public tranquility, you know that! Unfortunately, some shops find subterfuges to not be subjected to them.

Currently, the law allows municipalities to regulate the opening of night shops, internet and phone cafes. Unfortunately, this possibility of regulation disappears when the store primarily sells certain types of products listed restrictively, such as newspapers, magazines, tobacco products and phone cards, in particular. Basically, this provision was an exception to protect bookstores, which is indispensable. The number of bookstores is decreasing significantly.

Today, to bypass municipal regulations, many night shops take advantage of this provision. If the sales of tobacco and DVD account for 50% of their turnover, they change their company name and status in tobacco flow. They are no longer subject to these regulations. In the face of this phenomenon, municipalities are impoverished.

Two texts were submitted on this subject. They were cut off from one side of the hand. We will be back there, be sure, in the coming weeks!

In addition, there is the problem that this text tries to solve: the problem of resorts and tourist centres that are not subject to the law of 10 November 2006 and where some night shops abandon the mention "night store" to no longer be subject to these municipal regulations and fall under the generality applicable to shops; thus, the mandatory closure hours and weekly rest hours of the law of 2006 are not applicable to them.

For our group, it was therefore necessary and even imperative to move forward in a coordinated manner and to carry out a comprehensive revision of the law of 10 November 2006 on opening hours in commerce, crafts and services. The municipalities need to be fully equipped to deal with this problem. Six texts were on the table regarding this law. Limiting to the night shops, there were three. We could have worked on this; we did not. Half of the texts addressed this issue. This is a missed opportunity to help municipalities where some night shops cause neighborhood disturbances. We could have helped them solve this problem, open the toolbox for them, and we don’t.

It is also a lack of government responsibility. In fact, Minister Borsus had specified, during the debate regarding his general policy note, that he wanted to move forward in the matter by a profound revision and he had announced a bill. In the meantime, we did not see anything coming, and this is not a surprise. He did nothing other than take back the statements of Ms. Laruelle in the previous government. She had said: "It is clear that in order to fight incivilities, the best positions are the municipalities and the police areas." She proposed to provide the municipalities with more possibilities of action, as was done for night shops in particular with regard to tobacco.

We were therefore pleased to see the majority move forward to solve this problem. But not ! It is unclear why the minister decided not to submit a bill and let parliament work. A good idea! But maybe we should give it the opportunity and work in a consensus way, since there was consensus on this issue. Let the parliament move forward on a topic was a good solution. But the majority has only advanced on a part of the problem. This is exactly the problem. Drinking flows, mega dancings were also among the problems that the bills were trying to solve.

Furthermore, the divergence of jurisprudence between the Council of State and the Court of Cassation leads to a legal blur that seemed necessary to be removed. Indeed, when the municipalities adopt a regulation, they cannot know the decision to be taken with regard to the measure and whether the regulation will be broken. We also had a text to resolve this but, unfortunately, it was rejected.

It is therefore a leak from the government, since the minister has not submitted his project, and a lack of ambition of the majority, Mr. Klaps. We preferred to reject the texts of the opposition and only see the situation of resorts and tourist centres. The scope of application has been significantly reduced.

This was rejected, of course, but demonstrating within the majority of very different positions. The President, who is present here, will also be able to tell us. I have never experienced this. On some articles, we re-started the vote three, four or even five times to try to know what each wanted. You will remember it!

Mr. Friart, I allow myself to highlight the vote of your party – you were there – who is the great advocate of SMEs and who has not even positioned against another text in discussion that provides for the extension of opening hours, which, however, would be very harmful to SMEs by favouring large distribution. That is what happens. This proposal was also completely rejected by the social partners.

It is ! There were clearly the texts that could have improved life in our communes and settled much of the annoyances. But no, we did not work on it and I can only regret this lack of ambition of the majority.

In our view, the discussion is not yet concluded. This is a bad dress, Mr. Freeman.

This text allows, it is true, the municipalities, to regulate the ⁇ of resorts and municipalities or parts of municipalities recognized as tourist centers that currently do not fall under the articles providing time limitations. The municipalities will be able to effectively better control because municipal agents and various officials will be in particular competent to detect offences. But this text does not solve the problem of ⁇ using the derogation provided for in Article 16, § 2, because more than 50% of their turnover results from the sale of tobacco, newspapers, etc. This issue was discussed again this afternoon.

Night shops that wanted to derogate from municipal regulations by registering as traditional shops will now choose to register as tobacco debits. The municipality will be equally vulnerable to this situation. This problem, I recall, could have been solved with other texts submitted, in particular by our group.

With regard to the sanctions – a matter that was also addressed today – the choice was to write a provision specifying that units of establishments operated in violation of the Municipal Regulations are only punishable in accordance with the Act of 24 June 2013 on Municipal Administrative Sanctions.

“The only.” This adjective, which occupied us during part of the committee meeting, was inserted to solve the problem raised by the legal services of the House, which pointed out that there are criminal legal provisions and that, in this case, municipal administrative penalties cannot be imposed.

We are not sure that this will solve the problem. In the light of the SAC Act, there remains an unlawful treatment between establishments that are located or not in the resorts and tourist centres or in municipalities recognized as such.

The Union of Cities and Municipalities did not make a mistake. She specified that it would have been more appropriate to write a final provision specifying the application of sanctions to any regulation adopted under this Act and not to refer to the SAC Act.

Therefore, we will face a conflict of sanctions. That’s why I’m not giving up on this bill and we’ll have to go back to it when it’s implemented.

I think this debate is a missed opportunity. We could have gone further and worked constructively. This is how we view this proposal, even if it brings a start of solution or an additional tool for tourist municipalities to combat the annoyances of certain ⁇ .

In fact, providing municipalities with additional tools is a very good thing. In the majority as well as in the opposition, everyone agrees on this. However, if this should lead to legal uncertainty, what is it for? We can therefore only hope that the jurisprudence will not weaken this provision and that the municipalities will finally be able to act on their territory. I feed the fears.

Today, it is a step, but a step too short because we are not moving forward. It is a refusal to provide the municipalities with a serious tool. This is a half measure, which is why we will not support the text that is proposed to us.