Number of Shopping Sundays Under Discussion
A political discussion has been going on recently about the
number of shopping Sundays. This is apparent from, among other
things, the coalition agreement "Working Together, Living
Together", which states that the misuse of the provision on
tourism in the Trading Hours Act must be counteracted. Furthermore,
two bills have been submitted to restrain the number of shopping
Sundays.
Under the current Trading Hours Act, a municipal council may
grant an exemption from the prohibition to open a shop on Sundays
for up to a maximum of 12 Sundays per year. If the municipality has
a touristic appeal, which is unrelated to the opening of shops, the
municipal council may decide that the shops can open on more than
12 Sundays per year. The only condition to introduce more than 12
shopping Sundays per year is that the municipality must have a
touristic appeal that is unrelated to the opening of shops. No
further requirements are attached to the nature or size of this
touristic appeal at the moment.
Not only the government, but also the political parties SP and
SGP have submitted a bill asking to limit the number of shopping
Sundays. Both bills intend to provide guarantees against the
so-called erosion of the prohibition to open shops on
Sundays.
Private Member's Bill
The private member's bill (Parliamentary Papers 30914, nos.
1 through 6 ) of the SP and the SGP contains various limitations
for the application of the touristic regime. Firstly, the regime
can only be declared applicable to the touristic part of the
municipality and no longer to the entire municipality. Secondly,
the touristic appeal of the municipality must be of an exceptional
nature and scope. According to the explanation, the stream of
visitors must be very large and the situation must be manifestly
exceptional and must clearly rise above that of other
municipalities. The main part of the visitors must come from
outside the region. It is mainly a big international attraction
that is imagined here.
The advice of the Council of State on this bill is very
critical. According to the Council of State, the position that
consumers and employees are largely dissatisfied with the current
situation is not supported by the evaluation report about the
Trading Hours Act, which shows on the contrary that more than 70%
of consumers are more satisfied as the number of shopping Sundays
rises. The same report shows that 7% of consumers finds it annoying
for religious reasons that the shops are open on Sundays.
The bill and the explanation have meanwhile been amended. In the
amended bill too, reference is made to the same evaluation report
in order to substantiate the position that the prohibition to open
shops on Sundays has a strong base of support, but this time with
reference to different figures. It it doubtful whether this will
accommodate the criticism of the Council of State.
Bill
of the Government
The second bill that is in the procedure comes from the
government (Parliamentary Papers 31728, nrs. 1 through 4). In this
bill, in order for the touristic regime to be applicable there has
to be tourism of a substantial scope. It is up to the municipal
council to decide when this is the case. The bill further
emphasizes that shops can only be opened if this is done to serve
the already existing tourism. Opening shops in the historical inner
city, for example, supports tourism that is already there.
According to the explanation, it is not sure at all whether this is
also the case for tourism related to natural beauty.
Another important change in this bill is the more severe duty of
justification. If the touristic regime is declared applicable, the
explanation to this decision must provide insight into the weighing
of interests. In this weighing of interests explicit attention
should be paid to employment and economic activity within the
municipality, to Sunday rest, quality of life, safety and public
order.
The council of State has made critical remarks on this bill too,
and has expressed doubts as to the necessity to adjust the law.
According to the Council of State, there is no evidence of any
actual increase of the application of the touristic regime. Should
such an increase indeed exist, this is not a reason to adjust the
Trading Hours Act right away, the Council of State thinks. The
argument that the Trading Hours Act is being misused is not
sufficiently supported by evidence either. Even if this happens
occasionally, this still does not mean that there is an immediate
necessity to adjust the law.
Conclusion
Both bills will be discussed in the Lower House of Parliament in
2009. Considering the observations in the coalition agreement about
the misuse of the Trading Hours Act, it is likely that the bill of
the government can count on a majority in the Lower House of
Parliament. The opinions of the Council of State on the two bills
were not very positive. Perhaps these opinions are a reason for the
political parties to review their positions once again.