Relive the debates in the plenary session of Parliament (from 2:08:15).
The vote of the Brussels Parliament came down this Friday, 26 January: with only a very narrow margin (40 votes “in favour” versus 35 votes “against” or “abstentions”), the draft ordinance on tourist accommodation of Minister-President Rudi Vervoort was approved. The Minister-President absolutely wanted his trophy before the elections, and his method of pushing it through — both in substance and in form — is unacceptable and unworthy of a Minister-President of a region of 1.22 million inhabitants, moreover the capital of Europe. However… intellectual honesty and political responsibility are gradually regaining ground over opportunistic political and lobbying forces thanks to the diligent work of opposition parliamentarians… but also members of the majority. We commend the work and courage of Ms. Pauthier (Ecolo) in this regard. To paraphrase opposition MP Matthias Vanden Borre (N-VA), a secret vote would in any case have rejected this draft ordinance.
Ultimately, STR-Belgium’s confidence in its fight emerges significantly strengthened from these two parliamentary sessions. And you will understand why by rereading our debriefing below. For the record, the debriefing on the committee “debates” of 15 January had already been very revealing regarding the lack of justification for this ordinance, which is entirely disproportionate and clearly biased.
We will not dissect the relevant and crystal-clear interventions of the opposition MPs, who did everything possible to stop the Minister-President in his quest to defend the indefensible. It is worth listening to them — take the time to hear the interventions of Mr. Coomans de Brachène (MR) – 2:08:40 & 3:22:45 / Mr. Vanden Borre (N-VA) – 2:18:20 & 3:24:18 / Ms. De Smedt (PTB) – 2:35:00 / Ms. De Baets (CD&V) – 2:54:32 / Mr. De Beukelaer (Les Engagés) – 3:01:00 / Mr. Kennis (Agora) – 3:06:33.
Instead, we will focus on the interventions of two majority MPs, Ms. Pauthier (Ecolo) – 2:38:00 and Mr. De Bock (DéFI) – 2:49:35.
We first highlight several excerpts from Ms. Pauthier who, despite her recent immersion in the file, made many relevant observations:
- “the tourist accommodation sector is complementary to the hotel offer” (2:38:50)
- “the development of this sector has certainly created positive pressure on hotel pricing policies” (2:38:58)
- “Brussels attracts a different audience that may be interested in different forms of accommodation” (2:39:20)
- “In my view, we cannot compare the Brussels situation with that of cities that are (still) much more attractive on the cultural city-trip market and where, above all, the housing market is not the same or regulated in the same way” (2:39:40)
Ms. Pauthier stressed the need to consider warning signals and trends based on what is happening in other cities and what certain studies indicate about the Brussels situation, with differentiated findings by municipality (inner ring vs outer ring), while underlining that the response must be “proportionate and evidence-based.”
At this stage, the Ecolo group still has several questions and observations (2:41:58): the relevance of categories to be demonstrated based on capacity and revenue distribution (cf. BSI 2019 study); distinctions between private managers and companies; criteria for obtaining PRAS derogations as a guarantee of functional distribution in neighbourhoods; the strengthening of inspection resources in a context of recruitment freezes; how administrations will handle simultaneous regularisation flows (which are desirable and the objective of the ordinance — although there may be a misunderstanding, as there will unfortunately be no regularisation but rather destruction of the market based on our understanding); neighbourhood quotas; progressive tourist taxation (selectively omitted by the Minister-President from the VUB study commissioned by Innoviris); and the major importance of the PRAS reform. She emphasised that tourist accommodation must be integrated into studies related to this reform and that broad stakeholder consultation on an informed basis will be indispensable (note: this is off to a very bad start — perspective.brussels has not responded to our repeated requests to be consulted within the Share the City project). She also noted that making an economic authorisation dependent on an urban planning certificate could prove legally “more than heterodox” (cf. BSI 2019), meaning CoBAT should be adapted to frame tourist accommodation.
Furthermore (2:46:07): “The text resulted from broad consultation of the sector and we trusted you.” “At least two local operators claim they were not consulted, continue to raise concerns and request hearings through the opposition.” We take this opportunity to clarify that STR-Belgium is indeed the sole representative interlocutor of the short-term rental sector. The second interlocutor likely referred to is also a member of STR-Belgium and shares the same findings. It is important to emphasise that the sector is organised and that the Minister-President’s “divide and rule” tactic (1:17:35) will not succeed. The Minister-President’s response on this point, during MP Dagrin’s intervention (PTB) – 1:12:19, is revealing in that no substantive answer was provided. Apparently, the taxi sector experiences similar denial and lack of respect from the Minister-President.
“They are not wrong on one point…” Ms. Pauthier emphasised that the ordinance will not solve Brussels’ housing problems nor public nuisance issues, and she recalled the upcoming EU regulation of the sector (2026) under the Services Directive.
(2:48:00): “This is an important issue for which a high-quality democratic debate matters to many stakeholders… an economic activity that responds to demand, including for audiences that do not go to hotels, and these economic actors are not necessarily cowboys… there may be serious people who wish to operate under clear rules.” “The platform economy should not be approached in a manichean way but as an opportunity for innovative solutions that must nevertheless be regulated to preserve the general interest.”
Let us now turn to Mr. De Bock’s intervention (DéFI – 2:49:35):
“We had expressed doubts regarding the legality of the ordinance in relation to the Services Directive… these doubts have proven relevant.” “Are we answering that question properly? We hope so.” “We will see, because appeals have already been announced.” “The Council of State opinion refers to its own remarks from 2014 and, reading between the lines, it still has concerns and considers that not all issues raised have been addressed.”
Mr. De Bock referred to “proven rent increases in certain Paris neighbourhoods.” One would note that a differentiated logic should therefore apply by analogy across the Brussels-Capital Region, but this is not the case.
Regarding “subletting without the landlord’s knowledge,” this phenomenon is likely real but should be strongly relativised, since it will no longer be possible via platforms such as Airbnb once EU regulation is implemented. Following these parliamentary debates, one may legitimately question why the current ordinance would be implemented before the EU regulatory framework (2026).
“The Court of Justice of the European Union, in the Paris case, considered proportionality met when the property is rented occasionally and occupied by its operator as a primary residence.” This point is already covered by the current ordinance categories (home-sharing vs tourist residence under 120 days). We can only hope this remains in the implementing decree. However, we regret DéFI’s positioning between the individual and the company: DéFI completely overlooks the existence of the professional tourist residence sector. Why?
And, quite surreal (3:13:38), based on the extensive pleadings of opposition MPs and of Ecolo and DéFI, the Minister-President’s reply lacked both substance and form. We will not waste time analysing this mixture of contradictions, inaccuracies, lack of transparency, lack of political will (we are still searching for the “Tourism” dimension in the Minister-President’s approach, despite it being his ministerial responsibility) and electoralism. As Mr. De Beukelaer paraphrased: the problem lies with the “Professor.” Mr. Vanden Borre concluded best (3:24:18): one is entitled to expect greater seriousness from the Minister-President of the Capital of Europe, who chose to take the political risk of defending the indefensible at the expense of the general interest. Unfortunately, losing ten years was not enough — Brussels citizens will bear the costs of this lack of responsibility for several more years.
What are the next steps for STR-Belgium?
From a legal perspective: we await publication of the ordinance in the Belgian Official Gazette and are preparing to challenge it before the Constitutional Court. We will also assess the relevance of challenging the implementing decree before the Council of State. STR-Belgium is also in direct contact with the European Commission and through EHHA; all European legal aspects are integral to its analysis.
From a political perspective: ahead of the 9 June elections, STR-Belgium is available to all political parties to co-construct — largely from scratch — a genuine ordinance on tourist accommodation in the Brussels-Capital Region, with SMART objectives, aiming to create for the capital of Europe a truly competitive, innovative and sustainable tourism market in the interest of all Brussels citizens… and the world. To this end, STR-Belgium advocates that academia take ownership of its impact analysis for all voter categories. In our view, this is the only way to provide an objective response to this issue and should have been initiated by the Government long ago.
Strengthened by the content of these two parliamentary sessions, STR-Belgium continues its actions with other institutions that may be stakeholders in this matter.
To be continued…
