Proposition 50K0234

Projet de loi relatif à la régularisation de séjour de certaines catégories d'étrangers séjournant sur le territoire du Royaume.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 8, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

foreign national illegal migration political asylum political refugee residence permit

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V FN VB

Abstained from voting

LE N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Nov. 24, 1999 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I have the honor and pleasure to report on the discussions in the Committee on Internal Affairs, General Affairs and Public Service. The discussions took place last week, for three days and so many hours. What is in question here is the draft law concerning the regularization of the residence of certain categories of foreigners residing on the territory of the Empire. At the same time, the VU&ID group also submitted a bill amending the law of 15 December 1980 concerning the entry into the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreigners. Regarding the content of the draft law, the minister delivered a presentation in which he emphasized that the government wants to pursue an integrated asylum policy based on three pillars. First, it is a quick and transparent asylum procedure that should come into force by the end of 2000. Second, there must be removal measures for all those that are being removed. Third, a procedure for the regularization of the stay, case by case, according to clearly defined criteria. The proposed bill thus concerns the regularization of people without papers who have previously illegally resided in our country, often already for many years. Many of these people are already well embedded in our society. This is a one-time operation. The regularisation does not apply to so-called INADS, persons who offer themselves at the border and are refused on one of the grounds set out in the Act of 15 December 1980. This may be the absence of a visa, a lack of means of subsistence, a threat to public order or being the subject of a Schengen signal. The illegal persons currently detained in a closed centre and who request to be legalized will be released as they can only be detained for the purpose of their removal. Those who apply for regularization will have to be able to present evidence. The application must be submitted within three weeks. The applicants will then have another month to supplement the evidence documents. Once these documents have been submitted, the application will be examined on the basis of the four criteria mentioned in the draft. Those who do not meet these four criteria may apply for a residence permit from the Minister of Home Affairs on the basis of Article 9 of the Act of 15 December 1980. All applications for regularisation will be evaluated by the Regulation Committee. The Committee gives advice to the Minister. Ultimately, the Minister must decide on the admission of persons to the territory. Applications already submitted under the current system will be sent to the committee established by this Act, unless the applicant indicates that he wishes his application to be further examined on the basis of Article 9 of the Act of 1980. The law will no longer have effect when all requests for regularization, submitted within the three-week period, are handled. At the same time, the VU&ID group submitted a bill to resolve the same problem and provided explanations. The group may find itself in the measures proposed by the government, but the bill she submitted puts other emphasis. More attention is paid to the integration of foreigners. They should be given the opportunity to integrate themselves into our society through learning social skills and language. This group has also submitted amendments that could supplement the bill. During the general discussion, the various groups expressed their positions. I have summarized the most important for you. The PSC welcomed the possibility of the debate on this subject and assured the Minister of its constructive cooperation by submitting amendments that could improve the text. She wants the criterion to fall into lasting social bonds and to apply only to the duration of residence. The time-limit provided for foreigners to put everything in order and the time-limit for responding to a decision is much too short, according to the PSC. According to them, the bill gives too much power to the secretaries of the regulation committee. The CVP group believes that effective deportations should be the first starting point for an efficient refugee policy. In addition, development policy should be aligned with refugee policy, in the sense that refugees who want to come here for economic reasons should be discouraged. The group argues that this bill discriminates, namely that there is an inequality of treatment between those who meet the conditions within the three-week period and those who meet them only later. The CVP has also criticized the foreseen criteria. She considers that they are too spacious and proposes to limit the residence permit in time, for example as long as the person is sick or only for the time when the foreigner cannot return to the country of origin. She also wants adult foreigners to be able to prove that they master one of the three national languages and that their children go to school before qualifying for regularization. Finally, the CVP proposes to replace the present system with a permanent regularization based on an individual file with strict but clear criteria. This group argued that there is no need for this law. The solution lies in the adaptation of the Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry into the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreigners. For the PRL, the draft law on regularization constitutes that part of the asylum policy that must be addressed first. Expulsion comes in second place. It is therefore requested that this draft be promptly approved. Those who do not want this and allow the current state of affairs to persist, according to the PRL, are the objective allies of mafia organizations that want to continue to profit from the illegals. The group states that the objective of this project has a large social support. The SP considers the proposed regularisation necessary because of its humanitarian nature. This measure also has a general interest as it aims to counter the exploitation of illegal persons. The group emphasizes the one-off nature of regularization and considers it important that applicants cannot enjoy new social rights. The PS group advocates for a as broadly interpreted regularization as possible. She believes that it is necessary to convince the illegals that the danger lies not in the proposed arrangement, but in keeping the current state of affairs. The group is convinced that policy can only be effectively implemented if the three pillars are ⁇ ined. According to the Flemish Bloc, the government will open the borders and will massively regularise illegal migrants. She believes that the legalized, after five years without integration or language requirements, will enter the naturalization procedure. The Flemish Bloc also has objections to family reunification and is also of the opinion that the present draft law is incompatible with the Schengen Agreement. The group also has concerns about the presence of NGOs in the Regulation Committee. The Flemish Bloc also wants illegal and exiled persons to be repatriated and that the refugee status be granted only to European citizens. It wants to place all asylum seekers in closed centers. The Flemish Bloc sees eased naturalization and regularization procedures as the best means to ethnically cleanse Brussels from Flamings. The Agalev-Ecolo group wants to put the bill into a broader framework. According to them, migration flows are the result of the unfair relationships that exist on a global level. Europe must also take responsibility for this. People do not leave everything for their pleasure without knowing what awaits them. Regularizing people without papers is therefore a matter of humanity. Many foreigners have lived in uncertainty for years, have settled here and let their children go to school here. The economic importance also plays a role in this. Illegals are a too easy prey for less scrupulous entrepreneurs. Illegals are now given the opportunity to stay and work here legally. The government wants to stop clandestinity with this draft. For the Agalev-Ecolo group, regularization is an important pillar of foreign policy, as agreed in the government agreement. Expulsions can only be the last link in the policy on migration flows. The expulsion, as it happened with the Roma Gypsies, finds the faction most misplaced. The rights of the child should be protected when detaining minors. A special procedure should be provided for minors and closed centres should be eliminated. The VLD group believes that a European migration and asylum policy is necessary. The government must act as a good, but also as a strict housefather. Simply sending those involved back is not a real solution. The group believes that the criterion of being seriously ill should be checked and that the applicant should have a blank criminal record. It also emphasizes the one-off nature of regularization. At a subsequent stage of the discussions, many questions were asked to clarify the draft law and the Minister made the following clarifications. I have arranged them for you. The criteria are smooth and general, precisely in order not to force the committee into a tight sequence. Asylum seekers who already reside on the territory but whose application was rejected within a reasonable period after arrival in Belgium shall not be eligible for regularisation. Even a tourist visa does not allow for regularization. The integration desire must be reflected in the duration of the stay and the social bonds. Children who are obliged to attend school must be in the territory in order to be eligible for regularization. A list of dangerous countries was requested. The Minister responded that a list will be prepared in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons and the Foreign Affairs Service. I now go to the Regulatory Committee. If the secretaries of the committee give favorable advice, there is no reason why the minister would not comply with it. Nevertheless, opinions have no binding effect. The secretaries will need to have a thorough knowledge of the asylum issue. They must verify that the file is complete and in order and will then forward it to the Minister. The members of the committee will be appointed by the Council of Ministers. The right to defence and to be heard is provided by the applicant having the right to the assistance of a lawyer and an interpreter. The Committee will consist of a number of Dutch-speaking and French-speaking chambers. The number of rooms can be adjusted according to the actual needs. As for the evidence, an official track from an OCMW, police or school is required. A testimony is not enough. A registered lease agreement, however, serves as evidence, as well as invoices for gas or electricity. The purpose of this project is to improve the situation of the illegal workers. Therefore, prosecution will be instituted only in the case of serious criminal offences. The Minister gave other interesting information. The government has subscribed 1 billion francs to remove the downturn and handle the regularization files. The government also provides staff and framework to make this procedure materially possible. The entire operation is one-time. The application for regularization does not give any right to additional social assistance. The municipalities will be informed of their tasks through a circular letter. The Mayor may make a social report of the applicant. In order to obtain a right of residence due to marriage, you must be an illegal holder of a passport containing a valid visa. If this is not the case, he must return to the country from which he comes to comply with the admission conditions. The regulations will be notified to the institution that manages the Schengen Agreements. Common law applies to family reunification. In the future, a special guardianship system will be established for unaccompanied minors. There is no deadline for the Minister to make a decision. Preference was given to a system providing the necessary resources to enable the committee to fulfill its mandate. After the discussion, 89 amendments were submitted, none of which was rejected. The bill was adopted with 10 votes for, 4 votes against and two abstentions.

I remind all political groups of their commitment to respect the speaking time. I will be watching this strictly. Mr Marc Van Peel has the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this bill must, of course, be situated in the global foreign policy of this government. According to our analysis, the global foreign policy so far does not suggest much, which has the effect that this bill is stuck with heels and eyes and does not provide an answer to the problem that we are facing. Typical of this government is that ideologically loaded topics cause fierce political discussions to burst out within the majority, while this is not the case for problems of budgetary nature amid that everyone can be blamed. Ideologically loaded problems need to be sought for a swing balance - although I can still understand that somewhat - but the truth is that this swing balance is not even carried out. As an illustration, I refer to another current and equally ideologically loaded item, in particular the high-speed right. During the debate on this, the government – with our support – submitted a clear draft that was not accepted by Ecolo. Such ideological debates are reflected in the government’s foreign policy. In terms of expulsions, we were entitled to a true vaudeville. We assume – as the government apparently does – that every foreign policy and every illegal policy is based on a serious expulsion policy. That expulsion policy has been hypothesized by the tragic incident surrounding Semira Adamu and that has not since hit the start blocks. Typical of our media society and of our political debates is that the rightful outrage over one tragic accident leads to the cessation of a policy. That is not good to talk about, but yet we are not moving forward. The government sought to unblock the situation, but in such a way that the debate about the expulsions was immediately as if buried. The policy on expulsions had to be unblocked by sending 73 Gypsies back to Slovakia. In this regard, I read again the criticism of Mr. Decroly in the committee report, asking where the criminal conviction of those who have it on their conscience remains. During the debate last month, I myself protested against the very unfortunate measure of example outlining people from the same ethnic group. Just by introducing the expulsion policy in this way, it was again mortgaged. The debate with the majority broke out again and is about whether one or three people are deported daily. How far is the de facto policy of deportation? This question is not politically neutral. From time to time I visit the studios of the Seventh Day and I was there when Mr. De Gucht, now effective chairman of the VLD, said that there was no question that they would approve the regulation draft as long as no major steps forward were made regarding the expulsions. Mr. De Gucht, in the meantime final chairman of the VLD, stated that there is no approval of this draft if no major steps have been taken regarding expulsion. We must therefore evaluate what Mr. De Gucht and the VLD mean by steps forward on expulsion policy. I would be very surprised that it would be about the few hundred that Minister Duquesne has brought forward. We agree, however, that this should remain a pillar of any policy against illegal persons. We only note that there is nothing going on and that we are therefore – in the careful balance that has been considered – in favor of the approval of this draft law of regularization in which there is no mention of the pillar of expulsion. There was another third pillar, namely that of the reform of the administration. After all, the administration that had to handle all asylum applications was poorly organized and would therefore be reformed. In accordance with the tradition of this government, harsh statements are made and the three administrations would be transformed into a large administration. Six weeks ago, I already pointed out that a considerable amount of motivation should be given to officials who need to implement this policy. Meanwhile, those people have heard that there will be three more administrations. So these people are sitting on a very moving chair and no one knows where it is actually going. How far is the administration reform now? This is not an insignificant question in this context. We agree with you that this is the third pillar. When I return to the regulation draft itself, I find that it is correct to refer to the broader context of migration flows. We also consider this vital. It is a truth as a cow - and this is not only true for Belgium - that the international situation, the politically labial situation in many countries, the income gap between North and South and between East and West are responsible for this migratory flow. However, this determination cannot remain. I remember that the previous government asked the King Boudewijn Foundation to draw up a migration report, analogous to the so-called poverty report. So I would like to hear from you how far this stands. If my information is correct, it is nowhere. The purpose of that migration report was to examine exactly how a country like Belgium – both in foreign relations and in development cooperation – can conduct a coordinated policy with regard to migration flows. In the Seventh Day, there are – like Mr. De Gucht – who advocate for the doctrine of a migration statute. We have already raised that idea, but that idea needs to be well understood and for this the report of the King Boudewijnstichting should serve precisely. Before you know it, you are in a situation where you tell highly qualified engineers and computer scientists from the East or the South that they are welcome and where you expel unskilled people after three months. Therefore, an unmistakable body such as the King Boudewijnstiftung should provide us with a report, otherwise the debate on the real causes of migration remains at a conclusion, with some European attempts to do something about it. In the context of a healthy North-South and East-West policy, this report is also very important. This is even more urgent than the poverty report. The CVP urges the Government to remind the King Boudewijnstichting of its mandate. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the Christian Democrats have fundamental objections to the large, massive and one-off regularization. However, the CVP agrees with the principle of regularization of a number of categories. It is not good that people disappear illegally in the wild for a long time, or rather in the cities, and thoroughly disorganize society. According to the government, it will remain with a one-time regularization. The CVP does not believe that. After all, foreign examples speak bookstores! Since 1985, Spain has carried out 4 so-called large, one-off regularisations. 120 000, 50 000, 40 000 and 37 000 people were regulated, respectively. Every announcement of a mass regularization caused a suction effect. In 1996 this led to dramatic conditions. At all kinds of shootings, people tried to cross the Strait of Gibraltar to reach Spain within the specified regularization deadline. At the moment, in Spain, the debate over the fifth mass regularization proposal of the government is raging. The largest ruling party signs an objection because the absorption effect is very large and new major regularizations must be carried out. In Italy, the same phenomenon occurred. The regularisations took place in 1996, 1998 and 1999. A month after the end of the regularization period, the then Minister of Labour already saw the obligation to call for a new regularization in order to solve the existing problems. The system of a massive one-time regularization is not good. In the Netherlands, the second term for the legalization of the so-called white illegals runs until December 1999. The debate on this subject is fully underway. The examples speak for themselves. Large-scale one-time regularizations have perverse consequences. In short, it is not a good proposal. We are still silent about the clumsy way in which the project was elaborated. First, there was a royal decision. Later it turned out that the legislation needed to be adjusted. I remember that Prime Minister Verhofstadt moved to tears the opposition to support early to be able to reach as much consensus as possible. After a complaint from the Flemish Bloc, the Council of State had determined that the technique of a royal decree for this problem was unlawful. We were called upon. The minister also said in the committee debate that he has found that such laws abroad have often led to a heated and extremist climate. Well, I am convinced that we will soon see a piece of this. What has happened abroad following unthoughtful proposals like this, we will also experience here. This warming and extremist climate will be present not only in this parliament, but throughout the country and, worse, in all municipalities. This is the great gift of the government to the heated extremists. (Rumor on the banks of the Flemish Bloc) I have not mentioned any names, but I mean you. This does not mean that it should not be regulated. This must be done by modifying the current law of 1980, which allows the current government to exist. Furthermore, I have read that Mr. Cortois, during the discussion in the committee, rightly expressed his concern about the fact that there are now two procedures. On the one hand there is the great one-time, mass regularization, which I do not believe will be one-time. On the other hand, there is the existing procedure, which one is equally entitled to. I think Mr Cortois’s concerns are right in this. We say that the existing 1980 law, based on the strict and clear criteria that we have included in our amendments, should be adjusted so that there are clear criteria. This is a much better arrangement for some categories. I will explain for which criteria this is the case and what is the difference between our criteria and those of the government. We believe that persons who are seriously ill and persons who cannot return to their country of origin should not be entitled to a permanent residence permit. There are two temporary categories. Seriously sick people can be healed. We must be careful that we do not promote the health asylum in which seriously sick people know that they can end up in Belgium. In our view, the conditions in the country of origin are also a temporary criterion. It’s not because somewhere the earth has dominated, or because a dictator somewhere steps human rights with his feet, that this will last forever in those countries. The other two categories are those who, due to the government’s fault, have been involved in an asylum procedure for a long time and those who have been illegally staying in the territory for five or six years and must be able to demonstrate lasting social ties under the government’s draft. For these two categories we propose to look at the good examples from abroad. These good lessons come from the Netherlands. There, it is expected from the newcomers, and also from these categories, that they become citizens. No one screams murder and fire about this; that is why we have incorporated this requirement in our amendments. I quote in this connection the Dutch Rijkswet: The concept of inburgering - with which the VLD also occasionally embraced for the elections - serves to indicate a development process that leads to an effective participation in society. Not everyone is asked to become Dutch in the identity meaning of the word. However, it may be required that the applicant is not exclusively or entirely dependent on his own minority group. He must also be able to communicate with others and since the language is the main means of communication, sufficient mastery of Dutch is a characteristic of citizenship. How this knowledge is obtained is not important, but the municipalities must take care of it. In the study of the degree of citizenship, as a rule, it is also used to determine whether a person has acquired a place in society through the membership of clubs, associations, interest groups. The Dutch social relations must be accepted to a certain extent. Treatment with exclusively compatriots and long-term residence in the country of origin shall be understood as signs of non-citizenship. So is the socialist-liberal D66 government in Ne-derland. With regard to language proficiency, a reasonable knowledge of the Dutch language shall mean that the applicant must be able to conduct at least a simple conversation in Dutch on everyday things. These are just a few of the obvious criteria used in the Netherlands. The CVP group calls for an adaptation of the 1980 Act. First, a criterion should be added to the law for two groups of persons, namely the sick and those who, for reasons beyond their will, cannot return to their country of origin. The category of people who stay here for a long time should gradually melt away on condition that the minister is serious about the expulsion policy. When the administration is thoroughly reformed, the group whose asylum procedures are too lengthy due to government debt will also disappear. Therefore, there is absolutely no need to be a permanent mass regularization. On the basis of the 1980 Act, our group has proposed a clear alternative, which will solve the current problems and prevent the creation of a suction effect. This bill will ensure that the problem of the illegal in our country will not slowly disappear, but that it will persist. Belgium joins the group of countries, such as Italy and Spain, which, through a repeated system of mass regularization, exert an incredible suction effect. However, this is exactly what the Minister, and also we, want to avoid. We did not understand this bill. Therefore, we have expressed our proposal in an amendment. We had hoped to have a meaningful discussion on this subject, where we ⁇ did not exclude a compromise. The precarious balance – or imbalance – in government regarding this matter naturally excludes an exchange of thoughts with the decent opposition. We therefore feel entitled to express our criticism of this bill and to submit an alternative. We must learn from foreign bad and good examples. We consider the approval of our amendment as a necessary condition for the adoption of this law. From the debate in the committee I have already understood that this cannot be the case, that regularization should be possible as quickly and as massively as possible, and that dismissal is permitted but at mouth size. I am curious how the VLD will interpret Mr De Gucht’s statements. I wonder if the country, and especially the VLD, are ripe to approve this design. The VLD has connected the draft with the resumption of the expulsions. I am also curious how far the administrative reforms announced by the minister are going.

The floor is yielded to Ms. Joëlle Milquet.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I am afraid that you should listen again to the words already spoken for long hours in the committee. I will begin my speech with two general considerations. I will then approach this project in a more punctual way. As you could see during the committee debates, the PSC has sought to lead a constructive opposition by respecting the logic of the text and by trying to make improvements by submitting moderate amendments aimed at clarifying the very confusing text on certain points. This was, in our opinion, a way to ensure that this bill could result and thus regularize the situation of certain categories of foreigners. Unfortunately, despite the statements about the new political culture and the need not to lock ourselves in opposition-majority clashes, I was able to find that the amendments we had submitted had been rejected while they often reflected concerns expressed by some partners such as the PS and Ecolo. Many of them, however, took back the explanations you had given and provided clarifications in accordance with what you said in the committee. I therefore regret that this debate had to be closed in a majority-opposition logic, which, as an opposition party, we wanted to depart from. Before speaking of the different points of this bill, which will come into force for one year, I would like to reiterate how indispensable it is – and I know that you share this concern – to quickly change the structural procedure of regularization, in the terms of Article 9 of the 1980 Act. Indeed, for now, as you know, this latter leaves floating too much uncertainty and arbitrariness. Furthermore, in addition to the changes that we will need to make under this legislation, we will need to know very quickly how, in the long run, we will be able to deal with other future occasional requests for regularization on the basis of the criteria provided for in Article 9. I would like to say once again that this is a debate that will have to take place very quickly. I now come to more specific considerations. I would like to speak first of all of the criteria followed in the framework of this regularization procedure. They are in number four. The first concerns reasons independent of the will, which could be evoked to prevent some people from being repatriated. In this regard, I would like to repeat how indispensable it is not only to consider each case but also not to limit ourselves to lists too small and therefore too rigid as is the case at the moment. Currently, only three or four countries are concerned. In my opinion, we should be able to appreciate certain situations such as, for example, that of the Kurds in relation to Turkey, which requires much more subtlety. Therefore, I hope that for this purpose, it will be possible to establish at the federal level convergent elements, not only from the departments of Foreign Affairs and Interior, but also from information collected by NGOs, which sometimes have a more comprehensive assessment of the situation in different countries. In the future, we should also try to organize a single system to analyze these different issues because, for now, the information elements are scattered across different ministries. We do not take enough account of the work done by some NGOs. The circular, which requires people to make a declaration of voluntary departure when the situation improves, is, in my opinion, also a problem. Many people are afraid to make this statement because the situation in their country is currently critical, and who therefore do not use the opportunities offered at all. Thanks to this text, as it will no longer be just a suspension of the order to leave the territory but a real right to stay for a certain period, I hope that this circular will fall and that we will no longer have this difficulty experienced by people, which makes the application of this criterion relatively difficult. Criterion 4 is probably the most difficult to explain: through the long hours of discussion, you have yourself realized the complexity due to the confusion of the texts provided for in Articles 2.4 and 9.9. I persist in thinking that in order to succeed this regularization operation, it would have agreed to be clearer as to the criteria: they remain too confused and allow interpretations so restrictive that they risk emptying this bill of law from its substance. That is why we will, however, submit amendments without yet making us a lot of illusions. Point 4 addresses both the humanitarian circumstances and the development of sustainable social ties in the country. If at least the second condition is fulfilled, humanitarian circumstances should no longer be mentioned with all the breadth of consideration that they include. It would rather be to interpret this point in the sense that, if the notion of sustainable social attachment is fulfilled, the humanitarian circumstance appears with the risk of breaking this attachment by forced repatriation. The objectivity of the humanitarian circumstance criterion would therefore be strengthened. Furthermore, if only one amendment could pass, I would have wanted it to be the one aimed at removing the and/or in your article 9.9. This would avoid the impression, which you ⁇ ined in your explanations, that cumulative criteria were imposed, contrary to what you yourself had exposed at first. However, these criteria must remain alternative to succeed in this operation of regularization. Indeed, it seems impossible for us to demand both the proof of a presence of six or five years, depending on the case, possibly a proof of legal stay, and above all, what you have added in final and which has never been exposed in the previous government agreement, to demonstrate that you have never received an order to leave the territory. You entered into the, though difficult, exercise of trying to explain to us how to consider these criteria as alternative but nevertheless cumulative to strengthen interpretation; and that the more criteria could be demonstrated, the more chances we had of being able to be regularized. Nevertheless, this element remains ambiguous for the applicant and opens a gap to the arbitrary. It is for this reason that we will re-submit an amendment to the text; we would have preferred to see announced that by durable attachment, it was heard for five or six years. That at least, in the long term, in the application of this law, it is considered that a presence during this period allows a presumption of lasting social attachment, even to demonstrate and prove that this is not the case. At least this criterion should prevail, be clear and avoid accumulation of evidence in order to limit the procedure, therefore not to heal the situation. These are the main criticisms I repeat about this fourth criterion. I insist on the urgency of a reflection on this amendment aimed at removing the and/or, belonging to the definition concocted by brilliant lawyers, according to you, but which remains a legal first. This risk of confusion is not healthy in a law text. We have discussed a lot about the criterion related to the disease. To examine this criterion and avoid any subjectivity, in any case of your structures, I still insist on the establishment of the equivalent of an informal chamber where doctors can study the dossier of the person and, in case of doubt, avoid judging by a refusal. Medical analysis should be done with finesse and seriousness. Applications on this point should be assessed on the basis of the three criteria within the jurisprudence of the State Council and the courts and courts, namely the severity of the condition, the treatment available in the country of origin and the price associated with it. In fact, there are sometimes reports of treatments available but of which the exorbitant cost is known and which, therefore, cannot be applied to the applicant, and also the effective nature of access to care. These concepts are very important because they must mark reflection and therefore avoid being empty of their substance. With regard to the respect for the rights of defence, on the basis of our questions, you have confirmed to us that there would be a right to be heard, allowing the use of pro deo lawyers. We thank you for your clarification but, therefore, we do not see why we could not, as we requested in our amendments, specify all this concretely in the text, as it had been done in the 1980 Act for the Consultative Commission of Foreigners. As for the power of the commission, you did not always convince us. You announced that this committee would decide, that it would make completely independent decisions. I know that we are taking refuge behind legal arguments that I think are irrelevant about possible discriminatory treatment. Article 9 and this individual bill have sufficiently different objectives to allow you to have two different treatments, so that you can decide on the basis of Article 9 and that a commission decides on the basis of that bill. You could at least have respected your government will as affirmed a few months ago and demonstrated the greatest objectivity, as it had in any case been expressed by the different parties of your majority. At this point, we also remain defiant. We also believe that in order to encourage you to put in place all means in order to succeed in this regularization operation and to ensure that things are done on time, it was necessary to impose a fixed deadline within which the committee should also decide. As for the deadlines, we are joining you on one point and so we will not resubmit the amendment – the discussions serve at least something related to the three weeks. I agree that the people concerned may have had the time to be informed. On the other hand, the month of time relating to the social relationship remains too short and, above all, being optional according to goodwill and sometimes the divergent political philosophies of the different communes, it risks to intervene in a discriminatory way in the files. This is somewhat my fear: the municipalities who have acted well and given good social relationships will be able to consolidate the files of their applicants and those who, for reasons that are their own, will not have played this game, then risk handicapping the demands. It is therefore to be feared that there is a distinction between files with social relations and those without them. This is an important discrimination for which we ask you to take action. It is necessary to raise awareness of the communes, provide them with the circular and, above all, the means necessary to succeed in this operation of regularization. I persist in thinking that the three days of appeal granted in case of incomplete file – even if they are business days – really remain a time limit too short and that doubling them would have been a minimum to allow people to complete it. It is often people who do not necessarily speak the language, who are alone in the face of the difficulty of constituting a file and above all alone in the face of different institutions since you impose official evidence on them. All this requires a minimum of time. We also persist in thinking that the powers of committee secretaries remain too large and that the committee should remain in control of certain decisions, except when it comes to acting faster and forwarding a positive opinion or file to the minister. The evidence required, in particular with regard to obtaining documents from official institutions, remains too restrictive compared to the situation of actual clandestinity experienced by some. I know that there may be risks of misrepresentation of evidence, I am fully aware of this and we should not do anything in this matter either. Nevertheless, imposing only official documents, not allowing NGOs to be able to issue them, not allowing applicants to be able to prove by other elements of law that could have been regulated, risks keeping people in clandestinity, people who have been in our country for several years and who will miss the sanitation train that we wish to see succeed. As regards Article 14 dedicated to the expulsion of persons manifestly non-regularisable, I draw your attention to this notion that remains very blurred. It can be interpreted restrictively, in particular since the request for regularization submitted by these persons will not be the subject of a correct analysis by the regularization commission. I can understand that she refuses normal treatment and that she wants to avoid filing dilatory records. However, it is risky to introduce this notion. Who will bear an assessment if it is the Office of Foreigners who sends you the file? This system risks allowing for expulsions of persons who might have been legalizable because officials are forced to act within a relatively short time. Therefore, I continue to believe that this article is dangerous. Therefore, we are submitting an amendment on this point. Another object of criticism and fear is the proof of residence. If you want to trust people and succeed in this operation, you must avoid anything that could cause these people not to dare to submit their request. Allowing a home election, without imposing the obligation of residence, would have been, I think, an important element to heal the situation. We will submit amendments on this point. I draw your attention to the need to implement legislative changes that will allow those who have obtained their regularization to integrate into society and benefit from a range of arrangements, including employment aid, etc. As several persons sitting in the current regulation committee have observed, there is a high risk of a very restrictive interpretation of the notion of manifest fraud. I acknowledge that the text specifies, though, that these are manifest fraud related to the procedure. Better so much because it would not be necessary that, in a general way, we use this notion to not regularize persons guilty of minor fraud, related to their precariousness. The same applies to the concept of public order. As much as your appreciation belongs to you, so much should you not empty it from its substance by invoking it at any time about anything, especially about difficulties related to the precariousness of these people. That’s why we would have liked that the committee could give its opinion — I’m not talking about an agreement — on the assessment of this notion. But I know you don’t like this idea very much. These are the concerns and criticisms that we make about this. We see a certain antagonism between the fact that, on the one hand, with regard to naturalizations, the government considers that after five years it is no longer necessary to examine the way in which people are integrated into society, and that, on the other hand, very subjective elements related to the notion of integration are reintroduced. When are we integrated? When one works, that one has money, that one is more cultivated than another, or that one speaks better than another? There is a risk of rethinking the problem of the subjectivity of this notion which, by the way, you want to remove in another law. In conclusion, Mr. Minister, my group will abstain from this project. In fact, we cannot vote against it because it is still an advance that we welcome. But we will not vote in favour because the text remains too confusing. Some clarifications would have made this operation more successful. In any case, the PSC will play the game: when this law is adopted – and I fear it will be without taking into account our amendments – we will ask our representatives to do everything they can to inform the persons concerned. The municipalities of which they are mayors will apply this legislation so that this operation succeeds.

Mr Karel Van Hoorebeke has the word.

Mr. Speaker, you know that from the very beginning, the VU group has been positively engaged in the debate on the regularisation of the illegal persons residing in Belgium. We believe that this debate should be able to be conducted in a serene, constructive way, which however does not mean that we agree with everything in the bill. This is a problem that must go beyond the party-political game, because it ultimately concerns a lot of people. As Mr Van Peel has also stressed, the debate on migration, and especially on immigration in the European countries, must not be limited to the single aspect of the regularization of the illegal. According to a recent report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which has been named Trends in International Migration, it shows that the migratory flow will not decrease in the coming years and that all those who dream of a migration halt make illusions. This also means that we need to think fundamentally about how we will address this problem in the coming years. I agree with Mr Van Peel that this debate should be held as soon as possible. It must take place here in the Parliament and in the European Parliament so that action can also be taken at European level that can effectively resolve this issue. Belgium cannot conduct its own policy. Europe must play the leading role. I am pleased that a first attempt has been made in this regard at the European Summit in Tampere, although it is an even more scary attempt. It will take a lot of time and negotiation before all European countries are on the same wavelength. Specifically, this means that we will have to cope with this migration pressure for a few more years. The increase in migration flows is not only a Belgian problem; it is a European problem. However, it is significant – I refer to an interpellation I recently held on figures relating to the migratory flow – that the migratory flow in Belgium has increased dramatically compared to other European countries. I will return to these figures because they are important. They come from a study published in Le Soir. Between 1 January and 30 September of this year, the 22 European countries that were taken as criteria – including not only the countries of the European Union, but also the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania – reached 323 680 asylum applications against 246 290 last year. There is a significant increase in the number of asylum seekers in these 22 countries. The most striking thing is that the increase for Belgium is 74.8%, so a figure that is significantly higher than the average for those countries, namely 31.4% and then the average in the European Union, namely 24.9%. Mr. Minister, after I have already interpelled you on this subject, you have said that you are aware of this problem specific to Belgium. You asserted that the problems ⁇ won’t get out of the way. It is remarkable that the main influx of mostly people from Eastern Europe occurred after the Netherlands, France, Germany and England had sensibly tightened their legislation, making Belgium suddenly the country where asylum seekers could most easily reach. As Mr Van Peel cited, the same debate is being held today in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands today, we are facing the same problems that we know in our country. I quote from an article that appeared on this subject following the difficulties that occurred in a village in NoordFries: The asylum procedure is now on the slope. A draft law has been submitted to the Parliament for a new foreigners law that should make it even more difficult for asylum seekers to obtain a residence permit in the Netherlands. Expropriated asylum seekers – about 70% of the total – will have to leave the Netherlands within a certain period of time. After the final rejection, they can be expelled from the house. The reception will be terminated and they can also be effectively moved across the border. Until now, they often disappear in the illegality and the track is broken. The debate we hold today is ⁇ not a strange debate within the European given. We should not regard ourselves as exceptional. Belgium is now more attractive than other European countries that also deal with this problem. Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, Belgium has always been a welcome country. The flames have always been very hospitable. I refer for a moment to the past, to a period when a lot of Flemish people emigrated to other countries, at a time when we were not so good economically here in Flanders, at a time when we were politically difficult in Flanders. Then many Flamingos emigrated to other countries, where they were welcomed, where they were accepted and were able to integrate. Mr. Laeremans, from that reciprocity we can say today that we are still a hospitable people. Flanders wishes to maintain this solidarity with the oppressed. Mr. Annemans, we would like to be welcoming-friendly. Mr. Minister, however, the question is where we can go and where the breaking line of the social power is in the reception of people who come here to start a new life here. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, without prejudice to our idea of solidarity and our receptivity, I think that the threshold has indeed been reached. Currently, our cities, municipalities and citizens can no longer withstand the increasing pressure. We need to take a rest break. That has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism, nor with the pressure of the Bloc that plays a perverse role in it. It has everything to do with the endeavor to preserve its uniqueness, its own identity and culture. For some people, who are raised in it by a number of extremists, the pressure has become too big and their resistance breaks. We must have an eye on this. So it is time to take a rest break. That does not mean that all this will not be able to be revised in some time. When we are faced with a further increase in shortages in the labour market, we will have to rethink where we can get labor from. Today, however, the limit has been reached and we must take a rest break. Mr. Minister, does this mean that we must close ourselves and build a wall around us? Some say that if the Berlin Wall had remained there, we would not have had all these problems. Mr. Laeremans, that is the discourse you always keep. Ultimately, it’s about you want to build a wall around us. We do not want that. The Flanders you want, we don’t want. We will continue to distance ourselves and continue to fight it. We remain strong supporters of the Geneva Convention. Those who offer themselves in this country because they are being persecuted in their country because of their political or religious beliefs, their race or gender, who remain welcome for the People's Union Faction in our country. The Geneva Convention must be continued to apply. If you apply here, the Geneva Convention must be reviewed. If they are eligible, they must be granted the status of political refugee. In any case, the procedure must be prompt. We have already discussed this much. Mr. Van Peel, the previous government, in which the CVP was also represented, has actually brought this problem. I always hear that the Council of Ministers decides collegially and in consensus. As far as I am concerned, it is quite weak to put everything on your then socialist coalition partner and to assert that they are responsible for what has gone wrong for ten years. Mr. Van Peel, in all those years, you have together shaped the policy of the country. So it also falls under the responsibility of the CVP that it has gone wrong here for years.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, you put words in my mouth that I have not spoken. I referred to the tragic incident with Semira Adamu and accused that the hype around it led to the de facto paralyzing of the expulsion policy. I do not think that is good. I am not saying that the previous government did everything right and that the current government does everything wrong. However, you have just given figures on the increase in the number of asylum seekers. The statements of Minister Duquesne in July and August are not strange to the announcement effect of the regularization policy. It is clear that the increase in the number of asylum seekers according to your own figures has doubled and in some months even tripled. You have given these figures yourself. This cannot be thrown into the shoes of the previous government.

Mr Karel Van Hoorebeke has the word.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment on whether the influx of migrants we face today is due solely to the ruling made by the Minister on this subject. I only talked about the procedure that remained the same for years. Why was Mr. De Crem’s bill aimed at changing the procedure on asylum policy not discussed during the previous legislature? Today’s situation indicates a collective responsibility. We want to work constructively to find a solution to this problem. We agree to a revision of the procedure. This means that the services are being reorganized and that work is being done to speed up the handling of the files. But everything must take place within the framework of the Geneva Convention, respecting the rights of defence. A proper asylum policy also means a proper expulsion policy. In the past, too much has gone wrong. Anyone who has been prosecuted and does not qualify for the status of political refugee must be returned. Asylum policy is not possible. Two conditions must be met. First, the person who has been prosecuted must be returned in a safe manner. This condition is stipulated in the Geneva Convention. A person shall not be returned if this cannot be done in a safe manner. Second, the refusal must be conducted in a humane manner. In the discussion of the expulsion policy, we talk about contingents and numbers, about C-130s. Should 3 000 be deported, Mr. Coveliers? This is debating in a disgusting way, the kind of debate that is conducted by some others. It reminds of the deportations by train, when people were imprisoned and taken away. The discourse of the Flemish Bloc on this subject is repugnant and should not be taken over by others. It is still about people. These problems cannot be expressed in unnuanced demagogical statements that bulk intolerance. With this regularization campaign, people who have been staying here for years, have been prosecuted or have not yet been returned, should have the chance to settle permanently without fear of being arrested by police or national guards because they are illegal. In this way, they are no longer required to work in the black, or to dive under a flight address, and it is avoided that some of them end up in crime or prostitution. One asks, Mr. De Man, what is the cost of this regularization. Will this operation cost the state a lot? Will it not yield a return if all these illegals can be engaged today in the social and economic life of this country? We must approach this positively, as is also shown in an article in Trends of 23 September 1999. There is a similar situation in the US city of Utica. I read a few passages. Utica Mayor Hanna welcomes refugees with open arms. He says: More immigrants provide more vitality and economic growth. Work is the main means of integration, says the director of the refugee center. The immigrants cost the city, generally seen, no franc. They don’t take jobs or tax money, no, they create jobs, start a fast food or a store and pay taxes. Mr. Laeremans, you will have heard me well when I called for a clear stop. Your argument that regularization will cost the country a lot, however, strikes me with unbelief. The illegals that will be regulated will ultimately also bring added value and not merely cost to this country.

Mr Bart Laeremans has the word.

Mr. President, Mr. Van Hoorebeke, you are talking about the United States, but that is a typical immigration country and there the situation is very different. In the Netherlands, a very serious study has already been done on this subject and it goes much deeper than what you have just read. This shows that immigration as a whole has a huge cost for society as a whole. I suggest that you first go through that documentation before arguing that immigration has only benefits. Immigration also brings with it many disadvantages, both human and social, but also financially. It is not the best who come here, not those who carry and improve our society, but very often people who are not willing to support our economy.

Mr Karel Van Hoorebeke has the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Laeremans, I do not want to comment on this. You approach the problem from a negative setting. I just wanted to point out that a positive approach is also possible and I do not want to discuss this with you. If we support this regularization campaign, in our vision, this is also accompanied by integration obligation and integration cause. This is done through work, through the language as mentioned by Mr. Van Peel, and through knowledge of our laws. I will not go deeper into this. If our amendment comes back, Mrs Van de Casteele will have extended the discussion on this subject. It is obvious that the idea of integration or the idea of citizenship is so little discussed in this parliament. When this topic was discussed in the committee, I heard nothing about it from the VLD side. That surprises me. After all, in the Flemish Government Agreement, an important paragraph is devoted to this. You will find it back on page 25 of that government agreement. I would have appreciated that some more support had come from the Flemish majority factions for our bill, which can significantly impose the integration obligation. Mr. Van Peel, you talked about integration and submitted the necessary amendments, but you actually took over our ideas about it. A few months ago, during the previous legislature, we submitted a bill for this. That was not discussed because the then majority did not want it to be dealt with here in the Chamber. I am pleased to hear you announce this idea of integration today. This is a support for us, but you would have better said that, in that regard, you have taken your ideas into our bill. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we are positive about the regularization campaign that will be organized. We emphasize that this must be a one-time regularization and that all measures and means must be used to avoid having to move to a new regularization within a few years. We are, as I have already said, positive about this draft, but as it is not sufficiently consistent with our idea of integration, we will submit a number of amendments, which we have already submitted in the committee, again in this plenary session, hoping that through this exchange of ideas we will go even further in finding a balance between the various interests that are at stake here.

Mr Willy Cortois has the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I had prepared a text, but I would like to respond just as friendlyly to Mr. Van Hoorebeke’s presentation. Mr. Van Hoorebeke, the debate of this afternoon will not be easier if the terms asylum seekers, migrants and people without papers are constantly confused. Let us try to conduct the debate in a quiet way and to determine in a business way what is essentially the subject of today. This bill deals with people without papers. I admit that the other problems are part of a global context, but I repeat that today we as parliament should limit ourselves to a bill concerning the regularization of people without papers. What conclusions should be linked to this in the context of migration and refugee policy is not currently discussed, although I would very much like to admit that one has to do with the other. Mrs. Van de Casteele, Mr. Van Peel, I have no doubt that you wish to find a political and social solution to these problems, so that at all costs it is avoided that certain people, as we have said, trigger a hatred and envy-induced, passionate and socially unhealthy debate, thus putting everything that goes wrong in this country and will still go wrong in the shoes of one category of citizens. Mr. De Man, I assume that you do not share this opinion, but I appeal to the more reasonable democratic forces in parliament. I do not wish to provoke; I wish to calmly express my opinion and you will soon have the opportunity to proclaim your opinion. We, as democratic parties, have an interest in solving the affairs one by one in a reasonable, serious, human way, taking into account the interests of those involved and of course also taking into account the interests of our own society. Mr. Speaker, the VLD can express its consent to this bill. Of course, we also realize that the situation we are in today is the result of non-politics. Mr. Van Peel, I don’t even want to make it a party-political issue, because it was the entire previous government involved in this. In addition, I realize that it is not an easy thing on a social level. We have a shared responsibility. However, this situation needs to be stopped by rapid intervention. You also said that we must remove the abscess that is present in this society. Everyone agrees on this. The debt lies not only on the federal government, but also on the European level. Many of you are in favor of less Belgian State and more competence for regions and communities and for Europe. If one takes out the Belgian State, one will of course have to give out a number of instruments necessary to carry out a particular policy and refer to Europe. Mr. Minister, as regards this draft, we would like to highlight three clear strength lines. First, the procedure discussed here today with respect to people without papers is necessary but only once. This means that this law can only apply to regulation applications submitted within three weeks of the publication of the law. The element of the time limit is recorded in the law. Mr. Van Peel, it is not so important that it is a one-off arrangement, but rather that it should not become a permanent system. Second, we have clearly stated — and the Minister has confirmed that — that the application for regularization does not under any circumstances entail any right to additional or new social services.

Mr Cortois, you are talking about granting a temporary residence permit, or have I misunderstood you?

You misunderstood me. If one reads the law carefully, one notices that it is a one-off movement, which is also limited in time.

At this point, your party chairman did not actually play the game fairly. He complained to the CVP that it provided for a permanent special procedure. Meanwhile, our group chairman has shown that this is not the case at all. However, you forget to point out that, in the meantime, the VLD keeps the article 9 of the Act of 1980 intact, without formulating conditions and without binding on it procedural rules, which is the requirement of the CVP.

In the committee, the Minister’s answers made clear to what extent the 1980 law remains applicable. As regards the judgment of Mr. Van Peel, we did not make the first correction. One of your colleagues, Mr. De Crem, felt compelled to say that Mr. Van Peel’s ruling did not actually reflect what the CVP thought. The scooter did not come from the VLD. It is not the VLD that laid a banana shell under the feet of Mr. Van Peel; in that regard he is mistaken, which is not the first time and will not be the last time, but that is part of the qualities and flaws of each individual.

Mr. Cortois, a massive one-off regularization is currently being carried out, but the possibilities of the 1980 law remain. We reject the massive one-time regularization because there will inevitably follow others, like abroad. It is the permanently existing system defined in the 1980 Act that is implemented through strict and clear criteria. I have clarified those criteria. Your chairman sketched a wrong picture, in the sense that we would advocate permanent mass regularization; in other words, what you want to accomplish now, but then permanently. This poisoned the debate. You are apparently concerned about the coexistence, on the one hand, of the operation that is now being carried out and, on the other hand, of the provisions of the law of 1980, and the minister cannot reassure us, even if it may still be. Currently, the two systems are running side by side.

Mr. Van Peel, I do not have to defend Mr. De Gucht; he was democratically elected as the chairman of our group. However, I think that the CVP was not very happy with the way you presented things, which may have given rise to a certain imagery. We live in a society where the image is very important; did you not say that yourself when you stood on the tribune? I have already understood your correction. Colleagues, we cannot ignore the conclusion that the number of refugees has increased in recent years and that the cause of this is primarily in the violations of human rights and in the continuation of armed conflicts around the world. The VLD is of the opinion that not only our country – we are too small to exert a lot of influence – but the whole of Europe must pursue an active human rights policy. This is of fundamental importance and goes beyond the debate on the regularization of asylum seekers. The fact that in certain countries human rights are undermined, of course, gives rise to the formation of a stream of people who go to other countries to seek asylum there – rightly. Belgium and all of Europe have every interest in actively defending human rights, wherever in the world. In my personal name and as a liberal, I would like to add that I attach great importance to an active political role in the field of human rights, but that such a certain distance involves ties arising from political or military alliances or from trade relations. I think that this debate has been initiated in the House and that the liberals will cooperate with it in the future. One of the solutions – and I know you will refer to Turkey – would be that we could count on respect for human rights everywhere in the world. As far as my intervention in this area. I agree with Mr. Van Peel’s view when he says that we should be able to weaken the distinction between rich and poor. This would dramatically reduce the number of economic refugees. To be honest, we must recognize that we as a country and from this parliament can only influence this issue to a limited extent. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the influx of asylum seekers who come here not under the threat of war, but in order to live a better life, should not constitute a reason for the notion of asylum seekers to be further exhausted. This is the hope of the Flemish Bloc. In the committee, they say that they have no objection to the fact that real refugees will settle in this country and that Belgium would continue to fulfill its classic role of pays d'acceuil. Everyone agrees on this. So it is our duty that the concept of asylum seeker is not undermined by people who do not meet the norm and yet find their way in our country through this system. In the public opinion – which is essentially of the same opinion and wants to help the real refugees – there is doubt and a negative reaction to the concepts of refugee and asylum seeker. If we act more strictly, fairly and efficiently, it is not to reject the unjust asylum seekers as human beings, but to give the human rights and those who are truly in need in this country a welcome that a civilized country is worthy. Strict action should be positively perceived in a number of cases and it fits in our vision of this problem.

Mr Marc Van Peel has the word.

Mr. President, I agree with Mr. Cortois’s view that a genuine asylum procedure can only be ⁇ ined by a strict policy. However, the deportation policy is part of the asylum policy. On 24 October 1999, Mr. De Gucht stated that the VLD will only approve the draft in question if it has been proven that the expulsion policy has effectively led to expulsions.

Mr Willy Cortois has the word.

I answer with a question.

Mr. Cortois, you should not put things on their heads. Not the CVP but your chairman made this statement.

Mr. Van Peel, I confirm that you are a fervent supporter of Mr. De Gucht. I could have pointed out that the previous governments have done nothing of this. I could have pointed out that the 1980 law failed because of various elements. At the moment, however, everyone agrees that the situation is unsustainable. The government’s current initiatives on asylum policy, in my opinion, demonstrate more of a coherent and forward-looking civil society policy than those of previous governments. An asylum policy and a regularization policy for the paperless can only rely on the support of the public opinion on the condition that the government also works on an efficient removal policy. I remind you of a statement by former Prime Minister Dehaene that time should be played as a judgment factor. The VLD wants to give this policy a fair opportunity. Mr. Minister, the VLD urges that Parliament be regularly informed so that the policies undertaken can be evaluated. I don’t want to get stuck on an exact number of expulsions. After six months, we will be able to determine whether the current draft on regularization has been successful. I cannot comment on this at the moment. I only say that this government and this policy deserve a fair opportunity. The VLD group in this parliament is prepared to give this fair opportunity. We will approve the bill without hesitation.

Mr Marc Van Peel has the word.

Mr. Speaker, I am not the one who has constantly made the link in public. The VLD leaders did this. Of course, Mr. Cortois has the right to express his opinion in a parliamentary debate. I only note that what he now claims is very different from the statements made by VLD leaders in the Flemish media. I think this is a correct factual determination.

Mr Willy Cortois has the word.

Mr. Van Peel has repeatedly pointed out that we live in an image society. Therefore, a number of claims, which are undoubtedly made, are pulled out of their proper context. This issue is being debated in Parliament today. The VLD group says without hesitation that it wants to give the bill a fair chance, which will be shown in the vote.

The floor is yielded to Mrs Géraldine PelzerSalandra.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, today we will conclude our discussion on a project ⁇ dear to environmentalists, since it is the bill aimed at the regularization of certain categories of foreigners staying on our territory. For many years, environmentalists have argued that it is necessary to have the courage to take into account the problem of clandestines and asylum seekers and that, by legislating on the issue. We are pleased to see that this government has decided to take its responsibilities in order to bring global responses to a phenomenon that, if concealed, can contribute to an ambient atmosphere of racism, racism that environmentalists have always fought. Indeed, some have tried to make believing that all foreigners living in our territory are beneficiaries of the social security system. Regularly, voices also rise to say that Belgium can nevertheless not accommodate all the misery of the world. We are fully aware of this and we have never asked for this kind of thing. However, we think it is time to relativize the extent of the phenomenon of migration flows and asylum applications that Belgium is the subject of. In fact, I would like to recall, Mr. President, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, that in recent months, the poorest country in Europe, in this case Albania, has experienced an influx of more than one million refugees. For comparison, Belgium welcomes tens of thousands of asylum seekers. However, our country is far from being the poorest in Europe. Indeed, its gross domestic product per capita is one of the highest in Europe of the Fifteen, ahead of Luxembourg, but followed by Germany, France or Austria. In view of such elements, it seems inconceivable to us that we can still say that our country cannot face a single regularization operation, as it is currently proposed to us. Today, we can say that we are generally satisfied with the result even if it is not perfect. However, it unquestionably represents a clear advance for the recognition of the rights of foreigners in our country. Contrary to outdated beliefs, it should be known that the majority of applicants living in our country are in clandestinity. Therefore, they cannot rely on any form of aid or social recognition. Most have been on Belgian territory for many years, work there - in black, of course, because they cannot be declared - there are lasting social attachments and have school children. These people are therefore far from being profiteers, but are in fact victims of a system that does not allow them to assert their rights and duties as citizens. It would be hypocritical to deny these realities and not allow these people to regain the respect and human dignity they are entitled to. The government has defined its asylum policy based on three closely linked pillars. The first is based on a rapid and transparent asylum policy that respects the rights of defence. It is clear that persons who can claim refugee status on the basis of the Geneva Convention must be able to access it within a reasonable period of time and with respect for the human dignity to which they are entitled. The second pillar of this policy consists of a procedure of regularization of residence, limited in time, allowing for regularization of a large number of persons in irregular situation. The third pillar, finally, is based on removal measures for all those who, at the end of the procedure, have been denied refugee status or who will be found illegally in the territory of the kingdom. As environmentalists, we can subscribe to such an option since we have always argued that a good policy of asylum and the reception of foreigners in our territory should be analyzed globally. Therefore, we welcome that in parallel with this law, the government is also conducting other initiatives in the field of integration of foreigners. I am concerned with the adoption centres specifically designed for minors, as well as the measures implemented so that minors currently detained in closed centres have access to school under normal conditions, much more humane, in our opinion, than they were in the past. I would now like to address the objectives pursued by the government by deciding this regularization. They are many, but we can mainly number three. The first is to end clandestinity, social precariousness and the marginalization of many people residing on our territory. The second is to stop the trafficking in human beings. And finally, allowing many people forced to work in the dark to find a job in decent conditions. In order for these objectives to be achieved, we find it essential that a strong confidence climate be restored between the authorities and the applicant. Without this confidence, the regularization process may be a failure and the objectives pursued may not be achieved. In order to strengthen this climate of confidence, it seems to us very important that the Royal Decree defining the modalities of implementation of this bill provides for all the necessary safeguards to create this climate of favorable confidence. We have also received our comforts on this subject in commission from the Minister of the Interior. Regarding the terms of the law, it seems important to us, Mr. Minister, that your attention is especially focused on the realisation of certain points that we are going to develop now. We have long debated in committee on the role, independence and composition of the regulation committee. We have been able to learn from your mouth, Mr. Minister, that the members of this commission will be appointed by the Council of Ministers. We dare to believe that the choice of people will be made based on their objectivity, their independence and their skills. We would like to insist on Mr. The Minister emphasized the importance of this independence. It is in fact the quality of the people who make up the committee that guarantees its proper functioning and the objectivity of the opinions that it will submit to the minister. It is absolutely necessary to avoid the deviations that have sometimes been observed within the Office of Foreigners. Regarding the follow-up to the regulation committee’s opinions, we were pleased to hear that the minister will generally follow them. We are also reassured in respect of the rights of defence, given that applicants will be heard in the committee and because, in the event that their file would be deemed incomplete by the secretariat, the persons will be notified in time to claim their means of defence. As regards the possible appeal in the event of a negative opinion, the time limit for introducing this appeal is only three days. If they were effective, this deadline seems to us really too short. He does not really respect the positive spirit in which this law was written. We believe that only the most well-rounded people can truly assert their rights. In relation to the information to the communes, we would like to remind that following the Royal Decree of 6 October last year, Mr. The Minister had sent to all the mayors a circular clearly explaining the tasks to be accomplished by the municipalities and the precise procedure to be followed in order to allow the regularization operation to be carried out in the best way possible. The Minister thankfully confirmed to us that such a circular will be sent to each municipality as soon as the law is approved, so as to allow them to organize as best as possible the reception of applicants. However, some problems cannot be solved through this circular. We believe that in some major cities, such as Liège, Ghent, Brussels or Antwerp, municipal staff risks being overwhelmed by the influx of requests. Therefore, we insist that substantial financial resources be allocated for these municipalities. I would like to remind you that the success of this operation depends largely on the good collaboration of the municipalities. It is therefore important to ensure that they have the means to do their work under acceptable conditions. We would like to remind the Minister that he has committed himself in committee to unleash these resources. Although the bill does not explicitly refer to certain persons detained in closed centers and may be subject to regularization, we are pleased to have heard the minister commit to deliver a very clear circular to the closed centers. This will aim to ensure that all necessary information will be transmitted to the persons detained there, in order to enable them to enter their files in good conditions and thus benefit from the regularization procedure. We allow ourselves to emphasize the positive aspect of this measure, which provides not only that persons detained in closed centres will be able to enter a file in good conditions, but also and we especially insist on this point - that it is planned that these persons will be released since they can only be detained for the purpose of their removal. This is indeed an important positive aspect, although we would like to recall Ecolo’s fundamental opposition to the very existence of these centres and the often painful conditions in which people waiting for a decision must live there. Even though recent measures aimed at somewhat humanizing these conditions have been taken, allowing in particular minors to attend school outside these closed centres, we believe, however, that this situation should not persist. I will not repeat all the comments made in the committee. I would just like to emphasize the reading that must be done, in particular with regard to Article 2, which determines the criteria opening the possibility of being regularized. It is, indeed, in your speeches in commission, Mr. Minister, that we find the spirit of these criteria. It might be useful that your interventions are integrated as much as possible into the arrests. Another passage that requires to be specified further through the arrests, is that of the age from which minors are considered to be in school age. You have, in fact, specified that the school age should be considered 2 and a half years and 6 years. The same applies to Article 9, § 9, which deals in particular with criteria concerning persons entering with a tourist visa or a student residence permit and who have illegally resided in Belgium for several years. You have, in fact, announced in a committee that a logical reading of this article should be made and that one must, therefore, consider that those persons who can take advantage of a long stay and lasting social attachments in Belgium, can therefore be subject to a regularization. In this case too, we believe that the arrests should take back the spirit of your comments in committee because they give this decision all the value that it should be given. In any case, we would like to recommend you the greatest vigilance on the implementation of this bill, with the greatest possible humanity, especially in the measures of removal. We must ensure that those who, at the end of the procedure, must leave our country can do so in conditions consistent with human rights and with all the respect to which they are entitled. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, we are living in a significant moment because there has been no more regularization in our country for 25 years. This bill that we are about to vote on can therefore be called historical. Indeed, there are few times when parliament has the opportunity to take a decision on a project that could restore their dignity to thousands of people. For all these reasons, the Agalev-Ecolo group has decided to support this project and invites you to do the same.

Dear colleagues, I invite you to applaud Ms. Pelzer whose maiden speech it was. (Very vivid applause on all the banks.) by Mr. Filip De Man has the word.

Mr. Speaker, with this bill on regularisations, the interception of the largest coalition partner in the new government is complete. Everyone knows that a two-track policy was agreed, with the left being promised to be mass-regulated and then naturalized in the short term, and with the VLD being promised that the illegals who are not eligible for regularization will be mass-expelled. What do we fix? The mass regularization of tens of thousands of illegal workers will begin very soon. Minister Duquesne has announced the recruitment of three hundred staff members, who should make the regularization round a great success. However, the requirement for expulsions due to the VLD is not met. It may sound humiliating, but both the VLD chairman and the VLD group chairman get zero on the row. No military aircraft or even charters will be deployed and Mr. De Gucht must agree that the acceptable number of repatriations will not be reached. Thus, Mr. Coveliers, there are not three thousand illegal refugees returned to their country of origin every month. Here they stand with empty hands, the gentlemen of the biggest coalition partner. They have betrayed their voters. What we have seen for years with the CVP, we now get in an even more tasteless version served by the Flemish liberals: never dare to hit the table, never dare to put your own principles above the supposedly higher importance. This is not a free claim. I know that the VLD colleagues hope that their voters will soon forget the appointment of Busquin and that they are not really awake to the fact that the Belgian export of nuclear material now belongs to the exclusive competence of two Wallon ministers. They hope that their voters will not realize that Costa is actually a new brand of deep freezers, and they may think that most have already forgotten that promises were made regarding social security reform. However, this bill goes too far. The voters will not swallow these mass regularizations. They will not accept that the VLD first sets up a high chest and then swallows its resistance. The Gucht and Coveliers are in the eyes of the voters actually Halbstarken, who shout: Stop me or I am committing an accident. This will not be swallowed by the voters. I say calmly that we will do everything we can to inform the whole of Flanders of the crawling attitude of the VLD elected. Until in the smallest village of Flanders, one will know how flat the VLD has gone on the belly. The press office is not silent, Mr. Cortois. Soon you can expect 15 000 pamphlets in Vilvoorde. Furthermore, it is necessary that we inform the population when one sees how it is with the foreign policy in this country. We have had fifteen years of relief in terms of naturalizations behind us. This is apparently not yet sufficient. The new government wants to abolish the de facto naturalization procedure. According to the liberals, the Greens and the socialists, the acquisition of nationality will soon be bound by no condition. The identity card is even handed over for free and for nothing. As a symbol, this can count! Naturalizations are being carried out as never before. Mr. Cortois, this is part of the foreign policy and I have the full right to outline the context within which you want to penetrate this bill. Asylum policy is and remains a major catastrophe. This year, more than 30 000 foreigners will apply to the asylum procedure and in most cases also abuse to enter and stay in our country. The expulsion policy is a joke, but I will come back to that later. As a closing point, the illegals, those who reside illegally on our territory, will now be massively regulated. One goes even further because in a few years they are all new Belgians, but I will talk about that later. There is, therefore, clearly a government policy, but it is a lax policy, a policy of increasingly open borders, a policy that was previously advocated only by the left-wing rackers of Agalev and Ecolo. Prime Minister Verhofstadt has given up any reservations. This government gives the Greens, the Socialists and also the PRL-FDF everything they want. The Greens will get a little more of that meltdown to which they are so craving, the socialist pillar will get a lot of new customers in the short term and the PS in the medium term a lot of new voters. The fédération PRL-FDF is, of course, happy because it knows very well that the great hope of the new Belgians – ⁇ in Brussels – is seeking access, also electorally, to the French speakers. This will reduce the Flemish presence in Brussels to an unbearable minimum. I may refresh the memory of the VLD colleagues for a moment and quote what the previous VLD group chairman, Mr Dewael, said in the debate on the right to vote for foreigners in this Chamber. He said: PRL-FDF and PS want to ease Belgian nationality legislation in such a way that immigrants almost automatically become Belgians. The French-speaking parties see in the votes of immigrants a means to further refresh Brussels and Flemish-Brabant. The VLD, unlike the Flemish majority parties, does not want to participate in this Franco-speaking strategy. Mr. Minister, I would almost forget it, but there is, of course, also the chapter on the expulsion. After the regularization that your partners in the government have received as a gift, a piece of regularity has been laid for you. The VLD voters were accompanied by the kordaat repatriation policy. Party Chairman De Gucht used charters and the respected group chairman told everyone who wanted to hear that 3 000 illegal people would be repatriated per month. Ladies and gentlemen, you have not yet seen anything. The usual expulsions occur only with mouth size. The minister was talking about 500 every one-and-a-half month, less than during the previous legislature. Of the forced expulsions, because that is, of course, the most painful aspect, we will only keep silent. According to the National Guard - the minister has confirmed that - one leaves illegally every day, while we all know that there are more than 100 000 illegals running around in our country, that there are thousands of completed expulsion files in the Foreign Affairs department, with which nothing happens, and finally that every week dozens of new illegals arrive. Never before have so many illegals been arrested as recently. Mr. Coveliers, I will later give you the hard figures provided by the liberal minister. Colleagues of the VLD, I will express myself in the language of your bosses, of the PS, PRL, FDF and Ecolo, you stand, of course, cocu. You may soon approve the regularization of tens of thousands of illegal persons, but on your question about expulsions you will get zero on the complaint. It’s to get caught up with substituting shame, when we see how you, as the biggest coalition partner, let yourself drum in the corner. We must have experienced that your government partner Ecolo was protesting against the government’s policy on expulsions. We must have heard from Secretary of State Boutmans van Agalev that deportations with coercion cannot, that those who are not sent out of the country after five months may remain. I refer to the unlawful course of affairs tolerated by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Minister who allows the municipalities to draw up files in an unlawful manner, who does not oversee that the Foreign Affairs Service does its job, in particular tracking and dispatching illegal persons, who refuses to make the police services carry out investigative work, who refuses to use the information on the provisional regulation files now stored in the various cities and municipalities. You tolerate all that from the PRL-FDF minister. What’s more, the law you’re going to approve stipulates that the illegals who are currently imprisoned – and there are already so few imprisoned – will be released from the moment they submit their application for regularization. That is one of the first results of what you so support. Dear colleagues, the rule of law in this country does not offer much more, but in the eyes of the National Guard and police ⁇ no longer. The number of brigades and commissariates in which one is now sitting with hands in the hair is increasing. No one knows if the police are still working today to track down the illegal offenders. No one knows what they should do with these illegals. That is the policy of the new government. Your suffering is not over. I will go a little deeper into the issue of deportations. We heard that Ecolo Minister Durant had an agreement with the pilots. She would issue a ministerial decision, but we have yet to see nothing of it. Apparently something must be hidden. The same with the agreements made by Minister Duquesne with the National Guard. I asked for the text of that agreement with the National Guard. I asked how to work. Nor can that. The majority parties take it. The control right of this Parliament apparently no longer counts in this. We must not know what has been agreed by Minister Durant or Duquesne regarding forced repatriation. Of course, it could be that the population would notice that forced expulsions do not come into the home. Colleagues of the VLD, in fact, you are once again cheated out of this whole matter. I assume that you realize that regular flights and small business aircraft are not the solution, ⁇ knowing that thousands of illegal and prosecuted people must be removed from the country. Thousands of new asylum applications are submitted each month and we read in the government press release of September 24 that most of them are likely to be rejected. This is literally what the government says. Yet you do nothing. I will then come to the criteria for regularization. If those criteria were truly waterproof and could actually be regulated only illegal persons from Belgium, then one could partially go into this. However, because the criteria are so vague and unclear, foreign illegal persons may also benefit from the Belgian regularisation measure. You put that black on white. The Minister writes on page 6 of his explanation to the draft law without pinsing that he may find it necessary to temporarily close the borders. This is stated literally in the explanation to the draft law. Why is this stated there if one is sure of his procedure? Furthermore, I must point out that the regularization measure was already included in the government agreement of July and that the government is therefore the first responsible for the global announcement of the upcoming regularization. The publication has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of asylum applications in recent months. (Interruption by Mr. Coveliers) Mr. Coveliers, you put yourself tight. 3 500 per month means we would get over 40 000 asylum applications per year. That is a formidable result. As soon as it was known in this country that there was a regularization round, the numbers have grown spectacularly. On an annual basis, it still reaches a record of all times. We also have a fundamental objection to this regularization. Is it morally legitimate that illegals who have sinned for illegal practices here for years are now suddenly regulated? It is clear, however, that they earned money through illegal, not to say criminal activities. They worked in black because they did not have a work permit. They never paid taxes or social contributions. In the worst cases, they were also active in, among other things, crime, drug trafficking, poaching, prostitution, the trade in stolen goods and the export of stolen cars. This regularization equates such criminal illegals with brave citizens who have adhered to the law all their lives, paid taxes and social contributions, and have not committed any crimes. Colleagues, I would also like to point out the consequences of mass regularization. Once they are regulated, the illegals will be given permission from the Minister of Interior to stay here unlimited. This stay has the effect that the illegal at that time can be naturalized into nouveau Belge. Thus I come to the electoral potential that Mr. Eerdekens is so busy with and for which Mr. Dewael warned. The fact that one realizes this in the two largest Flemish parties, but still supports the draft, is at least strange to be called. The third party of Flanders understands very well what the French speakers have to do. The masochism of the CVP knows no limits anymore. The CVP, who does not realize that she is no longer in the majority, announces that she wants permanent regularization. The Shield of Flanders wants to permanently regulate its suicidal tendencies. She does not want a one-off regularization round, but is of the opinion that the borders should remain open. We must constantly pay attention to the illegal, it is called. Mr. Tant said in the committee that it is about people who are guests here. This is a strange fulfillment of the notion of hospitality. Mr. Tante, I assume that you are on the door inside without bells. The CVP says in fact: Illegals of all countries, unite you and it is in Belgium. According to recent scientific research, lemings would not collectively throw themselves into the abyss, but I see no other image to describe the mentality of the nouveau CVP. Mr. De Crem was shocked by his words last week and is trying to limit the damage by not approving this bill. First, he referred to today’s disaster situation. But it is largely attributable to the CVP, the Dehaene government. If the amendments are properly followed, it turns out that the Flamings are being deceived. The CVP pretends that it makes a big difference that regularization is assessed, case by case. But also purple-green will assess all applications individually. Why are 300 people hired if they don’t exactly serve to assess the applications? It seems that the CVP is stricter for the second and third category of people eligible for regularization. They are granted a temporary residence from the CVP. However, in the small letters of its proposal, the CVP provides for extension of residence. This is typical CVP, neither meat nor fish. Moreover, Mr De Crem acts as if he is attaching an integration condition to it. What do you think about when you write in Article 2 of your proposal that the applicant - I quote - must prove a special relationship with the Belgians or with foreigners established in Belgium? This is literally so. What an integration it is for me! As a foreigner, one can thus call himself integrated if one has a special relationship with other foreigners established here in Belgium. Mr. De Crem, let me not laugh, this is the nouveau CVP of Johan Van Hecke blazer, this is the Flamings turn a wheel in front of the eyes and split them in the meantime a left proposal in the stomach. Colleagues, it may be an idle hope, but ⁇ there will be a reaction from the many mayors. The local aspect should not be overlooked. This has an impact on municipalities. If the regulated people actually get their documents, they will be able to rely on our social benefits for the full 100%. If one then looks at the figures of the last years, it shows how the municipalities will crumble under the burden inflicted by the government. In 1997 there were 11 787 asylum applications, in 1998 there were 21 964 and in 1999 there were already more than 30 000. That is almost the population of Vilvoorde, Mr. Cortois. Since the traditional parties have all those years refused to pursue an effective expulsion policy, the municipalities will now double and thickly become the victims of the regularization policy. First, the municipalities - the officials and the police - will have to charge for the processing of applications, the collection, composition and transmission of the files, the control of the place of residence and so on. This is, of course, entirely due to the municipal budget. Second, after regularization, one can enjoy the subsistence minimum, child allowance, a social housing, social loans, unlimited medical care, free contributions to the hospital fund and more. This will cost a bunch of money. You know I have experience in Vilvoorde. The OCMW complains there every year about the many tens of millions that must be raised for foreigners. In Vilvoorde, that may still be just to pay – you are an economical, almost wretched administrator, Mr. Cortois – but in other cities the OCMWkas will just be empty. After the regularization round, it will be apparent that thousands of new support tractors will need to be ⁇ ined. I predicted it a few weeks ago: the soil will be knocked out of the OCMW treasures. However, one does not listen, one will create another set of support trailers. That will cost billions, but purple-green does not want to see the problem. Like Mr. Coveliers, I will go into elementary computation. Even if one regularizes only 20,000 illegal persons, each of whom costs a few hundred thousand francs a year – this is approximate mathematics as also committed by Mr. Coveliers a good month ago – then one comes to several additional billions of spending in the social sector. I would like to mention the asylum policy, which is close to that. At the time of Mr. Tobback, the asylum policy cost 8 billion francs per year. I don’t think I’m exaggerating by saying that we are now accountable for more than 10 billion francs a year. But that is not yet enough. If the regulated people again start to flourish in family reunification, there will be a lot of additional costs. I think of the song: Who will pay that, who has so much money? and . In this regard, I should also point out something that is almost never paid attention to by the media. The government is currently in the process of allocating the thirteenth dish of 5,000 asylum seekers to the various cities and municipalities. I can count a little more: 13 times 5 000, that is 65 000 asylum seekers allocated to the cities and municipalities in recent years. Who can continue to pay that? Mr. Van Hoorebeke, you would like to know what I propose in this regard. You will hear this at the end of my speech. Colleagues, the Flemish Bloc has submitted a number of 50 amendments to the committee to great annoyance of, among others, Minister Duquesne. He was, by the way, tired of it and initially refused to answer our comments and amendments during the last meeting, after two night sessions. I must honestly admit that I have rarely seen such an attitude. Even Tobback was a little less impolite at the time. Mr. Duquesne and colleagues from the VLD, you will have to empty the cup to the bottom. As I said in the committee, a well-known commodity chain parafrasing: Il faut la mériter, cette clientèle. The regulatory committee will keep the ropes in hand. As could be expected from a leftist to extreme-left government, it will be left to the NGOs – those who prefer to work without borders – to decide. We know very little about the composition of this committee. Which NGOs will be elected, we do not know. They also have no decision-making power. In terms of the criteria, vagity is treasure. The minister himself says that the government has consciously kept the criteria as vague as possible in order to make the regularization round a great success. The Government also says that the Regulation Committee will have to develop its own jurisprudence. Colleagues, do we not give too much interpretation power to this committee for the other committee not yet in existence? How can one, in the heavenly name, in such an important matter as the entry into and residence in the territory, assign the determination of the conditions to such an inexisting commission? How can a parliament approve this? How can it be that the majority parties in parliament agree that there is no control right, as it exists for naturalizations? Mr. Cortois, I know that you are well-worn in your role as a majority party, but I repeat that the people's representation in this matter does not have the control right, which it has in the case of naturalizations. Mass regularization, which will lead to naturalizations within a three-year period, should not be controlled. One should not have a look at it. The People’s Representation gives up its right of control. Mr. Cortois is constantly speaking on his bench, but I don’t understand him. It is completely unclear to me.

Mr Cortois, you have the appropriate instrument to intervene in this debate. Mr. Philip the Man has the word.

Mr. Speaker, the question arises how it is possible that the traditional parties in the explanatory note, on page 7, invoke their own inability to now seed up the population with mass regularization. The objective is based on the finding that the government has failed to notify an enforceable decision within a period of four years or three years. The traditional parties carry out an unheard of policy of misconduct, and then one calls upon one’s own ignorance to introduce the law of regularization. The fact that the VLD, which has been in the opposition for 12 years, lends itself to this is very surprising to me. The question arises, by the way, – I have unfruitfully addressed this to the minister – whether you will not get into the trouble with European agreements on this subject. You will give tens of thousands of illegals unlimited access to the Schengen territory because you have remained in default. There are very strict conditions for granting access to the territory. Agreements have been reached between the participating countries. In my view, this violates these agreements. I look forward to what the European Commission or the Court of Justice in Luxembourg will think about this. I want to decide with our vision. The immigration ceasefire announced since 1974 is as leaky as a seed. Witness the more than 500,000 new foreigners who have entered here since then. For us, it is unacceptable that the status of illegal and expropriated persons is now legalized. Instead of easing the asylum policy, the government should pursue a strict asylum policy. Mr. Cortois, only in this way will we make it clear that this country cannot play the OCMW of the whole world. We believe that this government should have the territoriality principle inscribed in the Geneva Convention. In this way, the status of political refugee can only be granted to European refugees, which was initially the case after the Second World War. We urge to increase the number of repatriations, which you have not done for a few weeks. You have to swallow what PS, PRL, FDF and the greens have imposed on you. The Flemish Bloc will continue to insist on a serious number of repatriations. Of course, these repatriations must be carried out in the most humane way possible. However, it is only a comprehensive approach that can solve the problem of the influx of illegals. (Protest on the banks of the VLD group) That is the language you spoke until a few weeks ago, especially your group chairman and your party chairman. Mr. Cortois, you had to get a backseil. For the sake of the highest importance – the premiere of Mr. Verhofstadt and the many prebenden you all enjoy – you have been silently silent for three weeks. Finally, I would like to point out that this is not a one-time regularization. Examples in other Western countries prove this. We have already talked about Italy. I can add the example of France, where in the 1980s there were 145 000 dossiers and where a good year ago the last round ended with another 143 000 dossiers, of which two-thirds were regulated. Now there are even votes on whether or not regularization procedures should be organized frequently, and the supporters come from the so-called progressive corner. Well, I predict that this law will remain in force and that within two, maximum three years, the second round of regularization will start. At that time, the 1997-1998 lighting will be discussed. Many illegal persons will also want to prove that they have resided in our country for four, five or six years – depending on the cases specified in the draft – and thus have the right to be regulated. They will invoke the principle of equality and maybe they will still be equalized as well. Colleagues from the traditional parties, you go your walk, but you refuse to see that the Flemish do not support your expulsion policy. You will pay the entire fee next year. The first major achievement of the Verhofstadt government is not the harsh approach to crime, nor the social security reform, but the mass regularization of illegals. Colleagues, during the debate about the illegals, which was broadcast by the VRT, the VLD chairman said that there is no left or right wing among the liberals and that there are no problems in this regard. Well, Mr. Cortois, your chairman will soon be right, because the right wing of his party will have moved to the Flemish Bloc.

Mr De Man, your speech lasted 40 minutes, which means that the other speakers of your group still have only 20 minutes of the 60 minutes of speech time requested. The word is to M. by Yvan Mayeur.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I welcome the opportunity given to us to make an important political act by approving tomorrow, I hope, this draft law of regularization. The initiative taken by the government on the issue of regularizations, it has been said many times, is part of a whole and must be understood in connection with this whole, namely the reforms of the asylum procedure, naturalizations, the humanization of closed centres and the policy of removal and expulsion when the criteria for reception have been examined. The bill we are discussing today constitutes one of the cornerstones of this reform, which is essentially aimed at removing many areas of non-law and arbitrary induced by the slowness, opacity and old age of old legal and administrative procedures. What I think is important to emphasize here is the new direction determined by this set of reforms in Belgian foreign policy. This new orientation tends toward greater clarity, efficiency and rapidity, as well as toward greater respect for human dignity, which is the main theme of this debate. My comments on this text are divided into two groups. There are first those concerned with the manifest qualities of the text, then the points on which we asked for clarifications to the Minister in committee. On the criteria for regularization, the text intervenes to usefully supplement Article 9, § 3 of the 1980 Foreigners Act. By the criteria it establishes for obtaining the regularization and by the procedure it establishes, it allows to complete, for an operation, what, in the law, is subject to the discretion of the Minister. In this regard, the text reveals an interesting internal balance. On the one hand, it ensures more transparency in the mechanism of regularization. On the other hand, it does not fall into the reverse excess that would be a legislation too rigid, too detailed and therefore in breach with the troubles of the ground, which people actually experience. Thus, the criteria for access to regularization are sufficiently detailed to be controlled, but they are formulated sufficiently broadly so that members of the regularization committee can interpret the human situations they will have to deal with. In fact, there are human situations that, by definition, we cannot integrate into a bill. Thus families whose members are allowed to stay in Belgium and others not, where children were born. We need to be able to solve these cases at a global level. I hope – I am even convinced – that the regularization committees will keep in mind that one cannot deal with individual cases without considering the whole family. Such situations are currently encountered in some CPAS and this demonstrates that the practice had to be modified, that it will need to be regularized for obvious human reasons. I would like to emphasize another criterion. The proposed text leaves an important place for the rights of defence and the possibility for persons to draw up a regularization file, to be assisted by lawyers, including before the committee in the event of a possible hearing and, if necessary, with the help of the representative of legal assistance, i.e. pro deo. The observance of the legislation on privacy has also been guaranteed, not only in the context of the constitution of the social report, but also, of course, in terms of the content of the medical certificates that will be submitted, if necessary, by the applicants for regularization. Finally, the minister assured us that the members of the commission, the secretariat and the doctors who will assist him will be appointed according to strict criteria of competence and independence of mind. The PS Group welcomes the fact that communal and social services in the broad sense have been designated as the main interlocutors of the applicants for regularization. It is, indeed, at the local level that people are best known, that situations are best understood and that people are most easily helped to introduce their request for regularization. These services are the least likely to fuel the fear and distrust aroused, in particular, by the alarmist interventions of some with regard to this operation and who advised foreigners not to be regularized because they were at risk of being arrested. However, it is not about that. This was clearly stated in the work of the committee. Consequently, it seems to me that the role of municipalities, and therefore of mayors, CPAS, social services and all those who can help applicants introduce their files, is to ensure the best effectiveness of this bill. The operation is aimed at regularization and not a massive and gigantic raft. It is not about trapping people. This must be repeated. In the commission, we also obtained a significant accuracy. Thus, homeless persons will be able to refer to the practice relating to the homeless or homeless and make a home declaration by giving as reference address, either that of a lawyer, or that of a CPAS, or even of a social service. This important element must also be able to guarantee the good end of the regularization of the person. This is the essence of this precision. One must be able to connect with the interested party, regulate his situation and start with him, if necessary, a social work. I would like to make a final clarification regarding the procedure. Given the widespread publicity that the bill has benefited, one is entitled to hope that the deadlines set for the procedure will truly fulfill their initial role, namely a quick and effective settlement of the maximum number of cases. Some have said that the three-week application procedure was too short. We should be grateful to the Vlaams Blok which, through its action, allowed us to get a longer delay. Even though I am convinced that interested parties were often able to enter their file within three weeks, the latter will no longer be a brush-cut period. Foreigners will now be able to submit full applications. They will then have a month to introduce a social file that will support their application. If the deadlines remain strict, they are no longer impossible to comply with. Finally, I will come to the composition of the Chambers of the Regulatory Commission. We are pleased that they must appeal to the competence of professionals (a magistrate, a lawyer, a representative of a human rights organization) who have different but complementary approaches to these issues. The Socialist Group considers that the presence of a representative of civil society constitutes an essential achievement for the handling of regulation cases. All of these elements delight the Socialist group. I wanted to remind them. I will come to the clarifications or clarifications. The first point I would like to address concerns the indispensable independence and competence of the doctors who will assist the regulation commission. I am talking here about the problem of serious diseases, one of the arguments that applicants for regularization can invoke. The doctors of this committee will have the task of attesting the degree of severity of a disease, with all the consequences that arise from it. However, there are strong controversies about the current functioning of the medical service that assists the Foreign Office; I have informed the minister. Too often, the opinions of renowned specialists are countered by the counseling doctors of the Foreign Office. Obviously, Belgium has not produced enough Nobel Prize to compose a committee of doctors capable of analyzing this element with all certainty. However, when important personalities from the Belgian scientific and medical world give opinions on serious diseases, it seems unacceptable to me that doctors-advisors of the Foreign Office disapprove of their decisions. What is their competence, what is their curriculum vitae, what are they relying on to challenge the opinions of recognised academics? This is what seems to me to be questionable and should not be repeated during this procedure of regularization; at least, I hope. As the minister said, it seems to me important that the appointment of these doctors is carried out on the basis of real independence and professional quality, in the same way as the appointment of lawyers, elsewhere. In this regard, you mentioned the use of the National Bar Association, which I think is an excellent solution. It would be about finding a similar procedure for the medical body. In this regard, I will not fail to mention the immediate actuality. I am faced with a particular difficulty: today, a ruling of the State Council notifies that the bone examination practiced to determine whether a person is minor or adult is contestable, that it does not provide unquestionable proof of the person's age. For now, however, the Foreign Office considers the indication given by the doctors through this examination as an irrefutable evidence in the matter, allowing to apply a completely different treatment according to the cases. You know, like you, but in another title, I was arrested by the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight Against Racism, on the basis of this decision of the State Council. We have decided, I speak here as president of the Saint Pierre Hospital in Brussels, to suspend bone examinations until new order. I was questioned by members of your cabinet and the Foreign Office on this point. I made it clear that we had suspended these examinations on the basis of the decision of the State Council. If one wishes to resume these examinations because they are indispensable, I will see no objection to them, provided that we sit around the table and clearly determine the interpretation given to the indication of doctors, which cannot be abusive. In other words, it would be unacceptable to use a scientific advice as an alibi to a police policy of rejection. If this is the case, take this policy as such. For our part, we do not want to endorse this policy. On the other hand, if it comes to using the scientific and medical means to help people who come to us in a situation of distress, such as unaccompanied minors, who obviously need to be rescued and assisted and that requires quality medical and scientific assistance, this is something that I can perfectly accept and in which I want to participate. Likewise, any doctor will be willing to collaborate with this type of analysis. In this case, the protest arose from the decision of the State Council. But another stop came to me that specifies something else; however, the first one is quite demanding since it takes on four expert opinions that undermine the humanist image of the hospital which I have the honour to preside over. The situation requires clarification. I told your collaborator and the Foreign Office that I was ready to discuss but the situation is suspended for now, unless you find another hospital that is willing to lend itself to this kind of practice, which is obviously possible. In the meantime, it is important to clarify the interpretation given to these analyses by the Foreign Office. A completely different point leaves us somewhat in the expectation. It concerns the powers of the Secretariat of the Commission. Indeed, the negative opinion of the secretaries as to the admissibility of the file would result in its immediate transfer to the minister without examination by the commission. For a good understanding of this provision, I think it would be desirable that the Minister again specifies how he intends to act in this type of situation. This issue has been raised several times in the committee. It is true that the role of the secretary is important; it should not be a brake to the ambition of the government in this procedure of regularization. Finally, there remains the problem of deportations to the country of origin, understood as a transit country and that, related, guarantees of non-repatriation to the country where the risks are proven. In order to clarify this difficult question, we also find it useful to obtain clarifications on the term country of origin. Thus, if the country in which the applicant has legally stayed for more than three months was not considered as the country of origin, i.e. the country to which he is expelled, the situation would be much clearer. This criterion is the one used in the asylum procedure. This is a good reference. In conclusion, I would like to make three remarks. Today we are making a crucial step in the whole policy that addresses refugees, immigrants, and which is the policy of the government. I think this is a very important political gesture, but it still leaves me a strange impression. Several European countries have recently carried out these regularizations: France, Italy, Spain, Holland. That is to say that there is, at the European level, a need to develop a common and coherent European policy with regard to the phenomena of migration, the phenomena of asylum applications, asylum, foreign policy in these very human matters and we must not find ourselves drawing in their corner the conclusions of incoherent policies. We ourselves were victims of a sort of squalot race where we were almost the last to remove the status B of Kosovars, which put us in a difficult situation to manage. It is urgent and indispensable that a genuine European policy that affects human beings be quickly put in place. Then, contrary to what has been said by non-democratic representatives in this assembly, the CPAS will face difficulties but not those mentioned. They will face difficulties in terms of handling applications and files as several hundred people are in danger of actually appearing for social assistance that will be reimbursed in full by the State since the Minister of Social Integration has provided the means for this purpose. What is obviously not supported is the work of social workers in the municipalities. This is a reality that we will face. We will have to find solutions. Finally, I am convinced that regularizing is a way to secure people. Giving people who are here a security of existence is therefore a well-being and an opportunity to participate in the development of the Belgian society. Regulation is also a way of fighting crime. For keeping men and women in the absence of legal existence means strengthening the chains of exploitation of human beings. The gesture we make today is an eminently humanistic gesture. The Socialist Party will support it.

Mr Jan Peeters has the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the Flemish socialists will fully and heartily support this bill as we also fully and heartily want to see the other two pillars of asylum policy and government policy in this regard supported and realized, namely the expulsion policy for those people who cannot be eligible for regularization, on the one hand and the accelerated procedure and administrative handling of classical asylum applications in the future, on the other. I have also said in the committee that we will not hear any rude statements from us, we will not interfere in major polemics on this issue. You will not hear from us any numerical fetishism and we will not bother ourselves in the polemics between CVP and VLD. We just want to say to the Government that we expect the Minister in these three areas – and they are equal to us – progress and a strict implementation of the agreed government policy. The SP will fully support the first pillar, in particular the regularisation policy, and this for two reasons. First, there is an obvious humanitarian reason. Whatever the cause of the fact that people are here five or six years, or it has to do with a failing administration, the failure to implement previously agreed policies, or the unwillingness of people themselves to take orders to leave the territory, is actually irrelevant here. If people have been here for five or six years, there has been an obvious bond grown with other citizens of this country, with the country itself. From a humanitarian point of view, it is only logical that we fully integrate these people into our society. A second reason why we fully support regularization is related to a well-understood self-interest. Letting large groups of illegal persons survive in this country on a permanent basis and without having any prospect of certainty about their future in this country is also undermining the achievements of the social welfare state in principle. It is this group of illegals who, stuck in this situation, are defence-free prey for malafide employers, for exploitation, for black labour, for social dumping, for house milkers. In short, the existence of that group creates a nutrient ground for disloyal competition in many sectors, between many companies. Try to survive a Brussels confectionery sector with all its low-skilled people and the associated social safety net if at the same time you allow the workshops to exist where illegal persons without perspective are exploited. As a good-meaning gardener in the Mechelse or in the Noorderkempen, try to properly keep your business right with a sufficient social safety net for employees while at the same time colleagues abuse the illegal in our society to engage in social dumping practices and exploitation. Therefore, it is also a social duty to maintain the welfare state, the social achievements, the minimum wage regime and the like for low-skilled in those sectors that we decompose and eliminate the illness of illegality in our country. We want to do this by giving people a status and integrating them into the fiscal and social system of our country. In our self-interest and within the framework of the social welfare state, we want to regularize these illegals, who deserve it for humanitarian reasons. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to highlight the three elements of the bill that are important for the SP. For the SP, it stands like a pillar above water that this regularization must be a one-off operation. There should be no ambiguity in this regard. The regularisation procedure and the possibility of submitting an application should not give rise to additional unjustified applications. The submission of an application should not give the right to social assistance as provided for in Article 57 of the OCMW Act. If the person concerned has received a regularization, he must have the same rights and duties as every Belgian. However, in the application procedure, there should be no right to social assistance. This prevents those who cannot count on a regularization from registering a fourth appeal and from having an additional opportunity to have the procedure initiated. We are pleased that the Minister in the committee expressly gave legal guarantees and adheres to the opinion of the State Council. Although the SP will approve the present draft, my group makes a reservation regarding the treatment of illegal persons who are married to a Belgian. The Belgian state married these people. The Civil Code requires married couples to live together under one roof. However, illegal people who are married to a Belgian remain illegal and are not allowed to stay with their partner. The present draft does not provide an adequate solution to this ⁇ painful humanitarian gap. The SP reminds the Minister of his double commitment to finally settle such situations in the reform of the asylum procedure and to adjust the circular letters on family reunification. The SP will continue to follow up on this problem because the Belgian State, in our opinion, is wrongful to these people. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the SP will approve the present regulation draft. However, my group expects that the government will also implement the other two pillars of asylum policy correctly and loyally.

The word is for mr. by Denis D’Hondt.

The draft law is one of the three pillars of the government’s asylum and immigration policy. I would like to make three comments on this. First, this bill is politically courageous. A law will finally allow hundreds, even thousands of people who are in a situation of awful social precariousness, to see their dossier regularized on the basis of the four criteria outlined in the statement of reasons. Several circulars have, to date, served as the basis for regularizations, concerning victims of human trafficking, Bosnian nationals, persons who may rely on humanitarian circumstances or a serious illness. A law now sets the criteria for regularization. Furthermore, only certain specific cases – without further distorting Article 9, paragraph 3 – can still benefit from regularization. The law will therefore not exhaust the power which the Minister has on the basis of Article 9, paragraph 3, to regulate the situation of persons who have not requested the regulation on the basis of that law. It is time to approach this issue with courage and realism. For more than a decade no consistent policy has been implemented. The responsibility of the Belgian E'tat was engaged. The E’T is more effective. It can’t take a few years before a decision comes. It’s not possible for us to leave away decisions not executed for years, because people take root, are welcomed into our communities, create lasting connections and can therefore hardly be removed. So it is reasonable to get these people out of clandestinity, to legalize them. This is preferable from a public perspective. This extensive regularization operation is an opportunity to mark the difference with the previous government that had initiated the movement somewhat empirically by avoiding defining a precise legal framework and based, at risk of distorting it, on Article 9 of the Act of 15 December 1980. A regulatory committee will consider requests. It will consist of sufficient magistrates and lawyers, as well as recognized human rights officials, so that requests can be processed within one year. Article 6 of the UN Convention for the Protection of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to be heard fairly, publicly and within a reasonable time by an impartial court and, subject to reservations, to a public judgment.” Judicial-type guarantees mainly relate to the separation of investigation and judgment, conflicting debate with the lawyer, strict procedural rules, the possibility to call witnesses and the assistance of translators.

Mr D’Hondt, Mr Can he interrupt you for a moment?

and yes.

Mr. Philip the Man has the word.

Mr. Speaker, I hear colleague D'Hondt say that a few hundred or a few thousand illegal persons will be able to enjoy the new arrangement that will be approved tomorrow. In France, two-thirds of applicants were regulated. If we extrapolate this to Belgium, where presumably about one hundred thousand illegals are running around, then we come to many tens of thousands of regulated. I understand that Mr D’Hondt as PRL-er wants to minimise the figures a little in view of the impact on the cities and municipalities. I find it strange, however, that he dares to claim that only a few hundred or a maximum of a few thousand illegals will be regulated. Where did he get this number from?

We probably don’t have the same numbers: I’ve heard you talk about hundreds of thousands of illegal people in Belgium. In my opinion, you also have a very particular idea of the number of people to regularize. Indeed, I said a few hundred, even a few thousand people. This seems to me a perfectly correct order of magnitude if one refers to the six thousand cases of which the minister has spoken and which must be examined.

Mr. Philip the Man has the word.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister, who belongs to Mr. D'Hondt's party, estimated the number between 50 000 and 70 000. If this is true and, like in France, two-thirds of the applicants are regulated, then we are talking about 30 000 to 40 000 people. It is therefore inconceivable that Mr D'Hondt tries to minimize the case. He must tell people the truth.

In any case, Mr Deman, this is a current situation. The regulation has been the subject of a set of measures that must be taken immediately. This question has nothing to do with the total number of foreigners who are on the territory of our country. We are talking about different topics. The Minister will ⁇ have the opportunity to answer you in this regard. The opinions must be heard within one year after the entry into force of the law, otherwise the regularizations would take place within an unacceptable period for the applicants themselves. The municipalities will be closely involved in the procedure. They will first collect requests and will be responsible for broadly disseminating the present measures. Then, this bill is part of a coherent and balanced policy. Indeed, this regularization operation is only one of the pillars of the government’s immigration and asylum policy, the other pillars being the reform of the asylum procedure and the removal measures on which I will not delay. In reality, the government must face a double challenge: managing a present situation that is worrying in many aspects and seeking structural solutions for the future. These two issues are distinct but need to be considered in a coordinated manner from the beginning of the legislature. Each of us is aware that it is not just about changing the asylum procedure. A principle agreement on the whole immigration policy is essential for this government. There is only one reasonable path for us. This leads to two types of policies, both unacceptable and unpracticable: transforming our country into a fortress or carrying out a policy of open borders. Finally, on behalf of the PRL group FDF MCC, I would like this realistic bill to be implemented as soon as possible. Certainly, debates, exchanges of views must be possible, but we must think of the main stakeholders, that is, the people who will have the opportunity to be regularized on the basis of the bill. A set of amendments would risk destroying the bill and emptying it from its content. Especially since it addresses a real societal problem, delicate and important, which transcends the majority/opposition split. That is why, Mr. Minister, the PRL group FDF MCC will firmly support the bill on regularizations.

The word is for mr. by Daniel Féret.

Better than a long speech, the figures speak for themselves. If we defeat the 175,000 foreign asylum seekers in 10 years, the approximately 13,000 applications accepted and the 37,000 expulsions, the number of illegal persons who can claim their regularization is 125,000, not 70,000; a figure considered as a minimum by the spokesmen of alleged humanitarian organizations. On the basis of article 10, § 4 of the law of 15 December 1980 applicable to family reunification following a regularization and considering that each regularized person will invite his wife and at least two children, the Belgian population could enrich itself by at least 500 000 newcomers. Does the Minister of Employment have the billions needed to finance a Rosetta bis plan? Will the government take positive discrimination measures in their favor? In any case, the provision of one billion Belgian francs to finance the operation seems very small in relation to the predictable actual cost. Is it moral, Mr. Minister, to punch our taxpayers to help people who sometimes illegally occupied our churches, demonstrated and disrupted public order and even declared in front of television cameras that our country was racist and fascist and that our laws were homicides? Our Minister of the Interior will probably say that I exaggerate and that my speech is extremist, as he claims, the angry air, for several days on television antennas. Does the Interior Minister exaggerate when he says: Many of these so-called travellers play on the sensitive rope by pretending to be law-respecting Gypsies, but do they find it perfectly normal to steal and break cars and cause all sorts of problems, including defecating on the streets? Reassure yourself: this quote is not from An-tune Duquesne, but from his liberal-socialist colleague Jack Straw, from Tony Blair’s government, in the newspaper Liberation of August 20, 1999. This is no secret for anyone, tens of thousands of newcomers will obtain, in less than five years, the Belgian citizenship. Therefore, it cannot be said that the regularization measures that are planned serve only to overcome the administrative backdrop in the granting of refugee status. In reality, the government is organizing a new immigration, believing without doubt that it will ensure the payment of pensions in 2010-2020, if we constitute in this way what some purely call demographic reserves. This is of course a deception. This policy goes against the interests of the country and the wishes of the voters. Which mosquito has struck the PRL? In 1974, during the entire electoral campaign of the legislative elections – I know, I participated in it – the barons of the Liberal Party strongly affirmed that they would never participate in a government if the right to referendum was not inscribed in the Constitution for everything concerning the problems of society. A promise quickly forgotten, like many others. Wouldn’t it be normal, before we open our doors to such a new migratory flow, to organize a popular consultation that would have a decision-making power like the voting regularly practiced in Switzerland, with the same rigour as in Switzerland, without the tricks which Belgium is accustomed to every election, money tricking, media tricking, computer tricking? Which mosquito has struck the PRL? A great state man who had slipped without picking up a pile from the PS to the PRL, held in the November 21, 1991 issue of the magazine Paris Match, statements that our Minister of the Interior may qualify as extremists. I quote it: We must control the existing immigration by ceasing to behave like nigauds and jobards. I think of these minimex paid to Ghanaian péripateticiennes domiciled in Seraing and relieving Antwerp sailors at the rate of SOS Dépannage. What’s the point of spending billions on integration that the interested parties don’t want? You would have understood that it was Henri Simonet who spoke. It can be reiterated that, eight years after these statements, the times have changed and the government is shaken. However, it is Henry’s son, Jacques, of the liberal party, prime minister-president of a Region that will be, in 2015, the Islamic republic of Brussels, it is Jacques Simonet who trusted the daily La Dernière Heure, I quote him: Let’s say it clearly, I am in favor of a policy that would tend to encourage the return to the country. Take a fully compensated unemployed who would have been unemployed for at least six months. It would be necessary to offer him a premium of 400,000 francs, which would be added to 40,000 francs per child for him to return home. If he refuses, this unemployment allowance would be gradually reduced until he no longer has so much choice. How do you believe, Mr. Minister, when you promise that there will be only one operation of regularization? In terms of uncommitted commitments, the liberals are champions in all categories. The promises of the liberals only commit those to whom they are made. And they fly away at the slightest breath of the left-wing extremists who sit in the government. We can ⁇ emphasize that requests for regularization have multiplied by ten in ten years, due to exceptional circumstances: the collapse of communism in the East, the war in Yugoslavia, terrorism in Algeria, genocide in Rwanda. But nothing makes it possible to imagine that once the back is resorbed, the number of requests will become less dizzying again. The world is currently experiencing an acceleration of its history. A war can break out at any moment, in any corner of the planet, and bring us a new influx of refugee candidates that the humanitarian angelism manifested by the government will lead to welcome in our small country already suffocated by unemployment. Of course, it is right to emphasize the responsibility of the construction workers who take advantage of the unhappiness of refugees. But we also need to talk about the pretorians who take advantage of the disorder of asylum seekers to push them to multiply the appeals before the administrative instances, to rebel against the law enforcement forces and, ultimately, to aggravate their case, all this so that these pretorians from the court palaces can profile themselves in the eyes of the public opinion, spreading their speeches of left-wing extremists. Mr. Minister of the Interior, by defending this bill, you take on a very heavy responsibility, which probably annoys you, at least in front of your voters. But we know that you have no choice, prisoner that you are, in your majority, of the ecologist extreme left, and in the opposition, of the social-Christian left that does not hesitate to overpricing. I conclude, Mr Minister. Refugees from the end of the world have crossed paper boundaries, entered our country of paper, are supported by paper institutions, have been surrounded by lines barbed with paper. For what to do? to request papers. And thanks to the liberals, they get them. History will remember it, and voters too. I’m not even sure that the paperless will thank you.

Mr Pieter De Crem has the word.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, after a lot of sadly wasted time, we should be able to convinced and convincedly attach our approval to a draft law that should provide clear and definitive solutions to the problem of regularization. However, the goal set by the design, which was quickly and efficiently within reach, was not attained at all. Already during the investment debate we called for a global approach to the asylum issue, which, however, is much broader than the issue of regularization. It is, after all, equally important to control the influx, to channel a temporary or non-temporary residence, and to bring to a good end an outflow often problematic for human reasons. In this regard – a global and verifiable approach – we wanted to follow the government in its original policy option to also make the procedure granted by the status of the asylum seeker, at the same time simpler, more transparent, more targeted and fully enforceable. After all, this was a proposal submitted by the CVP group during the previous legislature and that we now wanted to link to the letter of the government agreement to a legislative asylum initiative, not because of the link in itself, but because they are inseparably connected. Only a new procedure, which establishes the normal procedure of the first instance, of the appeal and of a non-suspending cassation appeal, will be able to encompass in its entirety a problem such as the current one, where the form of appearance is almost exclusively situated on the level of the influx and residence. From the very beginning, the Government has entered into an imperfect policy setting and consequently an imperfect policy implementation, although in the explanatory memorandum it considers a quick and transparent procedure as one of the three pillars of an integrated foreign policy. Apparently, the government showed insufficient cohesion to carry out this essential part of the three-piece, which the minister pursues in his policy. I will remain on this later. The government has spent too long on the concrete implementation of the government agreement on this subject. The Government Agreement stipulates and I quote: An independent and sufficiently established body will decide on a possible regularization case by case, and this on the basis of strict criteria where the application must be submitted within a short period after the entry into force. The integration requirement introduced for a certain category, so-called the first category, in the December 1998 letter of reference of the former Minister of Home Affairs was abolished and replaced by the notion of lasting social ties for the so-called fourth category. Finally, regularizations and expulsions would take place simultaneously. This is the outline of a new, changing and changing asylum policy. Then began for the majority, but unfortunately also for the asylum seekers, the never-ending story of what the prime minister phlegmatically called hobbels, but actually was nothing but the story of a swallowing government that was powerless, and it still is, because it is hopelessly divided between Whales and Flamings, between liberals and greens, between rambo and bambi of purple-green. Next follows, in a nut-top – in fact, a coconut-top is still too small – the screaming chronicle of the announced failure of what in the homeland annals will forever be called the quick-and-efficiency saga of the government- Verhofstadt. The holiday interviews of the Minister of Home Affairs in early August were a first sign of life after the pilots protested at the end of July against the way they should carry out uninformed and unprepared forced repatriations. The remedy was quick and simple: fast setting up a roundtable conversation and sending the world the ten proposals of the Minister of Home Affairs to solve the difficult problem of removing foreigners from the territory. The result was the announcement of a large and one-off regularization operation. The immediate consequence of this was that we saw a doubling of the number of asylum seekers in August and September. The second step, or the high feast, came on Friday, September 24. The Government announces with much poeha its royal decree, in which the conditions of regularization are set in advance and in which, and passant, the Foreign Affairs Service, the Standing Professional Commission and the General Commissariat for Refugees and Stateless Persons are abolished. By the way, I would like to point out that in this quick and efficient way of governance, one had forgotten, among other things, that the General Commissariat is not under the supervision of the Minister of Home Affairs and that the Foreign Affairs Service also granted residence permits to, for example, Americans, Canadians, Mexicans and foreign students who stay in our country for more than three months. Group exchanges also fall within the competence of that service. Meanwhile, we have already received another communication on the reform. This efficiency seems to me more like an administrative cleansing. The immediate result of this is confusion in the services widespread, demotivation and unbelief. After all, they still had the hands full of finishing the thousands of pending files, but received no effective signal from the government in this regard. A derivative result is that the number of asylum seekers, the applicants who actually report, decreases and that the number of asylum seekers who do not report, according to the National Guard, increases significantly. How can it be different. The announced regularization has an exponential suction effect and also causes organized trafficking through the human trafficking channels to reach a sad peak. Third, pointed out by the chief officials of the ⁇ competent services, but also and above all by the VLD’s standing on the top of their toes, the Minister at the VRT announces that the other part of the new asylum policy, the expulsions, will begin immediately, namely Monday. At that moment begins one of the most vaudevil-leske, but also the most shameful episode of the way this government overlooks with the asylum-given and the high-mass suddenly becomes the lowest service, not even the absolute of the beautiful fruit that the government proposal would have been. Mr. Minister, the interpretation of Monday, your cushion-like search for aircraft, the manifest refusal to supply material by defense, the battle with the Slovaks and the humiliation of the Gentese police have been burned forever on the retina of our citizens. It was really a bad movie. And then I will not mention the externally ventilated mold shots by your colleagues ministers. As if that was not enough, this government populated with former interior ministers, eminent legal scholars, succeeds in forcing the greatest legal misleading since the establishment of our Constitution, namely to amend a law by means of a royal decree and that without having the necessary powers to do so. A first-year law student knows even better. If you do not know it, you will never get a diploma. What is even worse, Mr. Prime Minister, the government has seriously damaged the confidence in the institutions and their functioning, and consequently spread the bed of anti-politics. That is a crushing responsibility from which she will never be able to escape again. Furthermore, the reckless criticism of the Deputy Prime Ministers Michel and Onkelinx of the State Council as the highest administrative court, simply because the suspension did not fit in their womb, has once again proved how some in the south of the country cultivate respect for the institutions in a very marginal way. Mr. Minister, colleagues of the majority, you can only admit that the hobbits over which the Prime Minister tries to minimise are the blur of a coalition that fundamentally disagrees on the approach to the asylum problem and whose partners deeply mistrust each other. I will for a moment, and that will not be difficult unless collective memory loss is your part, remind you of the Kafkaean state that has been marked by the majority since the beginning of October. The Minister defends his policy in the Committee on Home Affairs and is at that time faced with severe opposition to the Ecolo banks. It was already this afternoon at the meeting of Mr. Decroly, who says and I parafrase Belga that he remains with the biggest questions when concretizing the expulsion policy and the planned one-time regularization operation. At the same time, several eminent members of the majority, including green senators, as well as colleague Mayeur of the PS, stand without blinking or blinking at the fence of Steenokkerzeel and call for désobéissance, in the language of Vondel disobedience, with regard to future government measures. Indeed, there is a great cohesion within the government majority regarding the policy to be carried out. A month after the approval in the Council of Ministers of the famous royal decree and the rimram and the commotion that followed, for the VLD the measure is full. To fight, the candidate-president calls De Gucht. After all, so he hears on his election campaign, the Greens play the VLD the lesson. The VLD will no longer respond. That could not last longer and if they had known it all, they would have voted for other parties. This was the message that Mr. De Gucht received during his many trips in Flanders. The VLD swallowed its candidate chairman and swallowed between the soup and the potatoes a number of numbers that it pushes forward again, but on October 24 in the Seventh Day demands full expulsions before the New Year, because otherwise the VLD will approve, and everyone may know, the regularization draft is not good. Panic at the Prime Minister, resulting in a limited and secret meeting. On this one agrees. Extradition is regulated and regulated on the basis of a secret agreement which fixes a fork, une fourchette, in the ratio between expulsions and regularisations. That’s how this government is cheating with people, based on a fork. The loose statements made by the leader of the VLD group, who subsequently became aware of the secret, resulted in the demand that 3 000 persons should be deported per month. This makes the coalition stand on its foundations. In the absence of other speech tubes of the Greens, Mrs. Aelvoet must make the phone to the 16 still holding sits that this for the Greens cannot and now the mask falls definitively: first massally regularize and then only expose. Only the regularisations are the guarantee for government participation promised by Verhofstadt to the Greens. All other derivative commitments, primarily the expulsions, do not bind them. In addition, the coalition uses very peculiar arithmetic methods. It is somewhat approximate calculation. On 29 October, the Council of Ministers decided to resume the expulsions, but instead of 3 000 per month, there are 3 per day and actually in fact there are no more than 1. For the further course of this discussion, I recommend you divide all the numbers you cite by dividing 3 000. Then we may have a figure that we can regard as truthful. Colleagues, I would like to point out that this majority is hopelessly divided on the implementation of the policy and especially on the ground of it and has completely opposing views. So I come to the content of this project. I will draw back the discussions we have held in the committee to the fundamental criticisms we want to formulate. First, the large-scale regularization campaign solves nothing. The operation proposed by this government is a measure for nothing. It can mean nothing but a shift in the problem. Those who will be regulated tomorrow are in the illegality today. Our question is whether tomorrow will be different. After all, the target group of regularization is today in the margins of our society and do not contribute to the labour market, which is the normal state. After all, they do not have a right of residence and therefore also usually - there are exceptions no work permit. If they contribute to the labour market, it happens through the illegal circuit, say, black work. Will it be different tomorrow? These people are too often exploited, both in terms of housing and employment. Usually they didn’t enjoy education, they didn’t know our languages, and they end up in jobs for low-skilled people. Will a mass regulation change anything about this? Moreover, it is not an outstanding case that when obtaining the otherwise not limited in time - residence right, they will suddenly also be better educated and will be eligible for better paid work. Will they then be charged with our OCMWs who will not deny them existence minimum since they will be legal here from now on? Has the government already fairly estimated the financial implications of the mass regularization campaign? The answer is clear and clearly no. In addition, a number of related files, such as those of human trafficking and the cottage dairy, have not been cleared at all. Second, the government is throwing sand in the eyes of the public. Experience from abroad shows that a first one-time regularization campaign triggers a golf movement that triggers the second, third and subsequent regularization campaigns. In addition, the announcement of a one-time regularization is the biggest amplifier of the suction effect. The early and amateur announcement and follow-up of this measure has once again made our country abroad ⁇ attractive for people who have entered our country in good faith or in bad faith. If the government thought to reduce the suction effect, then now it has just done the opposite. The third large-scale one-off operation in Italy is already considered imperfect. I save you the stories of asylum seekers who came across the border in the most ingenious way. A new decree is already being prepared by the Italian House. Thus, the third regularization wave was the precursor of the fourth. In the Netherlands, a country that is the bright example for some in this coalition, the idea of a one-time regularization has aroused the greatest restraint since the Bijlmer regularization wave. After the El Al-Boeing disaster in 1992, a number of illegal persons were in the buildings destroyed by the crash. A regularization barrel originally involving only 300 illegal persons ended up in a one-off movement resulting in more than 5 000 regularisations. This created the necessary commotion. The one-time regularization is not the solution. On the contrary, even, she deceives and she is hardly manageable in terms of time and number. Mr. De Gucht has explicitly stated that his party will oppose this. Therefore, one-time remains one-time. He no longer wants ordinary regularisations based on the 1980 law. Colleagues of the VLD, should Mr. De Gucht sit in this hemisphere, then I would tell him that he will not be able to oppose the first, for all the reasons we have already cited, and that he does not dare to oppose the second, the law of 1980. Today, tomorrow and after tomorrow, even after you have approved this bill with the usual corps discipline, the usual legal procedure for regularization continues to exist. The VLD apparently does not want to face this. The SP, of course, cannot lose its previous policy and the Greens are there and look at it. Mr Coveliers, the reality forces us to point out Article 9 of the law of 15 December 1980. The so-called Foreign Law allows for such regularizations. The VLD is very aware of this because this draft law explicitly provides for a regulation concerning the coexistence of the current regulation and the regulation set forth in the draft law. Mr. Coveliers, you read the design but after, this article remains preserved. Ladies and gentlemen of the VLD, if you and your chairman are consistent, then today you submit a proposal to repeal Article 9 of the 1980 Act. That would only bring clarity. You must do that. You now have to submit a bill, abolishing the 1980 law, and your president wants to have nothing to do with it. The regulation provided for in Article 9 of the Foreigners Act is incomplete. There is no list of criteria that a regularization must meet. In the past, a majority could not be found in order to reach a proper legal arrangement. This is witnessed by the numerous circular letters, which were repeatedly unsuccessful attempts to bring about good legislation. Again and again, in the case-law, the arrangement established by the circular letter was not enforceable in law. Therefore, the Flemish Christian Democrats wish to incorporate a continuously applicable regularization possibility into the existing law. We strongly reject a recurring cyclic regularization, which will be precisely the result of this government draft. The CVP intends, in individual cases, by means of clear, non-interpretable and by everyone known criteria, to create the possibility to get someone who strictly speaking cannot obtain a long-term residence permit out of the illegality. This proposal does not meet this in any way. It sets forth four categories, each of which is subject to individual interpretation. It sets the basis for a permanent residence permit for persons who are not entirely eligible under current legislation. It claims to be one-off and to meet genuine concerns and needs. In reality, it is a mere discriminatory design that has created an exceptional state based on an arbitrary time criterion. It violates without the slightest doubt the constitutional rules of equality and non-discrimination. The foreigners who fall into one of the four categories during the famous three-week period will be lucky. Those who meet the so-called criteria one day after the three-week period are unlucky. That can’t be, right? You say that the commission has been given space for interpretation in order to capture this evil. I wish them a lot of success. The government is responsible for the inequal treatment, so to speak, because it must correct the catastrophic situation, an inheritance from the past. It is in no way able to demonstrate that the legal catastrophe does not repeat itself or will continue quickly and efficiently. What if an unregulated person goes to the Arbitration Court and demands the abolition of the regularization law? If the new approach fails to process all regularisation applications in a timely manner, there will be 50 000 applications before 30 November 2001, following the planned extension. 50,000 applications over two years means 96 decisions per day. How will the government resolve this with 300 contracts not yet hired and not yet trained? We will not support this project. We opt for an amendment to the 1980 Act to include clear terms that are set out in a ⁇ appropriate legal review framework that remains applicable until the law is amended or abolished. That is the core tone of our proposal, and not the continuous or endless aspect that some want to point to it. It is precisely the government design that will trigger a never-falling current of regularizations and a permanent cycle.

Mr. Philip the Man has the word.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the CVP turns a wheel in front of the eyes. Mr. De Crem pretends that the cost of mass regularization is a concern. You are talking about the great restraint in the Netherlands. They learned the lessons. In your amendment, the four criteria are taken over, which makes the differences with the government draft minimal. In paragraph 2, for example, you say: for reasons independent of our will, we cannot return. The difference with the government text is unclear to me. The second criterion may cause you to extend the deadline. In addition, you say that the integration condition for you may be that you have a special relationship with foreigners who are established here in Belgium. The difference between your proposal and the bill is therefore minimal: you are almost as lazy as the government. Last week you were shocked by what your party said and you are now trying to reduce damage, but you are just as lazy as the government.

Mr. De Man, you are witnessing intellectual laxity. You do not read the terms that we have linked to the four categories. The government sets four regularization criteria and we make them stricter. They are those who have waited unreasonably long for an enforcement decision and foreigners who have resided in our country for at least six years – or five years for families with minors and school children – for humanitarian reasons and can prove a special relationship with Belgians or foreigners established in Belgium. I now come to our stricter conditions, Mr. De Man. Our group does not give you this pleasure. Foreigners who, due to exceptional circumstances and regardless of their will, are temporarily unable to return to the country or countries in which they normally stayed before their arrival in Belgium, nor to their country of origin, nor to the country of whose nationality they are. Finally, it concerns foreigners who are seriously ill and who cannot start the return journey. The CVP assumes that only the first two categories can be eligible for regularization, provided that they are willing to integrate. This integration readiness can only be tested by incorporating the citizenship obligation, in which the knowledge of one of the three national languages is prioritized. The effective fulfillment of the school obligation by the children, therefore not only the school obligation, is an additional obligation. Those who do not meet these criteria will still have the opportunity to demonstrate their readiness for integration by taking a course on language and social knowledge, by enrolling themselves with the regional employment service and by enrolling the children in school. The third and fourth categories may only reside here temporarily, in other words as long as the extraordinary conditions persist for the third category and for the duration of the disease for the fourth category. The CVP therefore stands for a strict and enforceable regularization policy, coupled with an unavoidable citizenship obligation. Finally, it is excluded for us, Mr. De Man, that regularization would be a double ticket or a freelance for naturalization. We also do not give you that pleasure, Mr. De Man. Mr. Minister, for the fourth category, the criterion of the sustainable social bond, which has always been given priority cumulatively with humanitarian reasons, is of particular importance in the bill. In the discussions we noticed that a lot of mist was sprayed on this and also in the media this came wrong to its right, namely that the integration condition would have been included in the bill. This is clearly not the case, but we want to see it happen. I will repeat for a moment what was stated in the memorandum of explanation: Durable social bonds mean in principle that the applicants have lived in our country for more than six years. The same was repeated by the Minister in his introduction to the committee. The VU and we have expressed our attachment to the integration will of the person concerned. As regards the VU, reference was made to a proposal by Mr Sauwens in the Flemish Parliament during the previous legislature. At that moment, the minister slightly entered the forest. I will give you a few quotes on which we should not get stuck in such an important matter. The regularization procedure relates to persons with lasting social ties that justify their integration into the Belgian society. However, in the legislation itself, this only applies to the fourth category. The fourth category should be eligible for regularization, depending on the lasting social bonds it has or has not forged. Indeed, the duration of the stay and the social ties are two objective criteria which clearly demonstrate the integration will of the persons concerned. For us this is not clear. Finally, full-fledged citizens are asked to work and adjust in all loyalty to the community that hosts them to the Belgian legislation on taxes, language use, and so on. We find nothing of this in the text of this draft and this should, in our opinion, be absolutely clarified. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, as Minister Duquesne cited during the investment debate, our country cannot be the safety net of all the misery of the world. Therefore, we thought that the government would come to parliament with a full draft to solve the problem basically. The opposite is true. The stunt of the one-time regularization has become an unprecedented stunt. This, unfortunately, has pushed us back into the intolerant society. That is also the crushing responsibility of this government. The draft is a legal framework. It is a summary of the divergent views and the inability to put regularization as a manifestation of a failing foreign policy in its right perspective. How can we reach a legal social agreement on a matter that is primarily about people, not about numbers, not about forks, and not about limited time limits? The road that the government points is one of a dead track, with great social dissatisfaction resulting. The government does not control the file. Mr. Minister, allow me to ask you the following question.

Mr. De Crem, you are exceeding the agreed time.

I will conclude, Mr President. Mr. Minister, have the famous suspended royal decree and the corresponding circular letter already been revoked? I have not seen anything about this in the Belgian Staatsblad. This is not a sign of good governance. You often spoke in the committee about le sens de l'Etat, but what we get proposed here is first and foremost le sens de l'éclat, keeping the appearance high that something is actually happening. Even the clean appearance will quickly fade away. I recently heard another Ecolo leader explain the following, I quote, on RTBF radio: La politique du gouvernement est avant tout une politique de régularisation souple et intégrale de dizaines de milliers d'illégaux. We refuse, in the manner concerned, any policy of expulsion, ne fût-ce que pour le principe et, par conséquent, refusons de nous incliner devant la politique gouvernementale et cette matière. The Flemish Greens, not hindered by any hunger for power, do somewhat more principled and, based on Isvag and Doel standards, do a little more on top. An enforceable decision for the government, as we have seen in the Slovak dossier, is something completely different from the interpretation that Agalev gives to it, in particular after the State Council has taken a decision on the filed application for suspension and ongoing appeal for annulment . Mr. Minister, colleagues of the majority, you will therefore never be able to get the Greens behind what the liberals have called the closing point of a coherent asylum policy, namely the expulsions. After all, they are constantly lamenting you and secretly hoping that you are stumbling over some poorly prepared and executed repatriations. This is the atmosphere in the coalition. Ladies and gentlemen, colleague Schellens, the silence of the SP is symbolic. For more than ten years, the SP had exclusive jurisdiction over the entire foreign file. No Christian-Democrat has been in charge of this matter in the last fifteen years. Call him call him! Wathelet was a PSC! If it was such a good policy, then during those five months you could have straightened things as you thought you would do, but you didn’t.

Mr Bart Laeremans has the word.

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what Minister Van den Bossche called the CVP in the committee for domestic affairs. He said that the CVP prevented him from pursuing an actual policy and continually advocated that Father Leman would accompany the illegals on the plane. It was the CVP that pushed the brake.

Minister Van den Bossche said he himself had negotiated with Father Leman and not the CVP. With this file, the VLD is terribly in the knock. During the committee discussions, it was shown that the VLD ⁇ ins the same line as the CVP, in particular creating a permanent and with strict conditions clearly defined legally applicable framework which is regulated case by case and in exceptional circumstances. After an execution order from Wetstraat 16 the VLD could or should not even submit any amendments to support our position on the citizenship obligation. How could it be different? In the electoral brochure, the electoral program and Living in Freedom and with Quality, one can read: Citizenship is a first necessary step towards a full place in our society. The citizenship contract contains rights and duties. Formal prohibition - although the drift was ⁇ large - to say anything about it, let alone to undertake. Prime Minister Verhofstadt took his group entirely into the tangreep. It is indeed – it is a pity that Mr. Somers is absent – a staple of new political culture in the relationship between government and parliament. That is the breach of the contract, Mr. Coveliers, which the VLD with its voters himself accomplished and of which you know that they will be heavily charged to you in the next election. To support this design, the VLD sold all the table silver and now pulls itself with the strap around the neck to the galg that this coalition will be for you. The flattering image is the symbol of the inability to claim to be the largest majority party, not least in relation to the French speakers in the government. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we will not approve the draft and call on the majority parties – in particular the VLD – to discuss our amendment that provides for a legislative amendment. After all, it is primarily about people, as you have always said in the committee, Mr. Cortois.

Mr. De Crem, you have spoken for two, at least as far as speech time is concerned, despite what was agreed. I try to keep the church in the middle. Mr Van Hoorebeke has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, it is normal for the CVP to have two speakers, as they must express different views, as was revealed yesterday in the Gazet of Antwerp. Indeed, Mr. De Crem says that Mr. Van Peel did not interpret the position of the CVP correctly. Therefore, it was good to let them both speak today.

Can I ask the new members of the Chamber to respect the agreed speech time? Ms Fauzaya Talhaoui has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Mr Somers, please leave Mrs Talhaoui to speak.

Mr. Somers is here to support me! (Applause and hilarity in the hall) Mr. President, Mr. Minister, colleagues, mobility is one of the key characteristics of our contemporary world. There is free movement of capital, goods, media images and persons. Over the course of history, transnational migrations have rarely seen such a scale as in recent decades, and the reception is proportionally more borne by the less populated states in the South than by the prosperous states in the North. While oppression, war, ecological disasters and hunger remain the main reasons for leaving the country of origin, victims of these emigration motives are experiencing more and more difficulties and obstacles to secure shelter elsewhere. It has always been assumed as evidence that one of the prerogatives of the state is to control access to its territory and the free movement of goods and persons on it. This right to guard their territory, recognized by international law, has not prevented migrants from crossing state borders and from entering large numbers through all kinds of outbound routes. Over the last three decades, the number of illegal migration movements has increased dramatically. At the same time, the international economy has declined. Economic and political conditions have only deteriorated in recent years without improvement in the prospect, neither in the third world nor in the former Eastern bloc. States often call this illegal migration a legal problem. Their first reaction is, therefore, to attempt, through stricter asylum and immigration laws - but it remains only in an attempt - to counter this undesirable influx. In most countries facing an increasing number of migrants, parts of the population and some politicians have grown into the idea that the national reception capacity is insufficient to provide a place for all foreigners who move. The absorption capacity, or rather the lack thereof, is usually associated with employment and social security that have been under heavy pressure in these countries in recent decades. In the 1980s, many Western countries adopted a more restrictive migration policy. However, this policy has not been able to prevent the continued increase of migration and the emergence of a new category of migrants, the so-called illegals, or rather the people without papers. The size of this group of migrants is difficult to determine. For the United States, the estimates vary from three to ten million, for Western Europe, the group is estimated at three million. The magic number of 100 000 illegal persons or a multiplier thereof, depending on the size of the state, is found everywhere in national migration statistics as a parameter. However, according to scientists, this estimate is based purely on wet fingerwork because it is not firmly supported or simply taken over from others who remain vague about their sources, definitions and actual situations. In addition, the estimate often depends on the treasurer. The figures vary depending on the administration, humanitarian aid organizations or non-policy scientists speaking. Nevertheless, I would like to make one important preliminary comment on all this numerical fetishism. Although this category of foreigners illegally resides on the territory, they remain primarily persons to whom certain fundamental rights cannot be denied. The opposite claim would be a serious lack of human dignity and equality. In terms of regularization, there has recently been a social support, a solidarity established by several organizations. They have tried to raise public awareness of the problem on a large scale. Church asylum, whether or not accompanied by hunger strikes as a social action tool to stop potential removal from the territory, was already found in the 1970s and 1980s in some European countries such as Great Britain, France, the Netherlands and also Belgium. Also at the end of the millennium, church asylum, along with other forms of awareness such as school asylum, campus asylum and trade union asylum, became the instrument to bring the legal status of the sans papiers to public attention. (Mr. De Man’s note) The mosque in Brussels has also accommodated illegals, Mr. De Man. In the Qur’an, everyone is equal. In several countries, national movements or organizations are working hard to regularise the residence status of these sans papiers. In Belgium, for example, even before the tragic death of Semira Adamu - the actions were later manifested - a national movement for the regularization of people without papers and for the refugees was launched. The National Movement is a pluralist platform where various associations and organizations – eighty – who have experience with the problem of foreigners, including refugees and people without papers, have joined forces. In addition to the actions supporting the regularisation of the sans papiers, the platform also fosters a global approach to the issue of migration, in which individual states should cooperate, both at European and international levels. Between 1986 and 1996, 2.6 million non-papiers were regulated in the United States. In Italy, in the 1980s, half a million people were granted a residence permit, following the Martelli Act. In Spain the figure was 150 000 and in 1971 in France it was more than 100 000. As you can see, there are significantly smaller numbers in Belgium. In terms of regularization, Belgium ⁇ did not invent hot water. The United Nations Convention on Migration of 1999 also speaks at international level about regularization. The possibility of regularisation is encouraged by the detailed listing of the criteria eligible to allow regularization of residence. The introduction of regularization options under certain conditions seems to us to be an important element in the effective fight against illegal immigration. The need for regularization is addressed in several areas. It puts an end to the human suffering of exploitation, improves the working conditions of the persons concerned and at the same time recognizes the positive contribution of these persons to society. In other words, the regularization of these persons and their families is a recognition that they have contributed to our society in many ways, not least economically, and that they have shown a positive attitude towards our society, despite the little envyable circumstances in which they often dwell and despite the continued exploitation. Although many of them have violated immigration laws, therefore they do not have to be treated as criminals. The state can act against cheap and slave labour through the path of regularization and thus recover the loss of taxes and social contributions which it could not collect because of the clandestinity of labour. The plea for regularization is especially strong when the irregularity of the stay is due to deficiencies in legal and administrative procedures. I refer here to too long asylum or other residence procedures. However, the regularization of persons without papers should take place in a fair, orderly and transparent manner. The selection procedures and criteria should therefore be applied in a flexible but nonetheless fair manner. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the present bill proves that the government has listened to reasonable arguments whispered on its behalf for humanitarian reasons rather than to the expressions of xenophobic spirits. The common sense commands us to seek a solution to the illegal residence of foreigners in our country. However, the solution should not be sought only in the removal of illegal persons. Regulation should be part of the solution. Regularization is obvious for those who cannot return to their country of origin. However, other criteria such as the length of stay, integration, humanitarian and family considerations should also be taken into account. The draft legislation contains fair, clear and objective criteria. The categories of persons eligible for regularization are clearly listed. For the Greens, however, a one-time regularization is not sufficient. The possibility of individual regularisation as provided for in Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Act of 1980 must continue to exist. Regulation, however, does not touch the core of the problem. The main causes of migration and refugee flows are related to the North-South issue of economy, trade, debt burden, employment and ecological degradation. Developing countries will remain emigration countries as long as the democratization processes do not have a chance, kleptocracies remain in power and the international arms trade can continue to operate freely. The international community will need to accelerate the work of open trade systems, foreign investment and enhanced development cooperation. We cannot do much to stop migration. However, we must make greater efforts to create the conditions that strengthen faith in the future so that not migrating also remains a choice.

Colleagues, I would like to thank Mrs. Talhaoui for her maiden speech. Mr Guido Tastenhoye has the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, today, November 24th, a bell rings in some. I assure you that the bell will ring again on 9 October 2000 if the present bill is approved and applied. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be on this stand as a Democrat and as a defender of democracy. If it was up to the government and the so-called democratic parties to support it, the parliament would not have even taken action. The Flemish Bloc has been able to prevent this by imposing the parliamentary procedure for the Council of State. As a Flemish nationalist, it must be my heart that the present bill is catastrophic for Flanders. Moreover, the design is a great Belgian machination against Flanders, the Flemish citizens and their interests. That the SP and the Greens cooperate in such a proposal, I can still understand. That the VLD also endorses this disaster scenario for Flanders is terrible, just as it is terrible that the CVP and the VU do not realize the seriousness of the situation at all and also advocate for regularization, even if they put other accents. The CVP even advocates a system of permanent regularization, which, if possible, is even more nefarious than the government’s proposal. It is complete madness. This bill is one big machination against Flanders and this for five reasons. First, the Flammers are being expelled from Brussels. This is the goal of the PRL-FDF and the PS. Second, the Belgian regime is strengthened by the power of the so-called new Belgians, a target of the Belgian forces. Third, it introduces the multicultural society, a sucking of the Greens and other progressives. Fourth, the right to vote for migrants is introduced in a hidden way through the naturalization associated with it. This is a goal of the VLD. The VLD voter must be deceived. Fifth, they want to fight the Flemish Bloc by creating a mass of immigrant voters, especially a goal of Agalev and the SP. These are the real reasons for all this operation. I will briefly address these five points. In the first place, this draft law with black ink marks the death sentence of the Brussels Flamings. There are still less than one hundred thousand Flamings left in Brussels, or at most sixty thousand voters. This is less than 10% on a population of 950 000 inhabitants. I have not even counted the tens of thousands of illegals. The hundreds of thousands of Flamingians are with less than the Turks and Moroccans together, which are with 120 000. More than 130,000 EU citizens reside in Brussels. This group will grow significantly with the enlargement of the European Union. In addition, thanks to the CVP and the SP, these people were given the right to vote in the municipal council elections. There are 150,000 non-European citizens living in Brussels. Soon after a three-year stay, they will be granted Belgian nationality on a simple request, now that the bill on the eased naturalization was already approved by the government last week. They will automatically get the right to vote. On top of all this, the government plans to regularize tens of thousands of illegals who then qualify for naturalization. Regulation and naturalization form one package. This is the total sale of the Brussels Flamings. It is therefore no coincidence that the PRL, which has always been a fervent opponent of voting rights for foreigners and regularization, has exchanged the gun shoulder after its alliance with the FDF, which perfectly knows how to organize the ethnic cleansing of Flamings in Brussels. This fateful bill means the end of the Brussels Flamings. The second point is the strengthening of the Belgian regime. It is no coincidence that the Belgian establishment is behind this regularization and naturalization operation. All kinds of immigrant organizations are children of the Court. I know that the President does not like that I talk about the Court, but that is the truth. Those new Belgians do not feel whales or flames and then identify themselves with Belgium, their new, loving homeland. Belgium already has about one and a half million foreigners or naturalized foreigners. That is 15% of the total Belgian population and this group is growing very quickly. The more new Belgians, the stronger the regime is the motto. Third, the introduction of the multicultural society. The introduction, or rather the imposition of the multicultural society on the population has become a dogma of the progressives since the socialist ideology has been on its peak. Even in naive circles of world improvers this idea is propagated. The multicultural ideology is a dangerous utopia that distorts and alienates people from their roots and deprives them of their own identity, with all the nefarious consequences thereof. Multiculture never works unless one culture is dominant or a dictatorial regime reigns. The examples are legion. Think of the former Yugoslavia.

Multiculturalism, what is it?

I should ask you because you are in favour of it. I said the examples are legio. Think of the former Yugoslavia and the USSR. In the United States of America, the melting pot has failed. Segregation is on the rise, with sharp contradictions, conflicts, high crime and social unrest. If the Flemish Bloc advocates for culturally fairly homogeneous countries, this is based on an ethical attitude that seeks peace, peace, prosperity and stability in society.

Mr. Tastenhoye, you are screaming with concepts such as the multicultural society that would be in danger. Can you clarify this concept? To the extent that I can estimate, you are – this adorns you by the way – the proof that one can coexist across cultures.

Mr. Somers, you are not referring to a multicultural society, but to a bicultural society. (Laughter) The solution proposed by the Flemish Bloc consists in the establishment of large-scale aid programmes for the third world countries. Europe, and ⁇ a small country like Belgium, has insufficient capacity to open the doors and become the OCMW of the whole world.

That is not the intention.

What are you doing? With this bill, you open the doors.

You did not listen well.

The fourth objective is to introduce the voting right of migrants. The immigrant voting right could absolutely not swallow the VLD because 87% of the 400 000 participants in a VLD referendum turned out to be against it. Under the pressure of the Greens, which were necessary for the formation of this leftist coalition, the VLD chose the conspicuous path of regularization annex naturalization to thus splash sand in the eyes of its own voters, yes, to deceive them. The result will be much more profound than that of the simple voting right. Father Leman wrote about this, by the way: The immigrant voting right is much less intrusive than naturalization. Where is the Marc Verwilghen who cried out just before the elections: They have mixed up with naturalizations here? In an interview with De Morgen he stated that he wanted to revise the naturalizations of criminals even with retroactive force. We will remind the VLD voters of this great deception. A fifth reason why this bill should go through is to fight the Flemish Bloc. One wants to increase the number of immigrant voters, because there is hope, especially with the SP and with Agalev, that the rise of the Flemish Bloc will be able to be halted if there are enough new voters who vote against the Flemish Bloc. For example, one hopes to prevent a victory of the Flemish Bloc at the Antwerp district council elections in Hoboken or Borgerhout. That is why everything has to go so rapidly. October 2000 is only a small year away. Mr. Speaker, with this I have outlined the global context in which this law of regularization is being pursued by the parliament. They are ready to do anything, including taking completely irresponsible measures. My party, and that will surprise some here, is not opposed to regularization as it does for individual files and on a strictly humanitarian basis. The Kurd who lives here for a long time, who is married here, who has children here, who works here and speaks our language and who has fully adapted, may stay here. We are also not against naturalizations as such, but we see naturalizations as the end point and the crown of adaptation and citizenship. What is proposed today is something very different.

Colleagues, I do not handle any whisper, but I would still like the speakers to be listened to.

These large-scale regularizations will have a huge suction effect. It will not be able to stay with a one-off operation. There are many examples from abroad. Look at Spain, with four regularisations, look at Italy with three regularisations and also France and Portugal have already two regularisations behind. We start with a one-time regularization, but we do not know where we will end. Between 1988 and 1998, according to figures of Minister Duquesne, 175 000 people applied for asylum in Belgium. Of these, only 13,000 were recognized. In 1998, 21,240 people applied for asylum and 1,458 were recognized and 1,216 displaced persons were repatriated.

Mr Gerolf Annemans has the word.

I have a question regarding the course of the work.

I do not distinguish between speakers.

Then they get a pants from the same leaves. I can listen to people who make a rational explanation, but I can also scream when it comes to it.

Thousands, ⁇ tens of thousands, have in recent years given orders to leave the country and have been hidden in the illegal circuit. They are now rewarded for it. That is the totally wrong signal that the world is being sent and will create new asylum flows. It is already underway: in the first nine months of this year there were already 22,712 applications, more than the whole year before. The family reunification, which, contrary to what President Karel De Gucht of the VLD had announced, will not remain strictly limited to the nearest family and will still provide a multiplication factor. In compensation for the regularization, the VLD demanded a kordate expulsion policy. Except for one media show, in particular the expulsion of 74 Slovak Gypsies, many of whom have already returned to Gent, nothing went wrong. Currently, there is about 1 forced expulsion per day. Minister Duquesne wants to raise that number to 2 or 3 per day. Compare that to the 3,000 expulsions per month demanded by VLD faction leader Hugo Coveliers. In September 1999, almost 5,000 asylum seekers arrived. At the pace of Minister Duquesne, it will take years to remove all of this contingent from September 1999 alone. Meanwhile, the human traffickers are carrying out their macabre trades. Witness to the dozens of illegal persons who are found and arrested on our highways every day. Then they can warm up. They get a cup of coffee and a pack of butter hammer and they are simply put on the street again. (Protest on the banks of the VLD) It is so. It is the truth. We have seen the pictures on television.

You believe all that.

These are definitely printed images. Mr Coveliers claims that Belgian television journals work with printed images. Will the European Union now also expand to Eastern Europe and to Turkey, an idea of which Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt is a supporter? If this expansion comes, there will no longer be a single brake on the immigration flows to the west, despite all our warnings, and then the fence will be right off the dam. This normalization struggles with the sense of justice. The illegal or rejected asylum seeker who has left the country receives nothing, unless he or she returns quickly and yet comes to submit a regularisation application. But those who have stayed here illegally all that time, who have violated our laws, who have not paid taxes, who have not paid social security contributions, who may have worked in the black or sometimes earned income in any other illegal way, who are now rewarded for this. Explain that to the people. I want to be as personal as it is about a matter that I know very well, especially my parents. They are small self-employed, a fact that the VLD should be interested in. They have worked very hard all their lives and always paid all their contributions, taxes and taxes properly on time. They are now retired for eight years. After a lifetime of hard labor, my parents draw together a pension of 24,464 francs per month. I called my father yesterday to ask for the exact amount.

Their pensions will be increased.

Gentlemen of the VLD, you should not be fooled by this. Are you going to increase it? Tomorrow you will be barbed for free.

Mr. Tastenhoye, you are free to speak here, but we must also respect the time spent. I ask you to complete. I think I’ve left you for a long time.

Let me draw a parallel. A couple regulated that never paid a single franc of contributions, taxes or social security, raises 28 445 francs per month, 4 000 francs more than my parents who have silenced and paid all their lives. If that couple has four children in custody, they receive approximately 50 000 francs net per month. If the lady is still going to brush and the gentleman is still a little bit of clothes, of course in black, then they keep more than a generous Flemish family.

Mr. Tastenhoye, I ask you to decide. You have already exceeded your speech time.

Mr. Cortois, the VLD should explain these types of situations to its voters. I wish you a lot of success. The total cost of this operation is silenced in all languages. However, as regulated persons can enjoy all social benefits unlimitedly, it must be a billion-dollar operation that will fill large gaps in the budgets of the OCMWs, health insurance and child allowance. It remains a counsel who will pay for it. Or is it not? Eventually, the hard-working, tax-paying citizen will rebel for this bad policy. This government is supposed to introduce the referendum. I call on you to hold a referendum on this fateful bill. Let the citizens, of whom you say you defend them, have their say about it. If you claim that the population is behind this open-border policy, then that may not be a problem for you.

The word is for mr. by Claude Desmedt.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill that is presented to us today is both generous and realistic. For several years, indeed, the presence of increasingly numerous irregular persons in our country constitutes a worrying problem, whether it is illegal illegally entered or political pseudo-refugees who clearly do not meet the criteria allowing them to benefit from this status.

Colleagues, the Flemish Bloc requires attention to the speakers, but we must be attentive to all speakers. The word is to M. by Claude Desmedt.

Faced with this situation, previous governments have not found the appropriate response. Indeed, in the face of this influx of political refugee candidates, heavy, complex and long procedures were applied which could be justified about twenty years ago, when refugees were counted annually by dozens, but which have become completely obsolete today. The result is a real situation of non-law. Dossiers accumulate, procedures take years with a backback that continues to grow. Currently there are 25,000 cases. Refugee candidates, waiting for a generally negative decision, reside in the country where they sometimes integrate perfectly. Finally, when a decision to refuse to grant the status is made and it is negative, except in the case of voluntary departure, the foreigner is almost never expelled from the territory, so that the number of foreigners in irregular residence continues to increase. The Minister currently estimates them between 50,000 and 75,000. These people are usually unfortunate people who live in a precarious situation, developing a marginal economy, or who are victims of scrupulous exploiters. As I said before, previous governments have not been able to provide a solution to this problem. Furthermore, the last ministers of the Interior believed that they should make use, when they evoked this question, of muscular and heartless statements by which they attempted to mask their powerlessness. Therefore, we should congratulate the current government and in particular the Minister of the Interior for the courage and determination they have shown by taking the problem hand-to-hand in order to bring the necessary solutions. The Minister clearly explained that the government’s policy was structured around three pillars: 1° a rapid and transparent asylum procedure guaranteeing respect for the rights of defence; 2° effective removal measures for those who have been denied the status of political refugee or who are staying irregularly in Belgium; 3° a procedure for regularization of single and limited in time and allowing to regularize, on a case-by-case basis, according to well-defined criteria, a large number of persons in irregular situation. Therefore, we are now examining the regularization component of this overall plan. Why these regulations? The presence of tens of thousands of irregulars on our territory, and for some for years, is an obvious fact. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to find them and expel them. Moreover, many have normally integrated into our society and, in case of expulsion, no longer have any attachment in another country. Deprived of the territory, they would be condemned to perpetual errance. In addition, public authorities have a serious responsibility in this situation by not being able to process the files of refugee applicants within a normal time frame. As I said, this irregular presence of foreigners on our territory has only negative consequences in economic, social, security and therefore overall on the human level. By proposing, within a well-defined legal framework, a single regularization operation, the government tries to end this deplorable situation by reintegrating these irregular people into the framework of a normal life. Other countries – France, Italy, Spain and Greece that were more affected than us by this phenomenon have carried out operations of this type that have overall been successful. As I said, this is, of course, a single operation, which concerns only foreigners who are in our territory on 1 October of this year, and obviously not a permanent regularization that would take away any meaning from the procedure for recognition of the status of political refugee: it is a one-off operation, taking into account the current situation aimed at repairing the mistakes and failures of the past. It is true that the deadlines for introducing the application for regularization – three weeks from the publication of the law – may seem quite short, but now it is almost two months that we know the scope of the law; asylum seekers have therefore been able to constitute their files. Many speakers, starting with the rapporteur Mrs. Grauwels, have detailed the provisions of the law and I will therefore not go back. I would simply like to point out that the four admissions criteria, namely the lack of decision on an application for political refugee status for several years, the de facto impossibility of a return to the country of origin, a serious illness or humanitarian or social circumstances in Belgium, after a stay of several years, seem largely sufficient to meet all the different practical cases and justify a regularization. The final decision will belong to the Minister, inspired by the opinion of the regulation committees, or even in some cases the secretariat. The composition of these regularization commissions, i.e. an effective honorary or substitute magistrate, a lawyer and a representative of a recognized NGO, exercising its activities in the field of human rights, must guarantee the quality and seriousness of their work. As is often the case, municipalities will have to participate in the planned operation. On the one hand, it is with the mayor that the requests for regularization will have to be submitted; he will have to forward them to the regularization commission within eight days. On the other hand, he may transmit to this committee a social report containing all the useful elements of which he will have knowledge. Personally, I would have preferred this to be an obligation in order to ensure equal treatment of each file. In any case, it is essential that communes are clearly informed of their role and how they must perform it. I have noted that a circular in this sense will be addressed to them in due course. Mr. Minister, we are confident that you will now quickly ensure that you present to us the necessary projects for the simplification of the procedures for access to the status of political refugee and that, on the other hand, you will take the necessary measures in case of refusal so that the process of accumulation of illegal persons does not start again. As soon as the project is published, it will be necessary to ensure its rapid implementation by constituting the regularization commissions, giving them the material and functional means necessary to get to work. This project will only succeed if those who must participate in it do so in a loyal and unreflective manner. You have thus succeeded, Mr. Minister, in putting an end to a situation of lawlessness that persisted for years and in solving in a human and generous manner a large number of painful and dramatic situations. It is with confidence and hope that we will vote for this project.

The word is for mr. André Smets to briefly ask a question, because the PSC had not exhausted its speech time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, you know as I do how much the Union of Cities and Municipalities in general, and in particular of Wallonia and Brussels, asks about how this problem will be addressed. Of course, I don’t want to go back on all the debates; to each his convictions. It is about normalizing the paperless but above all to integrate them into the social life. This mission is important. Today, the parliament will decide, the minister will decide the consequences and consequences, but the CPAS as well as the cities and municipalities will take over on the ground. What I would ⁇ like is to know the human, material and financial resources planned to enable them to fulfill this mission. There will be regularization only within the framework of a real human, social integration, both experienced by the candidates but also by the population.

I would like to remind our colleagues that the Conference of Presidents has invited members of parliament as well as members of the government to respect regulatory and precise speech times. The Minister of the Interior promised it. We will make an interruption after the Minister’s intervention. The word is to the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, you encourage me to concise while I have not said anything yet and after having shown so much indulgence to those who were still speaking despite the flashing of the little red lamp. Everyone knows that who loves good is well punished.

Mr. Minister, in terms of proverb, I will say that what is well conceived is enunciated clearly and the words to say it come briefly.

Mr. Speaker, I will answer your wish in a brief way because, as Ms. Milquet very correctly pointed out, there have been, this afternoon, a number of repetitions of questions to which I had already answered very long in the committee. Being brief does not mean that I do not consider this to be an important debate, on the contrary. This is an essential debate that precedes the establishment of an essential aspect of the overall asylum and immigration policy wanted by the government and its majority, but above all that has been expected for a very long time in this country. I am delighted that we have experienced a serene debate, sometimes brilliant though, in the head of some in any case, long and ⁇ a little confused. Overall and generally, it was interesting. It translates, and it seems to me essential, a very broad adherence. This means that the regularization operation we are going to launch will benefit from a weight that it would not have benefited if we could have implemented it by a royal decree. It is strongly due to the support of a very broad majority of representatives, i.e. the support of a very large majority of Belgians, that this project will be implemented. Large membership does not mean unanimousness and I did not expect, of course, that the miracle will happen. I heard the Vlaams Blok and unfortunately there are impossible dialogues. I am not, as Mr. Ferret is angry. I am rather saddened when I hear, for more than ten hours, a number of things that can be summarized as follows: fear, rejection, exclusion, inhumanity, security drift, violence. I think you are not interested in the bottom of things. You have here engaged in a demagogical propaganda exercise that did not address the minister or even the other groups of the majority. You are preparing a tool to abuse, I think, the good faith of a number of Belgians. I say of a certain number because my conviction is profound: the vast majority of Belgians are just, reasonable and generous. Gentlemen, I feel like you are living in a kind of artificial bubble that rejects the reality of life: you allow me to say that this is a sad show. I was also not surprised by the opposition of the CVP, especially of mr. Van Peel and Mr. of the cream. Mr. Van Peel, I was a little disappointed by the tone you used. I expected, on the part of the leader of a large party that has been in power for so long, that he would not let go — and this was even more true for Mr. Trump. From Crem - to pointillistic character analyses, observing things through the small tip of the scroll. It is a good war when you are part of the opposition. But I don’t think it’s very serious when it comes to a social debate. In some reflections, some excessive statements of the CVP seemed to me insignificant. You told me that I didn’t do anything in four months. We organized a round table, allowing all asylum policy partners to dialogue with each other, which they had never done. I learned a lot from this dialogue. The government has approved a comprehensive policy including an asylum reform that everyone wants, indispensable regularizations that, I hope, will be voted by the House tomorrow, the willingness to resolve the back of the files - more than 25,000 files -, clear guidelines on the policy of removal, the willingness - and the principle is decided - to renew the administration and its working methods, to have a different conception of the organization of the centers, to renegotiate with the airlines the modalities regarding the arrival in our country of illegal foreigners and above all their removal. Four months may not be much. But, Mr. Van Peel, I wish you had told me why you did not do at least that in so many years of power. If the way to do it didn’t suit you, why didn’t you do it as you wanted? As they say in my village, you don’t climb the mast when you have a big hole in your shirt! and . I am also surprised by your reaction when you are told that your alternative proposal is a proposal for permanent regularization. Your criteria are different, but it is still a permanent regularization operation, different from what is provided by current article 9 of the law, which allows technical regularizations, in principle from abroad. This means that in reality, you have renounced the implementation of an asylum policy that allows to process files quickly, not to have backbacks, to be able to quickly return those who do not get the benefit of an asylum decision. This is an attitude of renunciation. You are ready to organize regularization in a systematic and permanent manner. As Mr. Mr. said very correctly. Desmedt, this means that asylum policy would lose all meaning, both in its existence and in its implementation. The policy we want begins to produce its effects. The distances never ceased. Every day it happens on a voluntary basis. They have recently returned under escort and will be increasing numbers. If these fail – because I repeat that I will apply every element of the policy – collective returns will be organized. What makes me happy – because for my part, I prefer to see the situation from a positive angle – is that not only because of the conjunctual evolution but also because of the signals we have given, the number of asylum seekers has decreased by almost fifteen hundred units in the course of the month of October. If we deduct from this figure eleven hundred units that represent more or less the effectiveness of Kosovars, for which we will find a solution in the coming weeks, we return to the averages recorded in the previous years and I am convinced that we will do even better in the coming months. In my eyes, the results achieved in the political choices that have been made and in the implementation of the policy are already very significant after four months.

Mr Marc Van Peel has the word.

I would like to briefly comment on what the Minister says. Proposing things here as if I have claimed that the problem only exists from the arrival of the new government is not correct. Mr. Minister, first, I have made it clear that this is a permanent problem and that it has existed for a long time, not only in Belgium but in many European countries. It is not about that. Secondly, I also asked for clarity regarding the policy intentions you have expressed regarding the reform of the administration of the asylum procedure. You have already told a lot of different things about it, so I would like to know how the fork is in the stake. Thirdly – I would like to emphasize this – our alternative proposal is not about a permanent mass regularization – and I am sad that you give a false view of things – but about a better use of the possibilities contained in the 1980 Act. Hence my reference to the example of the Netherlands, which is governed by a democratic majority, where the notion of integration and citizenship has been properly incorporated into the law. That is the core of our criticism. In the law of 1980, to incorporate criteria that allow people to be regularized, but on the condition that they are civilised in a decent way, that is our alternative. We really do not understand why this alternative to the Dutch example cannot be incorporated in this.

The word is to the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I fully understand that you support this kind of theses, perfectly democratic compared to others I heard today. For my part, I argue that the procedure we now advocate is, too, rigorous and demanding. In addition, I agree with the need for a permanent mechanism. It is also provided for by Article 9 of the 1980 Act. I told Ms. Milquet in committee that when we proceed with the overall revision of asylum legislation, we will need to improve the existing arrangement. Indeed, foreign policy is not limited to an asylum policy issue; it is also linked to an immigration policy issue. This must be taken into account in our reflection. In terms of the effects of the policy we are considering – you were not in the committee when I explained this, Mr. Van Peel – we want a real integration of those who will be subject to regularization. In fact, what are the elements at the basis of this situation? The E’ tat carries a certain responsibility in that at the procedural level, it has not provided for the possibility of taking decisions quickly. He also bears a share of responsibility in the non-execution of tens of thousands of distances. There are people in our territory. They are long-standing: the examples mentioned in the project are significant in terms of duration. Moreover, criterion 4, a very important criterion, requires the existence of lasting social ties. In my opinion, Mr. Van Peel, this provision could not better reflect – and in such a broad way – our desire to establish integration, and not only by criteria such as those you have cited. Of course, it is important to share the life of a community and to speak its language. But other aspects also need to be taken into account. These will be reviewed by the regulatory committees. I look forward to what Ms. Milquet said, because she agrees with the objective pursued by the government, even if she is not with its terms. I see your abstention as a support for the aim pursued, and that is what is important. I also look forward to the call you want to make to the mayors, because I am convinced that their role is essential. In order for the indispensable confidence to reign, in order for those who meet the conditions of regularization to make the move, the attitude of the mayors is quite primary. Regarding aid to municipalities, I reminded the Prime Minister that it is desirable that at the meetings of the Consultation Committee with the regions and communities, this problem is addressed to see how it would be possible to help the municipalities, mainly those who will experience an influx of requests. For I am aware that this represents considerable work and I would not find unusual that they are assisted in the accomplishment of this task.

The word is for mr. by André Smets.

What I would not appreciate at all is the threats that Mr. President has spoken out. Vande Lanotte with respect to the cities and municipalities that would not play the game, as he says. Indeed, cities and municipalities live the work on the ground. Thank you for knowing the exact measure.

Mr. Smets, I am not threatening anyone. On the contrary, I call for good will. I am an outgoing mayor. So I know how much mayors in general see things in a positive way, precisely because they are close to the population. Ms. Milquet said things were not clear. It is a speech that she repeats abundantly on the waves. This is inaccurate and unfair. The concepts are very clear to those who have read the project. But it is true that they are not reducers, that they are not closed. We wanted to leave a margin of discretion to this committee to allow it to report on the enormous diversity of situations that will be known in the individual files. The same applies to the and/or. This is the second time she repeats to me that she has a problem with this. You will tell him on my part that the excellent lawyers of the State Council, they did not have problems. Of course, among the criteria, the first is predominant. In border areas, where the strict application of the duration could lead to injustice, the cumulative application of the criteria must enable a positive decision. I also welcome the positive approach of the Volksunie which, by its attitude, shows in fact that it considers it a social debate, which is not limited to the national sphere. This is a problem that should be addressed at the European and even global level. And I therefore welcome your abstention, because I see it as an attitude of approval of the principle of operation. I would like to tell you that, like you, the government wants to be cautious. To take back the formula you used, we also want, like you, to break down the walls and not build new ones. Thanks to the other speakers. They said everything and they supported the government’s project, despite all the attempts that have been made for weeks to prevent the operation from succeeding. I have never been shaken or destabilized. Because in the rare moments when I have the opportunity to get in touch with the Belgians, they encourage me in my determination. And this for a very simple reason: the Belgian is balanced, he is reasonable and fair. And in terms of regularization, if he had been offered a global and anonymous operation, he would probably have rejected it. But it will not do so as long as it is proposed to regulate on a case-by-case basis. For who is the one who, in his village, has not known an illegal, who has not seen him participate in the life of the community and whom he thinks it is right to integrate because, for example, their children play together? This is an attitude that I am proud to find in my country and I am convinced that the majority of the population shares my feeling. I would not want that under your influence, Mr. De Man, things change.

Mr Marc Van Peel has the word.

I agree with this analysis. My only question is whether you, as the current government, expect or not that migration report from the King Boudewijnstiftung.

We will implement a series of devices and gather all the necessary studies that have already been done. You know that the government has also agreed on the principle of creating an observatory whose role will not only be to monitor the implementation of the removal policy but also to analyse migration flows. I add that at the informal meeting of interior ministers in Turku, Finland, I called for – and that was approved – the establishment of a European Observatory to examine migration flows. I don’t think it’s only in a small country like ours that we can take it seriously. The problem of mass migration needs to be solved at European level, where consensus needs to be reached on an acceptable level of immigration. As for the procedures implemented, we want them to be careful, studied from case to case and taking a whole range of precautions. I would like to make it clear to you, for example, that all those who are likely to threaten public order or national security, for example because they are suspected of belonging to terrorist movements, will of course not in any way benefit from legalization. This is a prerogative of the Interior Minister. No committee will comment on this. And in the logic of this cautious procedure – one must say and repeat it, even if not to maintain a certain number of illusions – which says regularization operation on a case-by-case basis also says that there will be refusals and that as a result of these refusals the removal will be implemented. We want it to take place in good conditions of dignity and dignity. I met with the IOM Director General who told me that his organization could contribute to this. We also want guarantees. The committee will be independent, which is already demonstrated by its composition. The procedures will be contradictory. I will ensure that the appointed Secretary is independent. As I have been asked, I add that an accelerated procedure has been planned in two specific cases. Why waste time when, undeniably, the file is positive or the file is incomplete? I wanted to add an additional precautionary rule because, even if the secretary tells me that so, I can still assume that things are less clear than he claims and decide to return the matter to the regulation commission. We also take a lot of medical precautions. I confirm to mr. This is what I have said before in the committee. The specialists we will use will be completely independent doctors. by Mr. Mayeur also addressed the problem of bone examination, which has nothing to do with the problem of regularization. In this regard, I would like to say that he has only superficially read the ruling of the State Council. This ruling of the State Council states that it can be dangerous to take bone examination as the only assessment criterion. He does not question the method. He says that’s one indication among others and I think it’s prudent. by Mr. Mayeur offered me to arrange a discussion with the officials of the Saint-Pierre Hospital. I answer yes, very gladly. My office had already contacted him. We want things to go seriously. I would like to solemnly say before this House that despite the many attempts of misinformation I see daily, the Interior Minister wants things to go well, in compliance with the rule of law. Therefore, when there is a doubt, precautions should be taken. I will never endorse behaviors that, ⁇ well-intentioned in the name of effectiveness, would not respect the guidelines of the rule of law, of dignity and humanity that I have always given. This is, of course, in the perspective of the regulation operation a command of caution and precaution that I gave to my administration. I repeat that all files that will be submitted to me, evidence to support, will be subject to serious consideration and disciplinary proceedings would be initiated if there were any breaches. Let things be clear. I hear a lot of completely inaccurate things. This will be a one-shot operation because we believe our policy will succeed. We have trust. Once the situation is healed, with a new rapid procedure, we will no longer know the difficulties we face today and there will be no need to program new massive regularizations. To succeed, we endowed ourselves with exceptional resources, for both for the recovery of the backwardness and for the regularization, the government has granted me a provision of 1 billion francs. This means that it is decided to implement the necessary means. Finally, I would like to say that in this regularization operation, our approach is a positive one. Of course, a number of people are on our territory because we failed to carry out the removal that should have taken place. That is the negative side of things. But there is all the positive and I would like to emphasize this. We will get a lot of people out of clandestinity and illegality. We will give them hope for themselves and their families. We will also improve public policy. Indeed, it is better for people to live in public than in clandestinity because it is in clandestinity that one is at risk of being stunned by criminality. I also hope they find work. I express the same wish for them as for all my fellow citizens. They prefer to be declared rather than working in the dark. I also look forward to the fact that this operation will finally make it more difficult, if not impossible, the unacceptable attitude of the exploiters of distress, of all traffickers, whether for purposes of prostitution or economic exploitation. Tomorrow I will once again be proud of my country that is developing solutions rather than letting things rot. I am not a prisoner of anything or anyone. I am insensitive to attempts to destabilize, disinformation from wherever it may come. Those are minority and marginal groups. I am, on the contrary, very proud to be responsible for this policy, to propose it and to implement it, tomorrow, on behalf of a large part of the representatives of our country and therefore approved by a large majority of our fellow citizens. I look forward to being there tomorrow to see you vote for this.