Proposition 50K1689

Projet de loi modifiant les lois du 17 février 2002 accordant des naturalisations.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Robert Hondermarcq
PS | SP Yvan Mayeur

Submission date

March 13, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

naturalisation

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

March 14, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, either the sound system did not work since then, or the room was too noisy but part of my argument in connection with the procedure has been lost. Therefore, I would like to take the word, also and above all, on the substance of the case.

At a time when the Commission for Naturalizations was discussing a bill to prevent suspected mafia, potential terrorists and heavy criminals from getting our nationality, the representatives of the majority parties are gathered to draw up a motion to resolve an evaluation debate on the law of 1 March 2000 on nationality following a research report by a number of professors. This is an evaluation of a law that has been waiting for a year. In addition, the evaluation itself took several months. Their

The result of this is that the committee — majority against opposition — formulates the following recommendation, I quote: "Wait with confidence for the measures of the government to come to an efficient application of the law." At a moment when everyone knows that there will be security risks, at a moment when one knows that the term of 1 month is absolutely insufficient, at a moment when one knows that without notification due to the prosecutors, the Foreign Affairs Service and the Security of the State can be issued favourable advice, at a moment when there are alarming reports from the Security of the State about the fact that they have neither the time nor the means to conduct a thorough investigation, at that moment the majority agrees to agree to a status quo.

That is, after all, the value of the amendment of the law that is now in the process. It is merely about the efficient application of a law of which it is known that it cannot be applied efficiently, because it is scandalously bad. The law will continue to allow such practices.

The N-VA colleagues said on Tuesday in the Justice Committee that it would be a fraud due to the applicants of naturalization. I formally oppose this, because there is no fraud. The law allows this simply. The prosecutors shall check whether there is no obstacle due to serious facts; the State Security shall check whether there are no state hazardous elements; the Foreign Affairs Service shall check whether the conditions of residence have been met. They must do so within one month or the advice is considered favourable.

You cannot even blame the applicants for not being in good faith. It is the law and only the law that makes these practices possible. I have warned of these practices since 1999, from the moment I became a member of the Committee on Naturalizations. Our group stood on the floor every time to warn of the issues we face today. The so-called democratic parties always found it necessary to prevent us from speaking. That is the reality. No one wanted to listen, not even the press.

Today we are faced with a so-called unicum, but actually not. I do not know whether the memory of this Chamber extends to 2001, when it was scared by a house search and sixty files were seized. Even then we were aware of those dozens of maffioso files, even before they were published in the Official Gazette. Already then I asked the minister why he did not prevent the publication in the Staatsblatt; he did not respond to it. However, the Minister has made clear in the Committee on Justice that the legislative power cannot withdraw the naturalization it has granted. For this, he applied to a legal work.

That is why we fear that we are working for nothing today. This has nothing to do with speed and efficiency. This has everything to do with art and flight work. Under the pressure of the greens, the blue are healthy. During this legislature, nothing, but nothing, will change the legislation, contrary to the promises made shortly before the elections and contrary to the promises made shortly after the first incident. The liberals have thrown their principles overboard here, putting the safety of the citizens at risk.

What is happening here today is just the tip of the iceberg. Naturalization is only one element of the acquisition of nationality. The vast majority of nationality acquisitions do not take place in this house, but through the declaration and through the choice, which we have no grip on. We absolutely do not know what happens with it. Therefore, we are rightly pressured on a dozen files. Remember, however, that if the Prosecutor’s Office, the State Security and the Foreign Affairs Service do not inform the prosecutor within a month, the declaration of choice of nationality will be registered by the civil status official on an official basis.

At the moment we debate here about a dozen foreigners who absolutely do not deserve the nationality, there may be dozens or hundreds who obtain the nationality, and they do not deserve it. That is what happens here. As long as the nationality legislation does not change and is drastically tightened, we will be faced with such incidents here. If we can still call it incidents, because it has become a system, institutionalized by the purple-green.

Mr. Speaker, in the plenary sessions of 31 January and 7 February this year, a list of 1,800 foreigners was debated and voted.

Normally, there is no discussion dedicated to the agenda item Proposal of naturalization laws submitted by the Committee on Naturalizations, and it remains only with a vote statement. In the past, only our group used a vote statement. This has been followed for several months by the CD&V faction and sometimes also by the N-VA. I then took advantage of an opportunity granted by the Rules of Procedure to devote a discussion on this subject. Listening was not needed at the time. So I use this opportunity to remind me of those words.

I quote: “We are asked to approve the naturalization of as little as 1,800 foreigners. You know there is a lot to be done about naturalizations. We have been allowed to receive detectives in this Chamber up to twice, who came for a house search or not, but in all have taken with them a few dozen if not hundreds of files. We are facing a quick-Belgium law that is the smoothest of all Europe. The Commission for Naturalizations has become a service that needs to engage in legal matters more and more precisely because of the laxity and shortcomings of current legislation. In addition, it has already been repeated to boredom here, that the State Security, the prosecutors and the Foreign Affairs Service cannot do their work properly due to the too tight deadline. We are also faced with a lengthy review of the legislation, with conclusions already drawn by the government but not yet discussed in Parliament and with the conclusion that little or nothing will substantially change the Fast-Belg Act.

Mr. Speaker, then there is the Commission for Naturalizations that does not function properly, which is constantly facing legal problems because the legislation does not speak about it or does not provide for it, and which can therefore be used to naturalize as many foreigners as possible. This is what is happening in this committee. We have the rapid Belgian law, which, no matter how bad it is, no matter how lax it is, provides for the procedure for obtaining nationality, but which often – I have already cited dozens of examples in the past – is put out of play. Once the application for naturalization is in the committee, the sovereignty of the Chamber plays a role and it only goes in one direction: negative opinions can be converted into positive, but rarely or never positive opinions or rejection or rejection can be converted into negative. It is not because there is a legislation — I mean the provisions of Article 19 — that it is also respected in the committee. Only the fact that a judicial practice needs to be developed proves this." On 7 February I said on this speech: "So it is possible that foreigners who do not meet the conditions of residence become Belgians. Thus it often happens that illegal Belgians become Belgians and so it has been many times that criminals become Belgians. Thus, it is possible that among the list of foreigners to be naturalized will soon be a terrorist. That is the state of affairs. That is the reality. And then I haven’t talked about the presumption of language knowledge, I haven’t talked about the fact that foreigners are automatically integrated by submitting a form suddenly or that they can be asked for their profession, and so on. We must also not lose sight of the fact that naturalization is only one of the various ways to acquire nationality. With regard to nationality declaration and choice, the cities and municipalities, the prosecutors, the Foreign Affairs Service and the State Security are also facing similar problems. I am afraid, I am sure, that in the future we will face even greater and more serious societal problems due to this most lax nationality legislation of all Europe and ⁇ of the whole world.”

For Mr. Goyvaerts and myself, the size was full at that time. More than a year after the first house search in the House, we find that the Rules of Procedure had not yet been approved at that time, that the review of the law had still not taken place, that the government had already drawn conclusions without it being debated in Parliament.

Now the government itself does not seem to want to substantially change the legislation anymore. At such a moment, the commission members of the Flemish Bloc in the Commission for Naturalizations assume their responsibility by delaying all files relating to the fast-Belggesetz – and that is obviously increasing – and which have received a positive opinion – or have not received a advice – from the State Security Service, the Prosecutor’s Office, or the Foreign Affairs Service, for at least half a year, until there comes a clear signal that there is a substantial and thorough adaptation of the legislation. Of course, the proposals for dismissal and the proposals for rejection will be followed." End of quote.

Mr. Speaker, these are not words from a speech held after the facts; these were not figs after Easter; these were words spoken at a time when we could still act. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, there is only one way to avoid potential problems in the future: a comprehensive amendment and tightening of the Code of Belgian nationality which, on the one hand, makes the acquisition of Belgian nationality again dependent on the fulfillment by the candidate-Belgium of a number of strict and objective conditions and, on the other hand, excludes arbitrariness by guaranteeing all candidate-Belgium a equal and fair treatment of their naturalization application. Only then will there be a breakthrough in this fateful situation.

Nevertheless, and for reasons that will be clear to everyone, our group will support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to repeat once again with all clarity what exactly happened and what problem this law needs to resolve. It is important that the facts in all their nuances are declared, even before this plenary session. I’m wary of hanging a black-and-white story here. I have said this explicitly in several places and I want to repeat it here.

The House approved more than 1,800 naturalizations in its plenary session a few weeks ago. On that occasion, Mr. Speaker, I asked you if you were sure that the State Security Service had given an opinion on these files and that it expressly held standing. You then answered that this was indeed the case. I requested it and received the confirmation that, with regard to the files presented here to the plenary session, the leaflet before the public meeting was again submitted to the State Security Service for security purposes. If I have been properly informed by the services, you have also received a letter stating that the State Security confirms its original opinions.

After the vote, and after the King had ratified and signed the text, the State Security Service returned to its previous opinion for most of the matters that are currently underway. The plaintiff provided State Security with disturbing information to the Chamber, including — the most serious — the suspicion that there are clear links in a number of files to the environment of organized crime.

Colleagues, so it is correct, there is no suspicion that the affected persons would have committed fraud. The Chairman of the Commission correctly confirmed this. It is also true that it is not just about questions that have been asked regarding the application of the Rapid-Belgiewet. It is also correct — I would like to confirm it again in the plenary session — that there is nothing to blame the services of the House and the Committee on Naturalizations. The opinions were there and the procedures went well. Nevertheless, I note that there are fundamental reasons why we ended up in this somewhat strange situation. If you ask me what this means for the evaluation of the Fast-Belg Act, I will repeat again very clearly that — of course — this law has substantially worsened the situation and that the number of files to be handled by the State Security Service has increased — which is indeed due to the Fast-Belg Act — from 21,500 in 1999 to 48,000 in 2000.

The State Security Service has not hired any additional staff members for this purpose. The problem has become more urgent. The selection of the dossiers is made more superficial due to the huge volume of dossiers submitted. The problem has also become even more serious because the majority also no longer linked the acquisition of nationality in our country to the readiness to integrate or to the provision of evidence of readiness to integrate. Police investigations on the ground are no longer taking place so that the dependence on one advice becomes even greater.

The majority colleagues severely aggravated the problem by imposing a mandatory one-month deadline on the advisory services. This puts all other priorities aside to engage in the acquisition of nationality. You know very well that it is not enough to think about it once. Currently, two-thirds of nationality acquisitions are procedures that take place outside the Parliament. The report of the Minister of Justice expressly indicates that the State Security Service is balorig because in the procedures of declaration it almost never can deliver a sound opinion within the deadline. “It is not feasible to submit all the files of foreigners who have been staying here for seven years and are eligible for the declaration to a new investigation in order to systematically update the data and thus better dust these files.” This is stated in the report requested by the Minister.

My position is therefore very clear: there is a manifest problem in the organization of the Service Security of the State and in the rapidBelgwet which has substantially complicated the context of advising, the way and the number of dossiers.

Is there any reason to speak of a risk? Should we really be worried, or is it an accident? I refer again to the document delivered by the professors who, on behalf of the Minister, have reviewed the Nationality Act. They tell us that in 1999 only 3% of the candidate Belgians had a file with the State Security Service, that in 2000 it rose to 9%, while the number of applications almost doubled, and that in a sample of 10,196 applications from the month of January and February 2001 12% of the files were forwarded for further investigation.

If one asks the State Security Service whether the fact that one is known to the service gives reason to speak from their point of view of a security risk, the answer is that an estimated 10% of the candidate-Belgium with a file with the State Security does not involve a security risk. I thought it was a typing error. However, we are not talking about “a risk” but about a group of 10% that involves “no risk”.

First, they say, in the light of the sun, that the law should not be amended, then they say in the Commission for Naturalizations that in practice the one-month deadline will not be respected and that for security reasons and responsibility the Foreign Affairs Service will give the prosecutor’s office more time to advise, knowing that two-thirds of the files on automatic pilot take place outside our Parliament. If one then says that one has a great confidence in what the government will do in this regard after that law has been thoroughly evaluated, it becomes more than painful.

It remains that most people are in good faith, but that is not an excuse for Parliament not to address the security issue, as regards the legal side of the case, by not extending the counsel term.

It seems to me pottierly to go to Charleroi with looming sirenes and at high speed to deal with crime there, while a simple change of the law and an extension of the advisory term mine can provide a solution. But yes, it can, can and will not happen. That is pretty schizophrenic! The same applies to the declaration of default. Our group is not at all enthusiastic about the bill we need to vote on immediately. We will give our approval because this is currently the least bad solution, but that will happen with mixed feelings.

The problem is that the majority refuses to address the fundamental causes. Now people’s privacy will be robbed and all sorts of legal discussions will be held. Well, on this bill we will not vote with great pride.

A fundamental basis would have been laid if the Rapid-Belggesetz had provided for a sound, correct and balanced procedure of declaration of expiry, in which the rights of defence could be enforced and in which the procedure could be conducted through the legal power. However, this is not possible under the current provisions.

I remind Mr. Van Peel that during the discussions on the Fast-Belg Act the images of the broadcast Terzake were almost requested, which showed that Mr. Coveliers declared that Article 23 allows all that. Well, that is all not possible now. Nor is this procedure included in the text and will never be included in it because the majority in the committee has decided that we all trust the government in terms of the efficient implementation of the law.

This is not a big day for Parliament! We will take our responsibility because it is in the interests of the safety of the people. We cannot imagine that organized crime in our country likes to have this legitimacy.

I sincerely hope that this in the majority at least arouses the feeling that the Fast-Belg Act must be addressed on a number of points in substance and that it at least calls on the government the priority to very quickly come to an arrangement with the State Security so that one can function properly.

After this discussion, the meeting will be suspended for five minutes in order to start the evening meeting, which will not be so late.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, a few months ago I held a speech on naturalizations, following the decision to re-examine three thousand naturalization files.

Now I re-enter the word, not to polemize, but to repeat what I said at the time.

First and foremost, I thank Mr. Vandeurzen, who had the intellectual honesty to admit that none of the members of the Commission for Naturalizations has anything to blame. None of the services involved could prevent what was advised.

In the concrete dossiers currently available, up to three times a consultation was requested and each time a consultation was obtained from the competent services, which showed that there was nothing to report. I repeat what I said at the time, namely, that I am convinced that every member of the committee in honour and conscience dealt with the files and advised, as well as that good faith is still suspected and that bad faith must be proven.

However, the majority and the opposition did not stand still and some of our proposals were already implemented, which, by the way, was referred to.

I think of the principle of publicity of the Commission for Naturalizations, the extension of the committee to 17 members, and so on. The Rules of Procedure were adopted last week or fourteen days ago in this plenary session. Everything was therefore put into work to obtain an objectivation of the handling of the files. Their

In addition to the amendments to the Rules of Procedure, we have submitted a number of other proposals. I’ll go over them with you without wanting to treat them extensively.

First, in the medium term — I refer to piece no. 1182 — we would like to introduce the possibility of deprivation of the Belgian nationality if it proves that this acquisition is the result of fraudulent or criminal acts, through a procedure before the court.

Mr. Hove, I really do not understand you. You have a proposal to withdraw citizenship. This is relevant in this case, because here it is about depriving, in an emergency measure, of the nationality of a number of people. You could speed up that law, but you say you want to work in the medium term. Why did you not support the proposal of the opposition — of CD&V, Vlaams Blok and N-VA — to link this amendment to the decisions on the nationality legislation? Why don’t you want it now? Why do you talk about the medium term? Is it because there are mid-term elections so that you can move your proposal to the voter? That is cowardly. You now have the opportunity to implement this measure. As this law shows, it is necessary, but you refer to the medium-term. I do not understand you, Mr. Hove.

Mr. President, I think Mr. Laeremans did not listen properly. I want to repeat what it is about.

At the beginning of my presentation, I said that no one in the Naturalizations Committee can blame anything. This is a advice we have received, not a fraud. The proposal we have submitted is based on fraud or criminal facts. So what you say is not correct. by

I will continue my speech. I also refer to the number. 1180 and 1181. We believe that the only long-term solution is the recognition of the subjective right to acquire nationality through a court procedure. This requires a constitutional amendment. This is the second time there have been problems with naturalization. The first time it was not based on the fast-Belgic law, but on the earlier law. This proves that the law also broke down and that there were some shortcomings. Then we resolved the problems post factum. Today, though we can prevent something through an intervention with which no one is happy. by

I hope that there will not be a third incident and that structural measures – which we have proposed more than a year ago and on which I have intervened in the committee this week – are more pressing than ever. I think the time for fires is over.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it is not my intention to take advantage of this opportunity to make an entire evaluation of the Fast-Belgic Act. I would like to limit myself to this proposal itself, because it is already a strange procedure in itself.

Normally, a request for naturalization is submitted according to a certain procedure, which is defined in our Rules of Procedure and in the Rules of Procedure of the Commission for Naturalizations. All this ends in a decision in the Chamber, which at that moment has exhausted our ability to judge about it.

Of course, we also have the possibility of issuing general standards, in order to provide for certain categories of persons who have acquired nationality, possibly a declaration of expiration. This is our legislative competence.

This procedure is due to what has failed in individual files: we use the procedure we have at our disposal to create general rules. In fact, we are making a mixture so that we list a number of seven concrete cases and use our legislative power to solve that problem.

I regret, first of all, that this does not have the effect that we violate the right to individual privacy and confidentiality in those files, even if they are contested, by drawing up a document for them, sharing it around and explaining on this tribune the reason for this measure. I have doubts about this formula.

Second, the question arises whether this technique can be validly applied. It also raises the question whether that famous law of 17 February 2002, which includes the naturalizations, grants or does not grant individual rights before the time of publication. In fact, I have no unambiguous answer. If individual rights are obtained only by the fact that we have approved it and the King has signed it, then in my opinion the law we vote on today is problematic, at least in legal sense. It is therefore not necessarily challenging or challenging to any higher authority. I don’t know who could destroy this law on that basis. However, it remains problematic.

If, however, the various naturalizations only obtain some effect from the moment of publication, and if that publication is later used to regularize in the municipality, I think that there are not so many problems with the proposed technique. Their

I have no answer to that question, but I still have questions about the applied technique. The only reason why I do not oppose — contrary to my position in the committee, I will approve so soon — is, after all, that I do not have a better answer to solve the problem. If I had a better technique, I would without any doubt either vote against or abstain. But I have no better technique and I think it is correct that in these cases, if the normal procedure had passed, that at least a re-examination was indicated.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, also in this file, purple-green stands for poor governance. The VLD, the SP.A and AGALEV do nothing in this matter that greatly shakes the public opinion and which lives enormously with the population, not only with us but throughout Western Europe. The problem of integration and citizenship, linked to the migration movements and the asylum procedures, speaks strongly to the people.

The statement is that the law is bad. I suspect that no one in this hemisphere will dare to say that the existing legislation is good. Mr. Hove has said that he repeated his previous argument and pointed to what the VLD wants to ⁇ in the short, medium and long term. However, nothing is happening.

The minimum we agree on — I hope at least — is that this is not a competence for this Chamber, but a competence to be conferred on an administrative authority, an administrative court or another body. Initially, naturalization was an exceptional favourable measure. This has become a huge machinery of thousands and thousands of individual decisions. It is no longer a matter of entrusting this task to a parliamentary assembly which, in my opinion, still has the task of passing laws and controlling the executive power. One must be able to evolve into a system of individual decisions. Waiting for the Chamber to no longer make these decisions, one should be able to do so. This can be done perfectly within the existing contours. At that time I submitted an amendment on this subject. They had no ears. My amendment aimed at least to ensure that so many individual acts were adopted in such a way that no new laws had to be adopted over and over again.

If, however, this government claims to stand for good governance, it must ensure that control is possible throughout the cycle and that serious decisions can be taken. I would like to believe Mr. Hove when he says that there can be no reproaches against the individual members of the Commission for Naturalizations, nor against the services. It is not about that! It is about the fact that those who have to make the decisions — the members of the Commission on Naturalizations — are simply not able to do what they should do, to eliminate good governance, and to take measures based on serious advice.

People with greater knowledge of this legislation have long argued that the advisory mines are much too short. That’s where the euphoria is. In this way, people are repeatedly confronted with surprises where naturalizations are granted to those who do not deserve it, to those who are treated fraudulently and fraudulently.

A withdrawal possibility should be established. I am surprised that Mr. Hove calls this remedy only a medium-term goal. It should be a primary goal. One must have a possibility of withdrawal so that this petty course of affairs is no longer necessary.

I am not talking about the necessary integration process that is not ensured in any way with the rapid-Belggesetz. The current naturalization procedure is nothing more than an administrative process that does not require integration, that does not require people to acquire the language and public culture.

The question is not whether individual mistakes have been made. The question is what we intend with this legislation. This is what happened this week in the Justice Committee.

The majority — not the Parliament — has then exposed and ridiculed the Parliament. Parliament goes on to review legislation; that is its duty. This happens in a serious way: persons who know the Commission for Naturalizations from within and from outside formulate serious opinions. As a final result, however, the majority makes a kind of motion of confidence, a few words, a few lines on a page, in which it does not go beyond the statement that it is waiting with confidence for the decision of the government. This is a jaw stroke for Parliament; it is a jaw stroke for parliamentary democracy.

Above all, it proves that the majority does not have a project and that it is inconsistent. If the majority, which is so proud of its culture of debate and its openness, would have a little more spanking power, a little more action power, then it would at least reach a minimal “sockel” in which it says how to change the legislation in question. Then, at least, she would have the courage to look for the smallest common shareholder, deciding on what grounds and how the legislation should be changed. Even that does not happen.

There may be differences in opinions about the long-term objectives, the integration requirement, and so on. I suppose that in this regard breaking lines are crossed by the majority. That does not matter less. However, with the current majority, I suspect, one will never reach a consensus. The least she should have done is to ensure that there is a good law that allows to fight fraud and fraud and to act administratively correctly.

As long as this does not happen, Mr. Hove will have to help extinguish fires for a very long time, not only in the naturalization benefits, but also in the majority. Indeed, there will be small, large and even glowing fires about the problem for a very long time. It cannot be repeated enough: the public opinion in Flanders has quietly reached a saturation point; it demands that it be performed, it expects the majority to act, it no longer accepts the schizophrenia of, for example, the VLD, which always holds only a discourse contrary to its actions in Parliament. Mr. Hove will therefore not only have to extinguish fires in his naturalization work, but above all he will have to extinguish a burning fire in his voters!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to repeat once again that if we are examining this bill today, it is not because the House or the service in charge of naturalization files or even a member of this committee would have made a mistake. We have done our work rigorously. We asked for opinions. We have received it. According to these various opinions, including that of the State Security, there was nothing to signal. A statement was issued for each case incriminated. As soon as the opinions are favorable, the Commission decides to grant naturalization.

It is easy to say today that naturalizations should no longer be carried out in order to avoid any problems. If you choose this, you are always right in principle. Of course, there are no mistakes, but this is a position that is not found in any country. In all democratic countries of Europe, naturalizations are carried out. People may want to change one nationality for another. I am convinced that 90% of the members of this House believe that it is still necessary to be able to naturalize people who wish to. by

In the case that concerns us, the responsibility belongs to other services of the State that have not properly fulfilled the mission entrusted to them. For some, they would have lacked time. This argument is unacceptable since some of the incriminated persons were still subject to the old law and others were under the reign of the new law. Therefore, the deadline does not apply to the seven cases we have examined. In fact, the old law proposed the same criteria to the commission.

The problem therefore lies elsewhere, and more precisely in the flagrant disproportion between the staff framework of certain administrations and their actual staff. People who should be employed to fill the services are not present. The question is, therefore, whether the staff of the State Security is in sufficient number to properly apply the law. This is not just a matter of time. Parliament should not blame itself for what happened. The real responsible are the services that have not applied the law in accordance with the will of the legislator.

The separation of powers must be respected. We have done our job as the Constitution provides. Per ⁇ some want to change that? Per ⁇ the fact that it is the parliament that grants naturalization annoys some people? At least until the next legislature, this will be the case. When you decide on a law, it must be implemented, including by the executive who has the task of applying, and with all necessary means, the law as we have voted. This is the will expressed by the House. For this purpose, the chairman of the House sent to the Prime Minister a letter on behalf of the Conference of Presidents stating: "I insist, Mr. Prime Minister, that the Government take all necessary arrangements so that the State Security can fulfill its mission in accordance with the law and the wishes of the House of Representatives." This is what the Parliament has requested. We have to stay there.

by Mr. Vandeurzen says there is a problem in law enforcement because the services do not have enough time. I answered that this was not true given that the old law, in the same way, has been damaged. In addition, what is problematic is the fact that, in particular, the framework of the State Security staff is not filled. I add that we examined cases that date back to 1999, so long before the new law. by

by Mr. Bourgeois says that the law is not good, that no one here thinks that this law is good. It is not true. We believe that this law is in any case better than the previous one which, in reality, imposed a kind of denial of justice since already, it no longer offered a response to naturalization requests; some of them took more than 2 years to receive a response.

Today, we did a complex exercise that, ⁇ — and Mr. Borginon probably advances admissible arguments — it is critical on the legal level. That being said, I think it would have been worse if the House had decided, as it could very well have done, to let pass what we voted on 17 February, to let the law be published in the Moniteur and to ask the justice to deal with people whom it had not properly informed the parliament, who now had the Belgian nationality and who should therefore eventually undergo a disqualification of nationality by judicial means. Taking that position would have been much easier for us. by

In this case, we took our responsibilities by adopting a law that is probably not perfect — no matter — but which allows us not to make sure to grant Belgian citizenship to people who may have committed serious personal facts, and I say maybe because in some cases, the State Security has spoken of “information to confirm”.

We will see. In any case, we have taken the necessary responsibility to not leave any potential mafia in the wild, with the Belgian nationality. From this point of view, I think the Chamber grows, it does its job. However, we shouldn’t be forced to handle this way a naturalization bulletin every month or every two months. It would obviously be necessary for the government to agree to properly implement the law that has been decided by its own majority.