Proposition 51K2478

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

May 10, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive foreign national family migration illegal migration trafficking in human beings migration policy political asylum political refugee admission of aliens residence permit

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V Ecolo N-VA VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Hendrik Bogaert (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Roel Deseyn (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Liesbeth Van der Auwera (CD&V) 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.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

July 12, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. The Parliament received a balanced and reforming text. We defended this balance, we listened to the criticism. A real debate has animated the work of the Interior Committee. However, I would like to remind you that a number of proposals and amendments that have not been adopted have, for us, been submitted on time. They were, for the most part, in line with the media climate but out of subject in relation to the text on the table. The majority has held the way in this delicate context and is now preparing to vote on the initial balance. It is the asylum procedure that made it difficult but it is the one and only one that is discussed here. In this logic, we would like to welcome the government’s reflection that bases the reform in discussion. It is undertaking the fundamental reform of a multitude of crucial aspects of the asylum policy and even the migration policy.

These long-awaited changes are known and, pragmatically, the government has committed to considering all problematic situations to respond point by point. I think we can measure the scale of the task by simply reading the hundreds of pages of texts submitted to our examination. The government is ending this sensitive debate in the midst of the electoral period. I know that these deadlines do not have to guide our determination but everyone ⁇ has in mind many examples from the past where governments have postponed delicate discussions beyond elections.

The majority faces its responsibilities by reforming the State Council, installing a new court, concretizing subsidiary protection, advancing in the field of family reunification, providing for regularization for medical reasons and intensifying the fight against human trafficking.

Let me highlight three strong points in this list of reforms.

First of all, I believe that the rationalization of the asylum procedure should be welcomed: the coupling of the phases of admissibility and treatment in the substance is an important step forward. It allows to shorten the procedure and to avoid dilatory passages before the State Council. The Office of Foreigners sees in this logic its missions framed for more efficiency.

Then, we are pleased to see the State Council reoriented on its basic tasks. It is clear that his role in the current procedure has been diverted. A specific jurisdiction that goes beyond the functions assumed by the State Council was, there too, the track of common sense. We trust the government regarding the human and logistic resources given to this institution but we will be attentive to the proper transition between the old and the new system.

The filter in front of the State Council has largely fueled the work of the Interior Committee. The original formula, which is also the one retained, has our endorsement. It is, I think, a good balance between the goals of speed and the rights of the justiciable.

The case of cassation is exceptional. It must be considered as such in terms of its accessibility. Otherwise, it would be considered as before, the passage before the Council of State, as a mandatory step in the path to delay an expulsion.

Finally, the government is addressing abuse in family reunification through a number of concrete measures. The age at which people can come to Belgium through family reunification after marriage will be increased from 18 to 21 years. This measure will better protect girls and boys who are forced to marry. After acquiring a right of residence in the context of family constitution and family reunification, a three-year (currently 15 months) control period will be introduced. If it is found during the first two years of this period that one no longer cohabits, the right of residence may be terminated. The same applies during the third year of the right of residence, if it is established that one no longer cohabits and in case of indication of fraud.

In the face of these major advances, one only objects one word: regularization! More than 300 law articles have been silenced by the media because a minority in this Parliament obscures the public debate by broadcasting completely heterogeneous claims!

Of course, the fate of some paperless people must be taken into account, and it is. We defend the action of the Minister of the Interior and the logic of the revised Article 9.3 allowing thousands of people to acquire citizenship rights. Belgium is responsible for its failure to manage migration flows until the late 1990s. Since 1999, a humane and responsible policy has been in place, even though asylum deserved a reform. by

The Foreign Office sees its tasks lightened in the new procedure. This is all a benefit for the proper administration of the new Article 9bis. In 1999, a regularization took place. It was carried out under the responsibility of the Minister of the Interior. We believe that the present situation differs in many aspects from that time and we look forward to the fact that the partners of the majority have agreed not to reorganize an operation of this type. The repetition of an exceptional procedure would have led to the coming of a new rule. Therefore, the risk of an air call was significant. A fortiori, there is no logic in defending a new asylum procedure and at the same time anticipating its weaknesses by setting up a permanent regularization commission. The option of regularization for exceptional circumstances seems to us largely capable of taking into account cases that would remain inadequately addressed by the reform procedure.

Should there be regulation criteria? This is not our position. The Minister has repeatedly cited the criteria used in commission work. These clarifications preserve the logic and advantages of the procedure 9.3. There is a lot of discretionary or even arbitrary powers of the Minister in this matter. We believe that this is a misanalysis of the device as it is true that unlike the committee giving an opinion or an etheric decision, the procedure 9.3 allows full consideration of the individuality of the cases submitted and the personal, social and social circumstances surrounding the application. Formalizing the criteria in the law would be like locking the regularizations in a grid of reading from which one would get out at the least half criterion not met. The complexity of situations deserves much better than that.

More generally, I would like to return to the focus of critical political positions on this single issue of regularization.

I can join many opening speeches about the delicate situation of foreigners in our closed immigration societies. I also find it always very difficult to defend procedures for imprisonment and removal of people who are integrated or would integrate with us. But this debate is not the one of the projects being discussed. This is the debate of migration policy in the broad sense, it is the question of a chosen permeability of our borders.

Based exclusively on its reflection on regularizations, everything happens as if one agreed to prohibit access to the territory but to pleasure in calms, as soon as people are in contradiction with laws that one does not propose to change.

It also advocates the restriction of the movement of certain workers within the European Union but would like to make a profession of faith in matters of tolerance in the place of arrival, in flagrant contradiction with the legislation voted by this parliament.

We welcome, therefore, that a large majority has drawn up within the Committee on the Interior to reform what deserved to be and not to inject, in the specific debate on the reception of persecuted persons in their country of origin, an improvised reflection on migration policy. We will ensure, in parliament, that this ambitious amendment of the laws on asylum and on the State Council achieves the effectiveness and legitimacy that our rule of law owes to those who find refuge in Belgium.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I am here with a double feeling. I will explain myself further.

On the one hand, there are the draft laws as they are. In our view, they provide a significant improvement in asylum and migration policies. In the future, more people can get effective protection through, for example, the new residence status of the subsidiary protection for those who need protection due to the poor humanitarian conditions in their country, or through the scheme for those who cannot return due to serious medical problems.

It is also very important for us that, in the future, the whole reform will ensure that asylum seekers do not remain in the procedure too long, as is now the case. In short, asylum seekers will quickly gain certainty about whether or not they can stay and that is a very important reform.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, our group ⁇ considers the legislative changes very positive because we are making a step forward in the field of asylum and migration. This was absolutely necessary. Therefore, we believe that both bills deserve our support.

At the same time we are disappointed. Their

We regret, in fact, that the transition to the new asylum procedure has not been used to regularise a number of records from the past and, in other words, to address the individual problem of many people without papers who have been staying here for a long time and have in the meantime developed their lives, are integrated, speak the language and work or want to work.

For all clarity, as far as our vision is concerned, this need not be regulated through this bill, because it is intended for the future policy and for the future refugees and immigrants. However, it could and can still be perfectly done through a new instruction or through a letter of conversion, which sets out additional criteria for regularisations for the people who are currently in process or have been in process for a long time.

Colleagues, I would also like to reiterate, for all clarity, that for the sp.afraction, long-term illegal residence cannot in itself open a legal right to regularization. However, people without papers should be able to use an individual exemption procedure in certain humanitarian circumstances, we believe. For us, regulation is, by definition, a humanitarian exception to the rules. It is the immigration rules and residence statutes that must be established with criteria in the law, not the exceptions to them.

Regularization can, in our view, only be a right if the government itself has failed to deliver a decision on the application for asylum or residence within a reasonable period: if it is the fault of the government, when the procedures take too long and the people concerned have thus developed their lives here. This was and is an important point of discussion in the current debate. We cannot and cannot be blind to this.

However, the big question that concerns us all in the debate is, who is responsible for the fact that there are still many people in one or another procedure right now?

The asylum procedure itself, including the possibility of appeal to the Commissariat-General or the Standing Professional Committee, is now in most cases already completed within a reasonably short time. The files that have remained too long due to the introduction of the last in first out principle are now regulated. In our opinion, there is not the problem. The problem is that many asylum seekers, after a negative judgment in appeal, continue to appeal to the State Council, where the procedure is very lengthy and rarely leads to another judgment.

I would like to build up two arguments. On the one hand, it can be reasoned that this procedure at the State Council stricto sensu does not fall within the asylum procedure. It is a choice of the asylum seeker and therefore also his or her own responsibility to take this procedure. Letting this long procedural time be counted as a criterion for regularization would be unfair to those who have followed a previous negative decision and have left the country in the meantime.

On the other hand, colleagues, it is true that the procedure at the State Council is there. It is also very accessible and the persons concerned still receive social support during the procedure as a result of a decision of the Arbitration Court, even though they are actually no longer legally in our territory at that time. In fact, we cannot blame those people. If one asks us, one cannot even mislead them by using that procedure before the Council of State.

In these cases, we can speak of shared responsibility. The responsibility can be placed at the expense of the asylum seeker, but most ⁇ also partly at the expense of the government. A shared responsibility. It is precisely for this reason, colleagues, that the sp.a. group can defend that the long procedural period at the State Council is charged as one of the criteria for the regularization of past files.

Mrs. Douifi, we talked about this in the committee for hours. I think you present the two theses in a very nuanced way.

In any case, we continue to conclude that the procedure before the State Council is not part of the asylum procedure. We also continue with the finding that the asylum authorities have made an enormous effort to remove their backwardness, which cannot be said from the State Council.

I would also like to pay attention to the following considerations.

There are, of course, not only foreign files in the Council of State, but also others.

Let me build the reasoning. The country’s highest administrative law college builds a backdrop and also lays down, as the efforts of previous governments to strengthen the State Council have not produced the hoped outcome. The question arises whether rights can be removed from it.

If someone has to wait four to seven years for a judgment for a non-stranger file, will the same reasoning be constructed? Can that person get what he asks, because the State Council has not been able to deliver a judgment within that period?

I could extend the reasoning to the ordinary courts, to the courts of appeal, which sometimes took five to seven years and still have to make a judgment. Can we say that the people who are in the proceedings before the courts of appeal can seize rights from that?

We have a double objection.

First, there is an objection to those who have given effect to a decision of the asylum authorities. The others go to the Council of State. As you rightly say, most of it is rejected. But they take that risk. They remain in our territory. We tolerate that. They even get livelihoods. However, they know that the chances of success are minimal. I still have a problem with myself. All those who respect a decision of the asylum authorities, let us leave or repatriate in some circumstances. Those who go to the State Council, knowing that the procedure will take years, we must somehow "reward".

The second objection applies to all the other members of the State Council. It will only happen to you that as a teacher, as a member of the government staff or as a applicant for a building permit and so on, you have gone to the State Council and after five years you still have no judgment. To those people we should say: you have been waiting for three, four, five years now; we will “regularize” you.

These arguments are the reason why I hesitate. I hesitate, because I also consider that, when a court or a court of law is unable to decide within a reasonable period of time, there is not a matter of law, but of injustice.

I have often experienced the same thing as a lawyer — and I have often pointed it out in the committee — in the sense that I asked the Court of Appeal for a date of appeal and one was given five or six years after the date of the application. This is also unfair.

In other words, as long as the legislation stipulates that the appeal to the State Council does not have a suspensive effect, that the decision delivered by the asylum authorities is enforceable and that hundreds and thousands follow it, I dare not look those people in the face by saying at the same time to those who go to the State Council that we will compensate them after a few years for the fact that they have taken a procedure. That is the consideration. I will try to repeat it, also in the plenary session. I have made this consideration several times in the committee. Otherwise, it will be said that I will not answer in the plenary session. That is my position, that is my hesitation, and therefore I say also to the colleagues of the PS group that we did not agree on this in 2003. In 2003, on a convenu qu'il n'y aurait pas d'opération de régularisation généralisée. It was the agreement of the government and you executed it scrupulously. I have always applied the existing criteria (humanitarian and disease reasons) and following the procedure before the asylum instances and not the State Council. If these projects are voted, it is because you have estimated that they constitute an improvement for the future, even if the sentiment of each – including that of the Minister of the Interior – remains shared for the past.

However, if we want to take a step forward, it is desirable to vote on the projects we are considering today. I have implemented the existing government agreement.

Mr. Maene, if the voter decides to bring your party to power, you will be free to negotiate a new government agreement.

Dear colleagues, I think I thus expressed the position of the government when it decided to submit these projects to your assessment.

Mrs. Douifi, I see that Mrs. Lanjri still wants to intervene. The Minister answered for a long time. That will be deducted from his speech time if he still answers at the end of the debate. Believe me free. Would you like to intervene briefly, Mrs. Lanjri?

If the Minister himself is not satisfied with this bill, he should not submit it to vote. Then let it adjust first, so that you are satisfied. It is the Parliament and the Government that make the laws.

I hear you say you are not satisfied. Then make a law on which you can be proud and which you can put forward to vote with great pride. You don’t vote for something that you don’t really like.

If I can reach a consensus in which a democratic majority, Ms. Lanjri, can move forward with draft improvements for the future of the procedure, which I currently find humiliatingly long for the applicant, with additional categories of subsidiary protection and with better protection of people who are victims of human trafficking — I can extend my list of benefits — then I will move forward. The day you can participate in the government — ask your colleagues at the Flemish level — and you say that your personal conviction must meet it, that you do nothing if you cannot realize your conviction for one hundred percent, then you will no longer make a government. At all levels of government, one must be able to take a step forward at some point because what is on the table is important enough.

I am asking you, as I have done in the committee, to deal with your amendments. If you can get amendments approved by everyone, then it is the right of this Parliament to vote on them, but you’re not going far.

They wanted, but they could not.

If you put it so polemically, Mrs. Lanjri, I value you higher than that. You can mostly have sympathy on the Flemish side for a number of amendments, but on the French-speaking side you do not hit anywhere. Their

It is not only an ideological difference of opinion, but also along the language boundary we are facing a situation where the two communities in the north and the south — you le dis clairement — think of one way tout à fait différente. It is therefore a matter of appreciation if the projects are, at a given moment, sufficiently important that the voter can wish.

You know very well, Mrs. Lanjri, that the French-speaking Christian Democrats — I cannot call them your sister party, but will do it anyway — have signed all amendments with Ecolo. They therefore advocate, in an unimaginably extensive way, for a general regularization. There are still criteria, but not too many. That is their right. You criticize me because I am actually too hard.

The [...]

Yet, for some things you have done it. However, it is also your right to make progress at parliamentary level. Their

At some point, I presented the two designs. If at some point there can grow a consensus on an even stricter procedure at the State Council, it would be so. If a consensus can grow about further regularization, then I say to you as a minister: "Je m'incline". I lay down on that. You as the opposition would, of course, prefer that the government before the holiday would say that it has failed, that the two drafts should have been withdrawn and that nothing could have been done. That could be your oppositional pleasure. I challenge you. If you say no, what is now on the table is important enough, and my personal feeling about it is subordinate to what I feel here as possible consensus. Their

Mrs Nagy will immediately demonstrate that I am a tough, intolerant Minister of Home Affairs. This morning others have said that I am an incredible watch and that I take part in what the PS asks. On behalf of the PS, I was later told on the floor that I am not going far enough at all, because they would have wanted to go much further in regularization. Again, the two drafts, the new procedures, the State Council, the new High Council for Foreign Disputes, better protection, adaptation to the European legal rules, are so extremely important to me that we must hold and approve them. Their

Two things leave us with some mixed feelings. First of all, will the State Council with this filter be able to cope well? We will evaluate this within a year. If they do not, we will correct it. Second, regularization is a debate that never ends. I only interrupted Mrs. Douifi to say that it must be in accordance with our conscience, to use a heavy word. I never want to reward people for using and sometimes abusing procedures against people who, after a past asylum procedure, have submitted to the rules of the democratic rule of law and have left Belgium. Will we reward those who stay? This is the question I ask myself, and in that respect we are a little behind today. Their

You say that this debate is not completely over. I think this debate has never ended, if I see today what is happening in Italy, in Spain, in the United States of America, in France, in the Netherlands. It is a never ending story, because migration is from all times and from all worlds.

It is a good debate, which I am delighted as chairman.

Mr. Dirk Claes, brief as you can, because Mrs. Douifi was still speaking. You have already spoken, and Mrs. Lanjri will do so later.

Mr. Secretary, you are going to get out.

I apologize for not being able to modify the bill. We have already heard this several times. What really worries and disturbs us is that in the hearing both social organizations and the administrations have made a lot of positive proposals for refining and improving the law and that there have been a number of democratic proposals from both us and other parties, including the majority, but that those good proposals for improving the draft law should not be supported.

(...) has adopted the proposal of Mr Van der Maelen, supported by Mr Borginon. You just took over it...

The last response from Mr. Claes. Then it is to Mrs. Douifi.

( ... ...

It is not because I like the debate that you should all exaggerate now.

In a vote, you always see which vote the majority can get and which not. You have the right to submit this to the Chamber.

I have to tell you, Mr. Minister: in the votes here you know that. There are parliaments, very democratic, where the group leader stands up — north of our border — on behalf of his group. You can hide there. There are parliaments where one has reached 51% and no longer counts. Here everyone can and should adopt his personal, individualist attitude to the mood.

Now I give the floor to Mr. Claes and then Mrs. Douifi.

Very short but, Mr. Speaker: Our amendment on the filter at the Council of State is amendment no. 1 and the amendment of sp.a and VLD is amendment no.

That’s 44 numbers difference.

I would like to thank the Minister for his contribution.

This also applies to you, Mrs. Douifi.

Thank you, Mr President. That is why I speak of shared responsibility. I have begun my argument by communicating that sp.a will approve the bills. We believe that a good balance has been found. In many areas, a step forward is being made. The CD&V colleagues have said that in the committee with so many words. There will always be colleagues who talk about "the strict approach". Others will talk about “a smooth or too smooth approach.”

Mr. Minister, this is basically not the case. An analysis of the applications of asylum seekers leads us to conclude that you have chosen a very strict approach. In 2000, there were 42,000 applications. In 2005, the number dropped to 16,000 and it continues to decline. On the contrary, the decisions are becoming more humanitarian, because the procedure is shorter and consequently more efficient and people know faster if they can stay here or not.

I don’t like to talk in terms of “hard” and “soft”. Importantly, the reform announced by the government is approved today. Certain elements may still be added and improved. Other points may be changed in the future and need to be adjusted. I will return to that later.

What we almost all agree on is that we remain with a mortgage from the past. That is the most important debate today. The challenge of the last few weeks has been to find a balance between mortgage and past aberrations. From the moment your services have adopted the principle of last in, first out, the lag of unfinished files has grown. Everyone knows that one may not be able to send those people back, not because the equipment is not possible. Juridically and practically, this is possible. What kind of people, however, would make it of us if we returned integrated families who have been living here for 5 to 6 years with school-gathering children who no longer have a country of origin? What kind of people does that make us?! This is the exercise that...

Colleague Lanjri, with all respect. Amendments were submitted which colleagues of the majority approved they had to approve. There were amendments from Ecolo or cdH whose colleagues of the majority approval they had to approve. The majority, however, is especially pleased with good, balanced legislation, which is enforceable in the future, applicable for all, and for which a further majority will be found in the future if additional legislation is needed to further modernise the asylum and migration policy.

Therefore, it is not a line to whom any amendment, submitted by any group, has been approved. Let us try to conduct the debate constructively.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, if you allow me, I would like to continue for a moment with the reasoning I am coming to build and with the opening that we at least wanted and tried to make in the last few weeks. We did not do it alone. We have actually done that offensive behind the scenes trying to do with the colleagues of the PS.

We have proposed two categories of regularizations. We will continue to present them and we will still find plenty of opportunities to do so.

Mr. Minister, I am pleased that you admit that you hesitate. After all, that shows that you are not only trying to be a good administrator of your system and of your department, but that you also realize that only a humanitarian policy will be able to solve the aberrations of the past.

There is no other solution unless we pick up and send back all those involved. I think — fortunately — not that there is a majority in our country for that.

We also set a number of important conditions. In order not to give the wrong signal that helps long-term procedures, it is necessary that the government prevent too long procedures from taking place again in the future. Therefore, we call for a filter for the cassation appeals at the Council of State. Therefore, we also propose to link the additional regularisations to a stricter filter.

I know that an amendment was submitted. The amendment was also signed by VLD. I try to formulate my reasoning and clarification to my colleagues. We withdrew the amendment because we felt that one should be linked to the other. If we wanted an even stricter filter in the future, we thought it would have to be at least attempted to clean the ship with the aberrations of the past. In other words, it had to be regulated. We have tried to make this connection.

We believe that every asylum seeker should have access to a fair and contradictory procedure. However, the procedure should also be efficient and short. In the future, the focus will be on the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons. A substantive appeal is possible at the new Council for Foreign Disputes. However, the subsequent cassation appeals to the State Council should really become the exception and not, as now, the rule.

Therefore, we and the PS colleagues made a balanced compromise proposal to our coalition partners, hoping to meet everyone’s perspective. It was a balanced proposal because it was based on the two above-mentioned, interconnected cases: on the one hand, a stricter filter for cassation lawsuits at the State Council in order to avoid people being engaged in a procedure for too long in the future, and, on the other hand, criteria for two additional categories of asylum seekers eligible for regularisation within the existing individual examination procedure by the Foreign Affairs Service.

Mr. Minister, at this time, as we know, you are dealing with three categories in your instruction to the Foreign Affairs Service. Let me make a brief overview of them, because that helps in my motivation for the other two categories we propose.

The first is the long-term asylum procedure without the period for the State Council. As mentioned, most of those files, which were a result of the last in-first out, have already been regulated and the asylum procedure is already noticeably shorter. With the new procedure, that is a category that will disappear, or should disappear.

The second category is the medical reasons. For this purpose, the law now provides for a specific statute. These people will also no longer need regularization in the future as they can claim a legal residence status.

The third category is the category of serious humanitarian conditions: the famous residual category of people who do not fall into one or another category and whose criteria are very vaguely defined. Such a vague residual category is also needed, we think. After all, with any categorization of categories and criteria, there will always be people who just fall outside of who you think they should still be able to stay for serious humanitarian reasons.

The consequence of such a vague description is, of course, that it can be applied both very broadly and very narrowly. We therefore, together with the PS group, proposed to define criteria for two new categories in an instruction or a letter of reference to the Foreign Affairs Service, only for the past.

First, for persons who are in long-term proceedings, with the procedural period for the State Council, from the reasoning of the shared responsibility for those long procedures and the policy intention that they will be avoided in the future through the filter.

Secondly, for those without papers who have been staying here for a long time, but have once had a legal status of residence, although temporarily, and also have underage school children, on the grounds that those children have no connection with the country of origin of their parents and therefore it would be humanitarian indefensible to send them back.

We have also proposed additional conditions regarding integration, language skills, working readiness and – logically – also public policy. However, it could not benefit, it did not succeed. Mr. Minister, at some point we thought, however, that you felt an openness to move forward in that direction and to ⁇ a compromise on these proposed categories of regularization. We thought we could eventually, together with the PS group, make a balanced proposal to our coalition partners, but your own parliamentary group did not see that.

This is not an accusation, I only say that we regret it. We regret that. We feel sorry, because it was an opportunity and therefore ⁇ a missed opportunity.

The so-called lack of openness, I think, should ⁇ not harm the government. I have rarely come to Parliament with drafts of which I said: ne varietur; there is no change in this. However, I think that if one says at some point that one will try to reconsider a number of points, it must be possible to find a balance again. It was the precondition I had set, that it must be balanced. If it is not feasible, it is not a shame. I mean, on what was on the table from the government, there was entirely consensus. If some want to go further, not left for me. However, you know that if some want to go further, it is already far too far for others.

What I have never heard on the side of CD&V, where they are now applauding, is the following. They are interested in a stricter filter. They will then play a game to see if the VLD will also approve that. I ask CD&V whether the group of Mrs. Lanjri and Mr. Claes agrees with the regularisation criteria they advocate, which go further and are more smooth than mine? Are they agreeing to regularize people on that basis? Sometimes I would like to know that. For me and for the government, the established jurisdiction is three and four years for an asylum authority. Will they go as far as you? I would like to hear that.

If I hear some people engaged in CD&V, then Mr. De Crem is always ready to bite my nose if I were even a little too submissive to a sans papiers and says Mrs. de Bethune in the Senate that I should go to the churches and go much further in my humanitarian mission. So it is a little hot and cold blowing at the same time. I would like to know — we will hear it later when Ms. Lanjri speaks — what CD&V actually says. So one cannot just say to the group behind me that one will propose an amendment on a stricter filter. I play the ball back.

Mr. Minister, we will answer later. Mrs. Lanjri, you will soon have all the time to answer. The Minister is an excellent debate; you will answer later.

The position within the majority parties is no longer a secret. They have been on the table for a long time. We would indeed very much like to see a beautiful and balanced compromise proposal, so to speak, come into being, preferably within the majority of course. Their

For a part, we find this a missed opportunity because the reform we will vote on today, ⁇ later, could start with a more proper lease, that we could thus, in other words, start more efficiently working towards the future. Their

Be careful, we do not want to create the illusion that the problem of people without papers will be completely solved. A migration policy implies rules and procedures to determine who is allowed to stay here under what conditions. It also means that people must be rejected, and it ⁇ also means that people must be sent back. Their

However, it also requires a human application of the rules and procedures. No matter how fair the immigration rules may be, and no matter how legitimate and necessary it is for the government to try to enforce its immigration rules, there will still be situations where the human aspect is so important that an exception to those rules should be possible. These are exceptions for which, as far as we are concerned, each time after individual examination it turns out that it would be inhumane to return the family concerned, even though they have no stricto sensu right of residence. Their

For specific circumstances, partly linked to the old procedures, we find that humanitarian circumstances have arisen that justify a regularization for a number of people without papers at this time. The transition to a new asylum procedure was the ideal time for us to reach an agreement on this.

Mr. Minister, we will continue to insist on such instruction or on such circular to your services. To do this, we want to set clear criteria and at the same time work on a stricter filter to avoid future, too long procedures. These two matters must be able to be agreed in order to find a balance and a majority in order to preserve it. If this is not the case, then this problem will continue to dominate the actuality and make further policy difficult, if no clean ship is made with the past. Their

Mr. Speaker, I will decide. The reform of the Foreign Affairs Act has not yet been completed. European directives must soon be transposed and further measures must be taken to further modernise the asylum and migration policies.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, it seems appropriate for us to do this in a constructive atmosphere of mutual trust and then preferably without a mortgage from the past.

I had said that I would ask Mrs. Nagy or Mr. Dare to take the word. As you are here, Madame Nagy, it is your turn. Then it will be Mr. and Anthus. Madame Nagy, I think you asked for your thirty minutes. I will give them to you with the same pleasure as to others. This is the rule: a maximum of 30 minutes in the general discussion since the two projects were joined.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, André Comte-Sponville said: “Generosity is a moral virtue, solidarity is a political virtue; the great affair of the State is the regulation and socialization of selfishness.” In asylum, the Dewael project simplifies the procedure by ending the two-stage system, which is a good thing. From now on, the Foreign Office is no longer competent to make a decision on the story of the reasons why an asylum seeker fled his country. It is the CGRA that makes this decision and makes a single decision on the substance.

The problem is that the project ⁇ ins as reasons for rejection in essence the reasons for admissibility. Based solely on a formal reason, the CGRA could refuse asylum without even taking into account the applicant’s fears of returning to his country of origin. UNHCR considers this contrary to the Geneva Convention, contrary to the European Procedure Directive which has not yet been transposed and which does not provide for this reason for refusal and, finally, contrary to the European Directive "Qualification" which the project intends to transpose on the definition of refugee and beneficiary of subsidiary protection which does not provide for this type of reason for refusal. Also in the asylum field, the project provides for a series of new hypotheses where asylum seekers can be detained, for example when the foreigner has not been able to submit his application immediately when the border control authorities question him about the reasons for his arrival in Belgium, or even for the foreigner who has submitted a new application for asylum.

The proposal transposes the European Directive of 29 April 2004 on subsidiary protection even though beneficiaries of subsidiary protection do not receive the same right of residence as refugees under the Geneva Convention. Generally speaking, in the name of combating abuse and fraud, the government has opted for a system that restricts the conditions of access to law, which strengthens the means of control and increases the duration of the precariousness of the rights of residence.

The draft amending the coordinated laws on the State Council creates a new competent appeal court: the Foreign Dispute Council, to deal with appeals against decisions of the CGRA in asylum matters or the Foreign Office in matters of residence.

While in asylum matters, this court completely reviews the file and makes a new decision, the same is not the case for appeals against decisions made by the Office of Foreigners; the Council of the Foreigners Litigation can only suspend or annul the decision if there is a violation of a formal rule or a problem with the motivation of the decision. The case then returns to the Foreign Office, which makes a new decision.

The proceedings before this court are essentially written in nature, which risks diverting asylum seekers from the debates, by making the form prevail over the substance. Or, the orality of the debates is the best guarantee of a fair debate in this area where it is essentially judged by the fact and the credibility of the narrative.

The 15 day time period for appeal is not acceptable, given the form requirements imposed and the lack of flexibility left to the court to assess elements that would be attached later to the file.

At the level of the Council of State, which is no longer competent in the dispute of foreigners but in administrative cassation, a system of admission of appeals is provided where a filter, a magistrat alone, examines the appeal filed against an administrative court and, without hearing the applicant, makes, within a few days, a briefly motivated decision which is made on the grounds invoked in the appeal, means that invokes a violation of the law of nature such that it can lead to the cassation of a decision and which must not be manifestly unfounded. The way in which the disposition is formulated in the text we are discussing may reduce to a skin of sorrow the recourse that will pass the direction of the filter.

The House Interior Committee examined these projects without sufficient debate. When I hear Ms. Douifi speaking to this tribune while she didn’t say a word while the opposition defended her 130 amendments, I say to myself that we missed an opportunity and that the majority bears a heavy responsibility. It was clear that the government’s intention was to close the review of the projects by locking them completely and before the chairman of the committee reacted. I would say that he reacted. In particular, the committee heard representatives of the paperless – unfortunately the liberal colleagues, just that day, could not be present in the committee to hear them – from the Asylum-Migration Forum, Doctors Without Borders, representatives of the French and German-speaking bars as well as the President and Vice-President of the State Council. The list is not exhaustive, the rapporteurs have explained these debates. These hearings did not result in any changes to the project. He has, however, been heavily criticized and questioned on a series of elements, but there is no virgule that has been changed unless, I would forget, amendments made by the majority, related to the status of the staff of the State Council. I was also going to forget the decisive action of the majority parliamentarians who, full of boldness, asked the government that an assessment be made by and for the government after a year of entry into force of the law.

Some 130 amendments have been submitted by the opposition without anyone finding favor in the eyes of the government. There was no discussion on this issue in the committee.

Amendments submitted either by Ecolo or with the CDH colleague aimed in particular to: - provide for permanent and clear regulation criteria and create an independent regulation commission; - make the conditions for family reunification more flexible, in any case to maintain the current system; - improve the asylum procedure, the definition of the refugee and beneficiary of subsidiary protection; - repeal the provision concerning the detention of protection applicants; - eliminate the detention situations for asylum seekers provided by the project as well as prohibit the detention of children in closed centres.

The amendments also aimed to abolish Article 77 of the Act of 15 December 1980, in order to: - avoid any misunderstanding as to the aid that could be provided to illegal persons in a humanitarian manner; - give a jurisdiction for litigation to the administrative court established by the Government's draft for appeals against decisions made by the Foreign Office, so that this court can make a decision that replaces that of the Foreign Office; - to make the filter to the State Council more flexible, so that applicants can defend themselves when the State Council considers that its appeal is inadmissible.

All these amendments were rejected. The government’s draft passed through hearings, amendments and votes without any changes.

I now come to the issue of paperless people, which has somewhat obscured the other very negative aspects of this reform, as I just mentioned them.

The violet majority draft does not provide for any clear and permanent criteria of regularization or correct procedure for paperless persons. Currently, applications for regularization are processed by the Office of Foreigners and, Mr. Minister, for identical cases, different decisions may be made.

As the lawyers expressed in a legal memorandum sent to Parliament, the fact that the law reserves to the minister and the administration an absolute discretionary power, which creates a practice that even the State Council, in a judgment issued in April last year, stated that it was - I quote - "an institutionalization of the arbitrary", that there is no suspensive remedy against the decision taken or processing of the request within reasonable time, that the criteria resulting from the oral statements of the minister are not respected by its administration, all this lacks objectivity.

Just recently, in the debate, you had once again caricatured the positions. You ⁇ that you were charged to observe a tough position. Now, the criticism that was addressed to you was not only by me, but also by the State Council, by lawyers, by NGOs and by the members of your majority: it affirms that there is today a discretionary power so broad that the State Council calls it "the institutionalization of the arbitrary".

As an alternative, we suggest criteria. The proposal I submitted included five, including the duration of stay, illness, the presentation of a work contract, no expulsion, etc. And there are others. The problem is not to discuss criteria that are as fair as possible. The problem is that today you defend the principle of holding a total and absolute discretionary power, while members ask you to set criteria so that citizens know in advance if, yes or not, they meet these criteria and that everyone is treated fairly.

We need to be able to agree on these criteria, Madame Nagy! In fact, your view is completely opposite to that of the other banks. You go much further, but from the moment you point out the criteria embodied in the law, for you, it means a commission to judge them. It is not about the Minister. If the Minister makes a decision, it is qualified as arbitrary!

I have asked you the question several times: from the moment the committee gives a negative opinion, do you not think that then, we will go to the Minister of the Interior to signal the disagreement of the committee on a regularization, because the Minister of the Interior has another solution? This is the reality! This is somehow a ministerial responsibility. This is a skill that I do not like at all, but it is important to assume it. You can always ask me. A committee cannot be called upon. Depending on the system you are advocating, a committee will issue a judgment based on criteria. In case of disagreement, you will come to call me here in the same place and say to me, "Mr. Minister, you can still do something!"

Mr. Minister, you are very strong, because you already know in advance what will happen when the law is passed. What is pathetic is that obviously you have not taken note of the various bills that are on the table. In fact, these are quite well matched by the criteria. There is one that differentiates these proposals of law, namely the possibility of having or not having a labor contract. This is the proposal that appears in my text and which does not appear in the socialist colleagues, in the colleagues of the CDH, or in the colleagues of the CD&V.

A debate must be open. One must accept that different proposals are put on the table and listen to each defend his way of seeing things.

Do you think that in order to be legalized, you need to be in a procedure?

and no.

That is what I see. I’m not talking about my personal conviction but know that in Flanders, you won’t find a partner to follow you!

Mr. Minister, we can discuss this issue. Is this criterion considered definitive or not? I see that you reject the discussion. You propose either to take all the criteria of a political group, or not to take any of them. You avoid the real problem that is your discretionary power. The State Council has indicated that your discretionary power frits — and it’s not me who says it — the institutionalization of the arbitrary.

I think that we can discuss criteria, that we can say that some are better than others. The criteria that Ecolo defends take into account the reality of things.

For example, we can discuss the criterion of "being in procedure". The debate you have opened is important.

Is someone who has introduced an article 9.3 for which he has received a negative opinion, who goes to the Council of State - of which he does not receive a response for three, four, even five years - who, meanwhile, has school children, who, meanwhile, is in a network of perfectly integrated relationships, does this person deserve to be directly expelled? Is this your proposal? Or, consider that this person deserves that his application be examined and that, on the basis of these criteria (duration of stay in Belgium, integration of children, good knowledge of the language and even sometimes promise of employment contract), this person is allowed to decently request a regularization rather than to be afraid every day. However, this person does not fit into your criteria today!

The [...]

It does not fit into your criteria; that is the truth!

I will repeat this for the fifth time.

The first is the criteria. Secondly, who should judge these criteria?

First, whether you like it or not, the government agreement concluded in 2003 did not provide for the extension of these criteria. So for a 9.3, you say that there is no criterion, I challenge it!

I have mentioned these criteria several times in the committee. They are in number of three. by

First, the too long duration of an asylum procedure (3-4 years).

The [...]

This is a constant administrative jurisprudence controlled by the State Council. The situation of those for whom the asylum procedure is too long (3-4 years), who do not pose a danger to public order and who demonstrate a minimum of integration, will be taken into account. And then the disease. This criterion is included in the new legislation. by

Finally, the conditions or humanitarian arguments. by

On this last point, I have challenged you several times. I even invited you to “objectivize” humanitarian circumstances. by

Some cases will be unanimous, inside and outside this hemicycle. Everyone will agree to say that they do not enter the criteria, but that the minister must intervene. That is why I consider that the three criteria I have just recalled correspond to a consistent case-law that was agreed in 2003.

Like the mr. Maene, some would like to be able to go further, and that is good war. But, for my part, I stick to what was agreed in 2003.

In other words, who should decide? Is it a commission? Is it an advisory committee? Is it a committee, with the exclusion of the minister? Is it the Minister? by

I know the role of the committees. It consists of making decisions or quasi-decisions. But if some do not satisfy some, we call on your servant. Things have always been like this!

If, at some point, it is said that it is the asylum authorities or the regulation commissions that decide, and not the minister, it is still the latter who remains competent to remove people. Thus, they will come to tell me that the commission has marked a refusal and they will ask me that the decision of expulsion be broken on the pretext that this decision falls within my competence, my ministerial responsibility. This is the kind of reasoning that I do not accept. by

I have consulted several of my predecessors. This is indeed a ministerial competence, although I do not like it very much! You can call me at any time. From the moment, when the backback has been resorbed, I remain competent when it comes to humanitarian conditions. by

I have repeatedly requested that I be proposed amendments to define humanitarian reasons. What is meant by humanitarian reasons?

It was impossible to find a satisfactory answer. That is why we decided to leave this point to the discretion of the Minister. I will apply the case-law that has been in place since 2003. If in 2007 there is another government and another government agreement, it is the right of voters.

Please be brief, Mr. Drèze, for you will have the word immediately after Mr. Drèze. and Anthus.

This is a delicate issue that has been discussed. You will agree, Mr. Minister, that the plea you repeated today has led us to choose a sovereign committee and not a committee that gives an opinion to the minister. Three weeks ago, you yourself spontaneously submitted this debate to the committee by asking us whether we want a sovereign committee or a decision of the minister. If you have agreed to put this point into debate, it is that you believe in the possibility of a sovereign commission. by

Second, you would not at that time be without political responsibility: you would be responsible for the criteria. When the State Council makes a decision on administrative proceedings, it is not contested. The rules are clear and they are respected.

Mr. Dresden, you will explain yourself longer. I have nothing against interruptions, you know, you know my temperament but, at some times, you have to let the speaker regain the thread of his ideas.

Two answers to the minister on humanitarian criteria: I invite you to read the bill I submitted and which states humanitarian criteria for integration. You do not seem to have read it, but I will give you a copy of the criteria of the bill as soon as I come down from the tribune. If you have them, read them. If not, I’ll read them, but then I’ll be too long. by

If you do not accept the criteria I propose, the question is different. You do not want Ecolo criteria, but you do not propose other criteria in the law.

Mrs. Nagy, in 18:00 we will see who decides in one direction or the other. The debate will be concluded by a vote. Your amendments are submitted, the House will decide and you and I must submit to them.

Let me answer the Minister. Second, there is the question of the Commission. You choose to leave the decision to the Minister. The proposals of the PS and the cdH go in the same direction as ours: it seems to us that this works better with a commission.

You disagree, but the argument you use is not fair because, in the asylum procedure you establish today, it is the CGRA that makes the decision whether to grant or not asylum.

If the asylum authorities decide not to grant the status, you have no competence in the matter, it is the CGRA that decides independently. In this case too, Mr. Minister, you can be interrogated on the asylum policy of Belgium, you can be interrogated on the fact that you are expelling people. It is well felt that this is a matter that does not hold you ⁇ close to heart but the responsibility, as Minister of the Interior, you will have it in all systems, whether you like it or not, including in the system that you set up as part of the new asylum procedure.

It seems to me that this is an argument that is not at all relevant.

People who have been living in Belgium for many years with school children receive negative decisions and are expelled. Others have waited for years for a final decision in their asylum procedure, have appealed to the State Council and, at the end of the race, the regularization of their stay is refused. The government focused during this legislature on increasing seats in closed centers, on the intensification of expulsions. Wings for families with children were created in closed centres, child detention became normal under the violet government to the point that the High Commissioner for Refugees drew Belgian attention to the systematic use of this practice.

The issue of paperless people is in front of our eyes every day. About forty places in Belgium are occupied by people in distress who ask only one thing, that the arbitrary of the Office of Foreigners be put to an end by entering in the law clear and permanent criteria of regularization!

I have therefore submitted a bill drawn up by the UDPE to introduce clear criteria for granting residence permits and establishing a permanent regularization commission according to the model that worked well in 1999.

In reality, by wanting to retain your discretionary power, Mr. Minister, you are sending yourself a bad signal so feared, since the Minister of the Interior proceeds to regularizations of paperless persons for so-called "exceptional" reasons that he must not motivate; for me, this is equivalent to saying that everyone has his chance in Belgium.

To the attention of my liberal colleagues who question whether an illegal situation allows for a regularization — they have not been so offended twice, when they regularized the tax situation of some by allowing them to repatriate capital under the DLU. by

I would like to quote the very liberal Minister Duquesne. In an official document, more specifically in the explanation of the reasons during the debate on regularization in 1999, the Minister of the Interior said: “It would be completely useless to consider this regularization operation, punctual and limited in time, if nothing was done simultaneously in order that in the future we finally tackle the causes of clandestinity. The slowness of the current asylum procedure and the insufficient material execution of the decisions on removal are at the root of the clandestinity phenomenon we know today. by

As I mentioned, the regularization operation responds to the need to repair the situation. Realism,” says Minister Duquesne, a liberal among the liberals, “obliges us to see that tens of thousands of orders to leave the territory have not been executed. It would be exaggerated to deduce that today, on our territory, there are as many clandestines as orders to leave the territory that have not been executed. Some foreigners have left. Others were able to be subject to family reunification, others were regularized.

The government’s approach is definitely positive. Individuals who have so far attempted to integrate, despite the difficulties of clandestinity, and who have even illegally contributed their part to the development of the socio-economic life, must be allowed to remain in Belgium.

Regularization helps to heal the situation, reduce problems of public order, and effectively fight against networks that exploit poverty through chains of prostitution or economic exploitation.”

It was Minister Duquesne who spoke so, in 1999, regarding a law that the Liberals also voted for.

Today we are in a situation similar to that of 1999. In fact, the procedures were not reformed in time. It was necessary to wait until 2006 for the asylum procedure to be reformed, for the State Council to be reformed and for an administrative appeal court for foreigners and asylum seekers to be established. But nothing is proposed to settle the fate of those who have had to suffer long procedures. 26,000 files are currently in the State Council. by

In addition, the latter told us that it would take 10 to 15 years to resolve this backward. More than 10,000 cases have been submitted to the Appeal Commission. The same goes for the Foreign Office. by

The reform proposed by the majority is therefore quite banal. What to do with these files? What to do with these people? Can humanitarian emergency be ignored? Can we ignore the suffering of some? by

At the beginning of my speech, I spoke to you of solidarity with these “shadow workers”, with these men and women without rights.

Asylum issues must be distinguished from immigration issues. But when one deceives the citizens, whether one deceives oneself by legislating only on compulsory protection under international conventions and treaties to which Belgium adheres without wanting to take into account the movements of populations that mark our time, one shows a lack of lucidity and vision.

There is a direct link between the vote of the law and the expulsions of the paperless from the church of Anderlecht. by

By adopting the Dewael project without providing a solution for paperless people, the message is clear. The vote of the law that must take place before the parliamentary holidays, coupled with the fact that the appeal before the Council of State is not suspensive, makes that all paperless are now expellable.

The way asylum and legalization are addressed is clear. There is a real difference between a rainbow majority and a violet majority. Ecolo has always made legalization an important political issue. For the current majority, this is obviously not a major political point!

The VLD and MR have never been applicants: even in 1999, this was not part of their program. On the other hand, it is curious to see the PS and sp.a invoke an insufficient majority to adopt regularization criteria. The PS has mostly given the impression that it does not want to make it a government issue and promises to introduce the issue in the government statement of 2007, after the legislative elections. Why should we believe in this commitment when the PS has retreated, afraid of provoking a government crisis?

This is a major betrayal: the PS was of all manners, of all debates. He made bill proposals in February last year, he even voted the amendments I submitted, but he still votes this bancal bill. There is an unacceptable distance between actions and words.

In conclusion, Mr. President, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, ECOLO will not support the government’s project. New restrictions on the right to asylum and family reunification, difficulties in ensuring the rights of defence and the lack of responses to situations of clandestinity largely justify this rejection.

In accordance with the opinion of the Convention of the Presidents of this morning, I propose you to include in the agenda of the Plenary Session of tomorrow afternoon, the following bills: - the bill giving consent to Protocol No. 2 to the European Framework Convention on Cross-border Cooperation between the Government of Belgium and the Territorial Authorities of the Russian Federation, signed in Moscow on 22 December 2004 (transmitted by the Senate) (proposal No. 2559/1) made in Strasbourg on 5 May 1998 (transmitted by the Senate) (no. 2558/1); - the bill bringing consent to the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance (Protocol No. 2558/1) signed by the Government of Canada in matters relating to the Ports of October 2001/A/A of the Government of Brussels, (combating the Sentency of Brussels, the Sentency of Russia to the 13th degree of the Order of May 2005; - the bill bringing consent to the Agreement on Mutual Administrative Assistance and the Agreement of 2962/A of

In accordance with the opinion of the Conference of Presidents of this morning, I propose that you include the following bills on the agenda of the plenary session of tomorrow afternoon: - the bill approving Protocol No. European Framework Agreement on cross-border cooperation between territorial communities or authorities concerning interterritorial cooperation, made at Strasbourg on 5 May 1998 (transmitted by the Senate) 2558/1); - the draft law approving the Consular Agreement between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Russian Federation, signed in Moscow on 22 December 2004 (transmitted by the Senate) (nr. 2559/1); - the bill approving the Agreement on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Customs Matters between the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium and the Government of the Russian Federation, signed in Brussels on 2 October 2001 (transmitted by the Senate) (no. 2560/1); - the draft law approving the Agreement between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Government of Canada on the Working Holiday Program, signed in Brussels on 29 April 2005 (transmitted by the Senate) (nr. 2561/1); - the draft law approving the Protocol no. 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention, made in Strasbourg on 13 May 2004 (transmitted by the Senate) 2562/1); - the bill extending to certain former warriors and war victims the free medical care through the intermediation of the Institute for Veterans - National Institute for War Invalids, former warriors and war victims (transmitted by the Senate) (no. and 2576/1).

Je vous propose également d'inscrire à notre ordre du jour demain, le projet de loi modifiant la loi ordinaire du 16 juillet 1993 visant à achever la structure fédérale de l'État (no. 2596/1). I also propose to you on the agenda of the morning afternoon the bill amending the ordinary law of 16 July 1993 on the completion of the federal state structure (No. 2596/1) to be registered.

Finally, I propose that the plenary session begin at 14 o’clock. Tot slot stel ik u voor de plenary vergadering te beginnen om 14 h.

Without any observation? (No) It will be so.

Without any objection? (No) It will be so.

I would like to ask you a question about how the work is organized. It seems to me that different citizens would like to attend the debates from the tribune, to hear us, but are prevented from doing so.

Can you tell me more about the rules you might have applied, your decision on the matter and the case-law that led you to make such a decision? In fact, obviously, some can enter and others cannot.

Mr. Nollet, last week I submitted to the Conference of Presidents a decision I made and I communicate to you; it allows the police of this assembly to authorize access to identifiable persons. That is all.

You can only sit here when the doors are open. Then the video room below is used for the moment: it is occupied by cameras, through our internet, as you know. I requested, given certain problems encountered in the commission, that access be allowed to the public, regardless of their nationality, provided that it is identifiable. The discussion at the Conference of Presidents gave rise to the drafting of a small note of instructions, not secret, which was sent about ten days ago. I am looking for it in my file. by

This is primarily a technical issue: some people have papers that are unfortunately not accompanied by a photo: this leads to identification problems. That is all. Identifiable people are perfectly permitted to come; others can follow us from the video room.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that you do not have this note on you, but the problem is not there. This is more a matter of principle and good understanding: what do you call someone identifiable? I think someone who is present here is perfectly identifiable. You are free to take a photo of him, but he is identifiable.

It is appropriate that a person has a document, or even two documents, where his names and his photo are found, and that both correspond: he is then identifiable.

Anyone who has only one document on which there is no photo can pass it to whoever they want, if no other document accompanies it.

I will find the note in question. Of course, I expected this question. I will bring it to you in a moment so that you can see the instructions I have given. You can come to see me at that time if you want to.

I am one of the most attentive to our discussions being followed. If you want to check in the video room, I found this intermediate solution.

I am sorry that you have created two categories of citizens. We will see who supported this decision.

Mr. Nollet, now I’m going to be a little harder! A few weeks ago, people returned to this Chamber who were chained to pillars in the peristyle. However, when passing through the detectors, it is impossible to pass with metal. These people are probably passed through the “complicity” of other people. I filed a complaint by being a civil party on behalf of the Chamber.

I have to make sure that things go right. I do not accuse anyone, I wanted to take this precaution and I assume it!

Anyone who wants to follow the debates has the opportunity to follow them. In a Room like this, we have the right, when people — there are many — are at the tribune, to be able to identify them.

Are you sure that these people had no papers?

They went home without showing their papers. They probably entered under the cover—I am very careful! members of the staff or members of that assembly.

I will now read you exactly the instructions that I gave on June 29 and that I communicated to the Conference of Presidents.

Access to the House of Representatives.

You should give, until the beginning of the parliamentary holidays, any useful instruction to your staff in order not to allow access to the premises of the House of Representatives and to the House of Parliamentarians but to persons "foreign" to our institutions with a badge or able to declare in an undoubted way their identity on the faith of evidence. In support of the evidence in question, any document carrying a photo with mention of the person's name and surname may be admitted."

I will give you this document in a moment.

I communicated this to the Conference of Presidents, but your group is unfortunately not sitting there, I let you observe.

For everything else, there is the greatest possible freedom. This is the only precaution I have taken after the few incidents that occurred in the commission.

Mr. Speaker, if I understand you correctly, this text is valid for the whole area of the House.

It is valid for access to the premises of the House of Representatives and the House of Parliamentarians.

You tell me they are in a room...

They were able to identify. I will check this last point, if you want to.

Anyone who can be identified can enter and can choose the place.

Normally, if the person has presented his/her identity card or any other valid identity document, he/she can enter. I will check this detail and I will give you this document directly.

Mr. Speaker, I have here the documents of people who are at the bottom of the video room: a Belgian identity card, a Belgian registration certificate with photo, another identity card...

I will check this.

Everyone should be able to attend the debate. This is an important element.

I will check your words because my instructions are not meant to get there. I will ask that the instructions I have given be observed.

I ask that the debate be interrupted as long as these people cannot attend.

I am the one who leads the debate.

( ... ...

I told you that I was checking it. It is the President who leads the debate. Mr. Anthony, you have the word.

( ... ...

I have no lesson to receive.

I would like to continue my speech.

The cameras noticed it, Mrs. I suggest that you leave me to speak now.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, I would like to make it clear that our group fully supports the government’s migration policy, and more specifically the Interior Minister’s policy. We can confidently say that in the field of migration results have been achieved in recent years. Anyone with a bit of norm consciousness knows that the migration problem is not an easy problem.

Objectively, it can also be calmly said that this government and this minister control and maintain the migration waves. Also with the two drafts we discuss today, we are taking huge steps forward to keep the migration problem under further control. The more I hear the extremes of the word, the more I become convinced!

As repeatedly stated during the discussions in the Committee on Home Affairs, the VLD group, like a number of other groups, stands for a fair but humane and realistic asylum and migration policy.

( ... )

That human and realistic character is ⁇ reflected in the bills presented and ⁇ not always in your proposals, Mr. Annemans.

In fact, I have agreed that the population, the mainstream in Belgium and Flanders, is also behind a humane and realistic asylum and migration policy. The majority of the population believes that people who are being persecuted anywhere in the world because of their religion, nationality or skin color should be welcomed. The average Belgian has no problem with some kind of subsidiary protection for people who cannot return to their country, as provided for in the present draft law. The average Belgian also has no problem with the fact that people who are sick are not returned to their country. And when we talk about family reunification; also there, the vast majority of our population thinks that people who want to marry their beloved should be able to do so across national boundaries.

At the same time, Mr. De Man, the overwhelming majority of the population believes that the abuses that people make of our legislation must be addressed. That there are some abuses, however, must be clear. People, assisted by specialized lawyers, continue proceedings to...

Can I let Mr. Anthuenis finish his speech?

I was interrupted 15 times this morning.

I would like to give you the word, but I would like a speaker to finish his speech. There are parliaments where one does not interrupt and then I do not even have to look far. Mr. Anthuenis, make your point and then I will let you interrupt by Mr. De Man.

But, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Anthuenis apparently has different polls than we do. He claims everything about overwhelming majorities for example asylum policy or family formation here. Mr. Anthuenis, can you give a few examples of this or are you now dreaming?

Do not let me speak, Mr. De Man. I was just saying that the overwhelming majority of the population also believes that the abuses that people make of our legislation should be addressed, that there are a number of abuses and that that in the meantime also should be obvious: people are assisted by specialized lawyers who continue to proceed to get that residence permit anyway or, worse, people are trying to get a final residence permit on the basis of false statements or, worse, organizations are putting a lucrative trade in people on their feet.

In that sense, it is a very good thing, Mr. Minister, that the draft provides for a sensitive acceleration of the asylum procedure in the first place. The aim should be to have results after a maximum of one year. In this sense, it is also a very good thing to provide for a protection status for victims of human trafficking and human trafficking. In this sense, it is also very good that there are a number of stricter conditions for the system of so-called family reunification. The problem of family reunification is far more extensive than the problem of asylum. These include the age requirement of 21 years, the fact that the family must be housed in a suitable home and the fact that the family must stay together for three years in order to obtain the final residence permit. These conditions will avoid a lot of fraud and also a lot of misery.

That is not true. We must remember, however, that we do not really do a service to some people by bringing them here or letting them come here. I myself, as mayor, am faced weekly with young, immigrant girls of 18 or 19 years old who marry at the request of their parents, with the best intentions, come here, in our case do not speak Dutch, are not always left free by their husband to integrate into our society and also to their children do not teach Dutch, with all the consequences of this.

Mr. Minister, also in terms of combating abuses, I think that the public will definitely and firmly agree.

Mr. De Man, you spoke almost an hour, with many interruptions, I was told. I know that, but let Mr. Anthuenis finish his reasoning. interrupt once.

and once?

Underbreek is now.

Why are there quotas on interruptions for Flemish Belongers and for others not? Why are there quotas for us?

Have you ever been able to give a quota to someone? You may deserve a quota if you continue to do so. Then interrupt it.

At the plenary session, Mr. Anthuenis tells the exact opposite about the intensification of family formation, because he says in a committee that the countries from which the vast majority of family formers come from are exactly not covered by the new regime. What is he telling here now?

Mr. De Man, if you can exercise patience for a moment, we will come to it.

This brings me to the discussion of a number of amendments and a number of sensitive points that were addressed in the committee. First and foremost, some members of parliament and political groups advocated the inclusion in the law of the criteria used in the context of an individual regularization. My group and myself do not believe that this would be a good solution. The proposed criteria remain arbitrary and, as the Minister has already said, certain criteria remain difficult to define. What, for example, falls under the so-called pressing humanitarian conditions? I think it is good that the Minister has an individual appreciation space. This is not a form of arbitrariness but, on the contrary, leaves room for a human approach. I think even Mr. De Man is on our wavelength in this regard.

There is also the problem related to the so-called filter at the Council of State. During the hearings, it has been shown that there are some doubts here and there as to whether the proposed reforms will overcome the backwardness in the State Council. This is difficult to estimate in advance. In any case, I think it is already good that an amendment was approved that proposes to evaluate the included filter after a period of 1 year.

Mrs Lanjri, some MPs also noted that the conditions of family reunification can be even stricter. Income requirements are not widespread and there are no conditions for integration readiness. Mr. De Man, I admit that I myself would have preferred to have the income craving generally, as in our neighboring countries. We have not succeeded in doing so, but the conditions of health insurance and adequate housing may also already be indications that the family reunifier has sufficient means of subsistence.

In terms of integration readiness, there is the responsibility of the provinces. We must also acknowledge this. Flanders, for example, already imposes a mandatory citizenship route for all newcomers. So I think we should not worry about this for the time being.

Mr. De Man, that does not mean that the problem of family reunification is the job. There is currently no solution for family reunification with EU citizens. This is subject to a different EU directive and you have said in the committee that the draft is in preparation. We can expect this here in the coming months.

Mr. De Man, you have a point when you talk about the problem of the existing bilateral agreements with, among others, Morocco, Turkey and Algeria. They also need to be adapted to the conditions in this draft. I have understood that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is willing to renegotiate these agreements. It is intended to go step by step with this draft first and then the bilateral negotiations.

Regarding party-political discussions, it is clear that the migration problem is also sensitive within the various political groups and that the migration problem goes beyond the narrow party-political cricket lines. I would like to advise Ms. Nagy to contact the green friends on the other side of the language border. Ms. Vogels, who has already been part of the Antwerp City Board and currently sits in the OCMW Council.

She has a slightly different opinion on this, especially with regard to the problem of family reunification. Mr Drèze would also be allowed to contact his Christian-Democratic friends of CD&V, assuming that they are all on the same wavelength. I have the impression that Mr. De Crem is not always on the same wavelength as that of his ACW colleagues.

Ms. Douifi’s speech in the plenary session was different than in the committee. The first statement was not fully in accordance with Mr Nimmegeers’ statements.

Even within the Flemish Belang, not everyone is on the same wavelength. Mr De Man apparently does not participate in the voting in the committee where the Tastenhoye proposal is in favour of giving the minister the authority to regularise. Also within the Flemish Interest group there are friction. For all clarity, my colleagues. The VLD can live with the fact that there are friction within a number of factions. That is the essence of democracy. Let everyone speak about this project. Those who are in favour vote for and those who are against vote against. Per ⁇ Mr. Tastenhoye will vote yes. We will see. That is the essence of democracy!

I come to my decision. Mr. Minister, the legislative amendments contained in the present drafts take away the approval of the overwhelming majority of the population. These are two highly balanced designs that were preceded by a lot of work and consultation. The Minister and the Government can confidently and firmly count on the full support of the VLD group.

I will resolve the incident soon. I have checked some things; it will be settled.

Mr. Speaker, the House Internal Affairs Committee adopted last Monday the bills of Minister Dewael concerning the access to the territory, the stay, the establishment and the removal of foreigners and reforming the State Council by creating a Council of Foreign Disputes.

For the CDH, this is a failed act of the government because the reform will be doubly ineffective. by

First, because the procedure will remain abnormally long, given the lack of effective filter at the entry of the appeal in cassation to the State Council, which will continue to generate backwardness and clandestinity. The Socialist Party has a huge responsibility here. by

Then, because the current backbone (in total close to 50,000 pending files) will not be resorbed and will prevent us from getting back on the right foot due to the lack of regularization and credible additional means. The liberals carry a heavy responsibility here, with the guilty complicity of the Socialist Party.

This is a failure of the government also because the reform does not provide any response to the proposals of Udep and NGOs.

For the past, there is no answer to the 100,000 paperless people present in Belgium: neither regularization, nor expulsion, but maintenance in clandestinity. For the future, the possibilities for regularization are narrowed and there is no criterion for regularization; opacity, arbitrariness and politicization will continue.

Mr. Minister, your party, the VLD, accepted the 1999 regularization operation on the grounds that this operation would be unique. It would have been so if the rainbow government had, at the same time, drastically shortened the deadlines within which asylum authorities must decide. However, it is only seven years later that you present to us a project intended to reduce these deadlines to a maximum of 12 months, possible appeal to the State Council included.

During these seven years, you have generated backwardness, lasting attachments and clandestinity. I mean by “clandestinity” those thousands of people who, at the end of their asylum application procedure, are confronted with a contradictory message from the public authority. An appeal to the Council of State does not suspend the order to leave the territory they have received but, on the other hand, allows them to benefit from financial social assistance if they remain in Belgium.

Today, you think that by putting a Ferrari engine in your 2CV, you will catch up the lost time. Mr. Minister, by attaching a trailer loaded with 50,000 files, your car is actually condemned on the ground.

I add that on the fiscal level, the majority did not hesitate to establish a permanent regime of regularization, while the year before, they had sworn to their great gods that the liberatory declaration would be unique. So I do not understand that on the humanitarian level you reject a second regularization operation, seven years after the first, knowing the responsibility of the public authority that I described.

After two days of hearing and a month of parliamentary work, the only significant amendment of the majority is that which provides for an evaluation of the filter one year after its entry into force. The CDH is very concerned, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, that it is the whole work that must be returned to the profession within a year. So it is with very little pleasure that myself and my group are preparing to vote on these two bills. by

The first is intended to amend the law of 15 December 1980, in particular on matters such as obtaining the refugee status, the establishment of a subsidiary protection status, family reunification and the related procedure. The second project aims first to reform the State Council by introducing new rules of management, a process of evaluation of the members of the State Council and rules for simplifying the procedure. Subsequently, this project creates the Council of Foreign Disputes (CCE), a new administrative body called to replace the Permanent Refugee Appeal Commission. by

These projects have, of course, positive points. Belgium had to immediately transpose two European directives into Belgian law: the definitions specific to the Geneva Convention and the establishment of the status of subsidiary protection. The projects also provide for clear rules on family reunification, a new asylum procedure that is generally sought to be faster, a more effective protection mechanism for victims of human trafficking, a new administrative court to replace the Permanent Refugee Appeal Commission, rules for simplifying procedures that will allow the State Council to save time, specific treatment for seriously ill persons, etc.

However, many elements are missing and others are frankly critical. I will follow our twelve main critics. by

First criticism: the project does not always respect the rights of defence as enshrined in the Convention on Human Rights in that it introduces, during the procedure, too short time limits for appeal that do not allow the applicant to prepare his defence effectively. I am speaking in particular of the 24-hour period at the disposal of the applicant who wishes to bring an appeal in suspension of his order to leave the territory before the Council of the Litigation of Foreigners. Within 24 hours, the applicant is asked to contact his lawyer or, if not, another lawyer who may be able to draft a suspension appeal with all the formalities that accompany him. This appeal is practically impossible to implement. Our 19 amendment aims to remedy this situation by extending the deadline to five days.

Proposal no. 2479 provides, in its article 155, that in the event that the applicant does not appear at the hearing before the CCE, his request will be automatically rejected.

Our amendment No. 17 aims to clarify that the application will only be rejected if the applicant’s absence is unjustified.

Amendment No. 18 aims to allow better access for lawyers and their parties to the decisions of the State Council which are currently not accessible in their entirety; this amendment at the same time reduces the number of dilatory appeals.

Article 176 aims to allow CCE magistrates to fix hearings in closed centres on Sundays and public holidays. Our 23 amendment aims to remove this possibility due to the difficulties for the applicant to have the services of his lawyer in these circumstances.

Article 153 sets a period of 15 days for the asylum seeker to appeal before the ECC and, in other cases, a period of 30 days. This proposed provision introduces a difference of treatment incompatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. Our 24 amendment aims to restore a 30-day time limit for asylum seekers to appeal.

Finally, Article 65 sets out a procedure for granting residence for victims of human trafficking. Our 62 amendment aims to allow victims to use a lawyer for legal assistance during their proceedings.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the lawyers who came to the parliament to demonstrate in togo on June 29 persuaded me that the questioning of the rights of defence deserves, in itself, a crisis of government. When I hear in the media some prominent lawyers of the majority, especially Mr. Giet, to say that the two bills that are submitted to us today constitute an advance that must be supported, I am won by perplexity.

Second criticism: Residence permits issued to refugees are no longer automatically unlimited, as the Geneva Convention requires. Our amendment No. 54 aims to make this residence permit unlimited.

Furthermore, the definitions of the asylum directives are not always properly transposed. Therefore, our amendment 25 aims to clarify that non-individualized group persecution can justify the recognition of refugee status; our amendment 26 aims to redefine the notion of non-state protection agent in the circumstances of internal escape and to mark it. Finally, Amendment 27 specifies that a reasonable fear of being persecuted may be based on events that have taken place since the applicant has left the country of origin.

According to the project, seriously ill persons and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status will have to wait five years before obtaining an unlimited stay. Our amendments 23 and 28 reduce this period to three years. It is generally accepted that after three years of asylum procedure, it becomes inhumane to return a family of asylum seekers to their country of origin.

Our amendment No. 94 concerns applicants who will be granted a subsidiary protection status once this law comes into force.

In order to obtain an unlimited stay, the years spent in the territory with a humanitarian clause shall be accounted for due to the dangers they would have incurred if they had been re-reported to the border of their country of origin.

Third criticism: the project transforms the Foreign Office into a genuine administrative support in the processing of applications from other instances but confers to it certain powers that it is not able to examine in substance and for which the CGRA seems more competent such as, for example, the examination of new elements brought by the outdated asylum applicant who wishes to submit a request for regularization.

Our Amendment No. 29 aims to entrust this examination to the CGRA more likely, in our opinion, to be in charge of this task.

Fourth critical: the procedure of family reunification. While the project makes it clearer in the law, it is significantly more severe and requires many conditions often difficult to access for grouping it with average economic income. Despite the time limits set by the text, the process of regrouping can still take a lot of time.

Our 6 amendment aims to allow the recognised refugee to bring his ascendants as long as they are in his charge.

Our Amendment No. 9 ⁇ ins the obligation for the grouping of a disabled child to have sufficient income but removes the obligation that these are stable and regular. This could indeed impose on the grouping party an obligation to benefit from an indefinite employment contract, an excessive condition for the grouping given the current characteristics of the labour market.

Our amendment No. 10 provides for the possibility that sufficient income conditions can also be met by the grouped and not only by the grouping party, as provided in the project.

Our amendments no. 14, 49 and 96 provide for the possibility to introduce the application for regrouping from the Belgian territory by the regrouping party and not only from its country of origin by the regrouped party, as is limited to the project.

Our amendments no. 15 and 19 provide for the issuance of a document attesting the date of submission of the application. It is in fact necessary to set a starting point from which the time limit imposed on the administration to make its decision on the application for family reunification can begin to run.

Our amendments no. 16, 21 and 22 are intended to reduce the time to review the application for merger by the administration. According to the project, it may take up to a total of fifteen months before making a final decision.

Amendment No. 20 specifies that in the absence of a “notified” and not “taken” decision, as provided for in the draft, there is recognition of admission to residence, once the period during which the Office of Foreigners must make the decision has expired. Indeed, the date of the decision, unlike the notification, is difficult to verify and, in the absence of effective means of control, the risk of abuse cannot be completely excluded.

Our amendment No. 37 aims to expand the possibility for the grouping member to bring not only his or her adult children with disabilities, as provided by the project, but also those who are objectively unable to provide for their own needs.

Amendments 45 and 44 specify that before rejecting the application for reunification and deciding on the withdrawal of a right of residence, the nature and solidity of family ties must be duly taken into account, in particular in the case of separation of a couple, the existence of common children.

Our 47 amendment aims not only to limit the benefit of the provisions guaranteeing the grant of an autonomous residence permit to victims of domestic violence, but also to those living in ⁇ difficult situations, such as widowhood, divorce, separation or death.

The Systematic Detention Mechanism (Art. 74) which prevails in the draft is critical in that it omits the fact that an application for asylum is first and foremost a request for protection It is therefore nonsense for a rule of law to detain persons who request this protection. Many international organizations, including UNHCR and Amnesty International, have denounced the imprisonment of asylum seekers, ⁇ in Belgium. Detention must remain an exceptional measure, such as in the case where the applicant presents a real danger to public order or leaves the control of the public authority. Nevertheless, the project systematizes detention in a whole series of hypotheses. It is unnecessary to specify that detention induces stress in the applicant, which reinforces the applicant’s difficulties in correctly expressing themselves during the hearings, not to mention the difficulties of access to legal information, to a lawyer, and to the means of evidence that he might claim. Amendment No. 58 aims to remove some quite excessive presumptions of detention which appear to have no other purpose than to send the message to the countries of origin that Belgium is not the country to be visited.

In terms of detention, the text does not provide any alternative to avoiding the detention of children in closed centres. The alternative of assignment to residence or open center with the obligation to appear at regular intervals before the competent authorities, the alternative presented by the CDH with our amendment 105, does not find favor in the eyes of the minister. He considers that this measure is automatically doomed to failure, although no such experiment has ever taken place in Belgium. A petition gathering 18,000 “no” to the detention of children was sent, at the end of June, to the Interior Minister. Our amendment No. 103 aims to prohibit in the future the detention of children in closed centres. by

According to our fellow sp.a., Magda De Meyer, a recent study conducted in Britain by South Bank University shows that only 2% of released candidates escape.

In the closed centre of Vottem, where a wing for families was opened from March 22 to June 27, 2006, no family could be repatriated. by

Mrs. De Meyer, Mr. Boukourna and Mr. Maene joins us and UNHCR to verbally denounce the imprisonment of families with children in closed centers and dismantle their uselessness. It is a pity that their beliefs suddenly disappear at the time of voting! Nevertheless, on this point, there is an alternative majority and socialist voices can make things change immediately. Instead, you are content with a vague promise of further study! What a capitulation!

Seventh criticism: the project also ignores the problem of unaccompanied minors who arrive on the territory and who do not benefit from any special procedure rules while they have not yet reached the majority. by

The fate of the MENA remains governed discretionarily by the Minister of the Interior while it is important that any decision concerning them is taken by an instance that has the purpose of expressing its opinion on the interests of minors without privileging elements related to a migration policy.

Our 38 amendment aims to remove the obligation for the MENA to meet the housing and health insurance requirements in order to be able to bring their parents.

Our 91 amendment aims to grant a three-month residence right to the MENA from its arrival on the territory until it is decided on a lasting solution that suits it and not a declaration of arrival, precarious residence permit, which is currently given to the MENA and extended to override. Our amendment also aims to give the Youth Court the power to decide on a lasting solution. Eighth criticism: although the draft removes the admissibility phase at the Foreign Office, it still provides for the CGRA the possibility to use admissibility criteria (Article 44) to reject an asylum application. This processing can lead to the rejection of persons in need of international protection and therefore involves the risk of a breach by Belgium of its international obligations.

Our amendment No. 98 provides that rejection decisions cannot be motivated solely on the basis of these admissibility criteria.

The ninth critic. As for the project's efforts to reduce the workload and the backwardness of the State Council (simplified procedural rules, additional temporary staff), they will ⁇ have been consented in vain. The filter mechanism, which aims to also reduce the number of appeals, will only have a very relative utility in that it devotes, as a second criterion, the violation of the law. This criterion of violation of the law can be defined very flexibly since many elements can be interpreted as constituting a violation of the law.

The CDH proposed, as instructed by the State Council itself, to replace this criterion with a question of principle law through its 11th amendment. The majority followed this position since they in turn submitted an amendment that was going in the same direction but which they subsequently withdrew, after requesting — full of irony or indecency, it is according to — an opinion of the State Council on its own proposal. We would like to play with the feet of the State Council that we would not do it otherwise!

The text remains as it is with an inoperative filter that will not prevent a new backward from weighing even more the one that already exists. Therefore, the duration of the asylum procedure will in no way be reduced.

Four amendments aim to supplement Majority Amendment No. 34, which sets out an evaluation process the year following the implementation of the filter, by specifying that this evaluation must be transmitted to Parliament (Amendment No. 37) — this is the least of the things — by also adding that in case of negative evaluation, the criterion of breach of law provided by the filter will be replaced by a question of principle law (Amendment No. 35) and that the duration of the procedure before the State Council will be taken into account for long procedural regulations introduced before 1 July 2006 (Amendments No. 36 and 46). The tenth criticism: Article 31 of the draft reform of the State Council adds to the coordinated laws a new section concerning the assessment of the members of the Council, the audit board, the coordination office and the members of the secretariat. The authors of the project were therefore inspired by the Octopus reforms applicable to the judicial world. Nevertheless, this assessment system would have needed to be evaluated and, if necessary, improved at the level of what is being implemented in the judicial world, before being applied as it was in the State Council.

As part of the Octopus reform, the assessing magistrates complained of the enormous workload generated by the ⁇ heavy assessment procedure. Furthermore, such a system applied to the State Council risks also causing unnecessary waste of time and energy at a time when the effort should focus on the resorption of the back.

One of the main criticisms issued by the magistrates following the proposed reform of the Magistrates Assessment Regime of the Supreme Council of Justice is that, I quote: “The current regime does not proceed with a positive approach but it puts more emphasis on penalization. Rather than pushing for the improvement of the work of magistrates, the essentially repressive character of the evaluation results in the opposite result, namely provoking the demoralization of magistrates.”

Our amendments 11, 12 and 14 aim to remove the over-regulation introduced by the draft in relation to what is already provided by the coordinated laws on the State Council.

Eleventh criticism: If a new administrative court is welcome, one can regret the lack of power granted to the Council of the Foreign Dispute. First, he has no instructional powers and secondly, he only knows about asylum applications. As regards the rest of the litigation (family reunification and visa), it has only a power of cancellation and reform. The text also introduces a procedure for dismissal of magistrates sitting in the CCE, a procedure completely contrary to the principle of independence of magistrates.

Our amendment No. 21 aims to remove this possibility. Our amendment No. 26 aims to give the CCE full jurisdiction over the decisions of the Office of Foreigners. Our Amendment No. 26 gives the ECC an instructional and injunctional power with respect to the decisions of the CGRA.

Twelfth criticism: if there is one area for which the project remains scandalously silent, it is indeed the despair of the thousands of paperless people who live on our territory. None of the articles of the bills concerns their fate. No objective criteria has been inserted in the text to dispel the uncertainty in which many of them have been immersed for so long. Many of them wanted to make their suffering heard by peacefully occupying more than forty places and, among them, some began a hunger strike. Nevertheless, this movement now lives in the terror of a violent expulsion, like the one that took place last Wednesday in Anderlecht.

Mr. Minister, I received, a few hours ago, a press release that I will give you, coming from 35 people imprisoned in Vottem. Since we no longer have a committee as we are approaching parliamentary holidays, I will submit a written question on this subject. I would like, since I will no longer have the opportunity, to quote a few passages from this press release.

"In the center of Vottem, when you are sick, you have to wait several days before being examined by a doctor." “There are people in Vottem who have bought their own air ticket, who have a valid passport or travel certificate and who not only ask to return to their country of their own will but who the Foreign Office continues to keep in detention for several months.” “Is it normal?” ask these people, with or without papers, locked in Vottem.

Mr. Minister, I would like to ask you to consider this point through my written question.

The statement continues: “There are people that the court council chamber releases, in Liège, in Brussels or elsewhere, but that the Office of Foreigners keeps in detention by appealing repeatedly. So is there no justice in this country for foreigners?” they ask. So what are the courts for? Wouldn’t the judged thing have the force of a law that imposes on everyone, including ministers? Would the Minister of the Interior, and therefore the Office of Foreigners, be above Belgian laws?”

I quote a final passage: "At Zaventem airport, people are beaten, tied with gloves like the worst assassins, scotted like sausages and rolled with blows. In Vottem, several have filed complaints against the Office of Foreigners with as evidence medical certificates provided, in addition, by doctors of the center, but all this is stifled.

We denounce the attitude of certain embassies that erroneously issue permits. How can an embassy issue a passport to an asylum applicant? This is especially true of the DRC embassy Kinshasa whose consul sells passport similarities to the Foreign Office for 250 euros. The same goes for Togo, Conakry Guinea, Morocco and Cameroon.”

This document has been signed by 35 people. I will return the original in a moment.

Our amendments no. 63 and 64 aim to transpose, in the text, the proposal for regulation of the CDH which provides for a sovereign and permanent regulation commission as well as permanent regulation criteria and so-called "one-shot".

Our amendment No. 106, on the other hand, aims to incorporate the normalization criteria currently applied by the Minister of the Interior into a text of law.

To conclude, I will say this: Not long ago, our colleague JeanClaude Maene swore to his great gods that the Socialist Party would not return to a majority in 2007 without a regularization operation being inscribed in the government agreement.

For the CDH, this type of commitment can only be taken seriously if it is publicly affirmed by a party chairman. And then mr. Di Rupo has shown himself to be singularly discreet on this issue, as opposed to our President Joëlle Milquet whose public, regular and humanistic commitment to the side of the paperless is evident, whether it be ... (Protest on the banks of the Socialist Group) It seems that only the truth hurts!

... ... by initiating our proposals of laws, by protesting in the closed center of Vottem or in front of the buildings of the Foreign Office, by visiting the paperless of the church of Schaerbeek or in other occupied places.

In this particular case, people of heart and solidarity are more comfortable in the CDH or Ecolo than in the so-called socialist party.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, today we are dealing with two bills that fundamentally change the migration and asylum legislation. This is the most significant amendment to the Foreigners Act since 1980. The legal status of foreigners is strengthened on a number of very important points and aligned with three European directives.

But the new law also addresses a number of pain points and, for example, tightenes the possibilities for family reunification for family members of non-EU foreigners.

These bills have many ambitions. But let us also be modest: the designs do not have the ambition to address the push and pull factors that create global migration flows. With these designs, we try at most to manage and control the effects of those migration flows.

Mr. Minister, I would like to use this general discussion to join the general considerations you made at the committee meeting on the issue of migration, which is largely an international issue and cannot be solved only by strict rules on asylum and family reunification.

A much stronger development cooperation that can truly improve the situation in the countries of origin, a truly free world trade in which products from the third world get their full opportunities on the international markets, as well as a controlled migration that should not involve brainstrain, but a genuine interaction that should involve benefits for the Western countries and for the countries of origin, are necessary conditions for reducing those push and pull factors on migration. Mr. Minister, you and other members of the government have our explicit support in addressing these issues at European level.

Colleagues, these drafts contain numerous important achievements, such as the subsidiary protection status for foreigners who are unable to return to their country of origin for a number of gravitational reasons. The protection for victims of human trafficking in the form of a residence status is legally anchored. We also look forward to the study of alternatives to the accommodation of children in closed centres, as announced by the Minister during the discussions in the committee.

In my presentation, I would like to go a little deeper into the new asylum procedure. This procedure will be accelerated, and it is intended to provide an answer to every asylum application within the year. The procedure is also simplified by the abolition of the admissibility phase. The intervention of the Foreign Affairs Service is limited to a minimum. Above all, with the Council for Foreign Disputes comes a full jurisdictional control by a court with full jurisdiction.

This new procedure is a very good thing. I would like to congratulate the Minister on this progress. Nevertheless, with regard to the implementation of this procedure, there remain a number of questions, some of which can only be really answered when the procedure has worked for a while. I put them up for a moment.

First, there is concern that the admissibility criteria retained in Article 52 would be used to make substantive decisions based on purely formalist criteria. This fear was rejected by Mr. Van den Bulck during the hearings, but it is appropriate to emphasize that the application of these criteria must always verify whether there is an effective risk of prosecution.

Second, there is doubt that the Foreign Affairs Service, which in the future will in principle no longer intervene in the assessment of asylum applications, will still have sufficient field knowledge to judge with sufficient knowledge of matters on the elements for which it remains competent, in particular the assessment of new elements in a repeated asylum application. According to Mr. Roosemont of DVZ, it would only be the intention for DVZ to verify whether the new element actually exists. We will also have to look at this.

Thirdly, as regards the full jurisdiction of the Council on Foreign Disputes, there is a concern that the strict conditions that apply before new elements can be applied, as well as the lack of the Council’s own investigation powers, threaten to create a lack of legal protection.

Mr. Minister, just like for the filter for the procedure for the State Council, we give the draft on these elements today the advantage of doubt, but just as we will evaluate the functioning of the filter in a year, we will, according to spirit, have to see in a year whether these questions in practice get the satisfactory solution that was reflected to us during the discussions in the committee.

Colleagues, with this draft we make important choices for the future, but spirit regrets that no consensus has been found to provide a solution to the problems of the past that we face today, including in the numerous actions on church asylum. People without papers are the weakest in our society. They do not enjoy social protection, often live in miserable conditions and have jobs that no one else wants. These people are especially vulnerable to exploitation. It is not because one could say that, either by illegal migration, or by the refusal to leave the territory after the expiration of their basis of residence, they themselves “choose” a precarious situation, that they would not fully deserve our attention.

Although the present draft legislation changes many other and especially important things for the better, it is a good thing that in the last weeks and months we have been obliged by the various action groups and support committees to consider thoroughly how we deal with this problem when discussing these draft legislation. We did this conscientiously. We have not simply followed the majority’s oecaches, but we are simply convinced that the solution to these problems—they will never be fully solvable, there will always be a problem, I think no one denies that—is not in reducing the discretionary power of the minister on regularizations. On the contrary, we are convinced that it is essential that the political control of the minister’s work in these areas remains possible. This is not possible with an independent committee.

Furthermore, I think that the figures given by Mr. Roosemont during the hearings on the regularisation decisions in 2005 which received a positive response make it clear that the category of urgent humanitarian circumstances, as defined by the Minister, is a rather limited category. In 2005, 5,422 cases were responded positively, due to a long asylum procedure.

That is very important. It is a realization of the current management team and the current government that we have really done something for those involved. Where the government failed, the government took on the consequences. It has granted the persons concerned a residence status. In 2005, there were a total of 11,630 people. I am proud of that.

In 2005, 236 files were also regulated for medical reasons. It is ⁇ good that for the specified category in question a specific legal regulation is provided. This is also a merit of the present draft.

Finally, in 2005, 441 asylum seekers received a positive decision due to pressing humanitarian circumstances. We believe that the Minister in the committee has explained sufficiently clearly that in this regard it is often a combination of various factors that make together that such a file deserves a positive decision. However, they are ⁇ difficult to put into general rules and legislation.

Does that mean that we feel that it could not have been better and that the design is the ideal solution for our expectations? That is not. During the discussions, we came ⁇ close to a very strong consensus, which would strengthen the filter for the procedure at the Council of State and which would enable the regularization of two important groups of people. In this regard, I would like to emphasize that regularization should in any case take place on an individual basis and that those groups, in our case, can only receive a regularization based on elements from the past.

Ms. Douifi has already mentioned it; I will therefore not go into it too extensively. First, we are talking about asylum seekers who have long been involved in the procedure, including the procedure before the Council of State. In this regard, it is a shared responsibility of, on the one hand, the asylum seekers involved in the procedure, but also, on the other hand, the government, the State Council, which has worked ⁇ slowly.

Secondly, for those without papers who have been living in Belgium for a long time and who at some point have indeed had a statutory residence status, but who after the expiration of the statutory residence status illegally reside in Belgium and in addition have minor, schooling children, we really need to be able to do something. It would be humanitarian indefensible to return these persons and their children, who have no connection with their so-called country of origin.

Spirit regrets that the above-mentioned breakthrough could not be realized. However, we support the other elements included in the design. We will approve it with conviction. Nevertheless, we hope that in the future it will be possible to make a breakthrough in regularization. This can happen with the further transposition of European directives. However, for us, it should be discussed at the latest at the next government negotiations.

The last speaker is Mr. De Groote. Then we will hear Mrs. Lanjri.

Madame Nagy, after the general discussion, will you defend your amendments in a single line?

Obviously, for you and for the Chamber, it is more interesting to intervene continuously rather than intertwined.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the bill was discussed extensively in the committee. There were hearings during which we were able to listen to the visions from various angles. Reporters published a comprehensive report on this matter this morning.

Mr. Minister, there are undoubtedly some good things in your bill: the joint handling of the admissibility and the substance of the applications, limited appeal opportunities and a simplification of the asylum procedure. However, there must be more. For example, there is insufficient guarantee that existing downfalls can be removed in a smooth and quick manner. There is also great doubt about the built-in filter for cassation professions.

This criticism comes not only from us — we have already heard it here today at the banks — but it also comes from an unmistakable angle, namely from the State Council itself. After all, the filter procedure is considered non-closing, because the conditions of admissibility are far too broad. Indeed, a decision to remove a person can easily be invoked as a violation of fundamental rights, which may result in more cassation facilities after the reform. The Auditor-General appears to implore additional staff to be able to deal with the backstakes, backstakes that will occupy them 12 to 15 years, according to the poor, overworked man. The backstakes will, by the way, also remain with the proposed amendment at the Council of State and therefore must be addressed by it.

There is a lag in the Council of State not only in foreign matters, but also in other matters. Collega Schryvers correctly stated that it is not because 80% of the files of the Council of State are foreign records, also 80% of the workload relates to the foreign records. A note from the State Council on this subject even spoke of more workload for ordinary files and a lower workload for foreigners files. I am not a lawyer, but I have made a brief interrogation with a number of lawyers and they have called that.

The number of auditors and state councils will increase, but there will be more state councils, while the number of auditors will not be increased to that extent. Thus, there is a risk of creating a bottle neck. Several colleagues in the committee pointed out that the increase is actually not as substantially elaborated as you do prevent it, Mr. Minister. We go from 30 to 34 and not from 28 to 34 councils, as you initially change the organic framework from 30 to 28. You make the impression that we get 6 more, while in fact it is only about 4 state councils more.

In addition, the rules on jurisdiction and procedure are incredibly complex, which will give rise to many controversies. I am convinced of this, since specialized legal experts already point out that there is a threat of a flood of questions for a preliminary ruling, which will once again lead to additional pressure on the Arbitration Court and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, on the one hand, and to further delays at the State Council or the new Council for Foreigners disputes in existing and new cases, on the other. I am afraid that we will end up in the same street where we are now. Their

The fact that the Commissioner-General can be caught by the Minister on an individual basis per file seems to us to be of good somewhat too much. Is this necessary? Is there a need for special motivation? You can, of course, and you have also stated that you do not accept that the State Council requires more resources and says it will take twelve to fifteen years to remove the existing backwardness. However, this is the reality and we must take this into account. Their

Your coalition partner sp.a. has just understood that the reworked asylum procedure will not relieve the workload at the State Council. In the committee, Ms. Douifi said that the so-called filter in the form of a special chamber that makes a shifting in professional cases will not work. Apparently, the PS subsequently succeeded in extracting the most important aspect of the filter from the design. Their

We are pleased to hear that Ms. Douifi regrets — at least in the committee, as I did not hear it here — that the issuance of a residence permit does not involve integration and citizenship conditions. Thus, it actually joins the position that N-VA has been proclaiming for years. For us, citizenship conditions should be addressed already during the procedure. This is ultimately also in the benefit of the newcomers and the applicants themselves. Their

From the reception centers where those people reside, things need to be started quickly. On the one hand, asylum seekers should be better controlled in those reception centres, but on the other hand, long detention of especially minors should be avoided at all costs. In these open centers, asylum seekers can therefore introduce themselves to our society and society through the offer of classes in social orientation, an adapted education, training courses and Dutch or French language lessons. Their

That is our view of the matter.

Another member of Parliament, also from the SPA, Mr Nimmegeers, says again that your individual insights on regularization files are at odds with an objective and neutral approach. Therefore, he wanted to include a number of criteria in the law. Also for the N-VA, there should be clear criteria for who can be eligible for regularization and who does not. The discretionary power should no longer play. Citizenship, knowledge of the language of the region in which you reside, whether or not you have school children, the number of years of stay and whether or not you have a permanent relationship are elements that could play a role in the assessment. Negative criteria that prevent regularization, such as coming into contact with the court, should also be able to play.

Regularization must eventually become superfluous because asylum seekers would have to get a final decision on their application very quickly. Illegal immigration should no longer be tolerated.

Mr. Minister, it is an illusion to think that an asylum procedure will one day be a demonstration of efficiency. We never proclaim this, nor have I ever heard it from your mouth. After all, there are too many external factors and events that are co-responsible for the total number of asylum applications and, therefore, indirectly for the number of potential occupations.

By denying the Council for Foreign Disputes its own investigation authority and by not allowing the Council to take knowledge of new data, you put the autonomous decision-making authority on the slope. From the beginning, therefore, you take away the impact force of this council. Therefore, money can already be invested in new professions and new asylum and regularization applications. I think that could not have been the intention. In fact, very recent statistics show that we are already among the leading drivers in Europe.

Finally, the introduction of the concept of ‘subsidiary protection’ leads to an additional problem. The relationship to certain extradition agreements is not clearly defined. Mr Vandenbulck of the Commissioner-General for Refugees pointed out this. He said that according to one institute they can enjoy protection while for the other they must return to their country. I see the controversies already coming.

Regardless of the motives of the asylum seekers, they are entitled to a clear, efficient and prompt procedure leading to a residence status or to the expulsion to the country of origin.

The essence of granting asylum is the protection of people who are subject to persecution for a variety of reasons. Those who remain in the illegality, we believe, should be actively tracked. A professionally formulated return policy needs to be developed, an element that we do not find in the proposals.

Unlike in the draft, the N-VA intends to seek the handling of the appeal proceedings but not from abroad. Once the application has been declared inadmissible or unfounded, one must return. Only from that country can an appeal proceedings be conducted. 98% of appeals do not lead to a revision of the first decision. With an appeal procedure from abroad, many useless appeals can be addressed. At the same time, we avoid holding people in ignorance for years during the appeal procedure.

The structural channel of migration that has become family reunification is also not resolved by the present draft. Regarding family reunification, N-VA believes that both partners must be 21 years old to get married, only children who are not yet 18 years old can come to our country and family reunification can only be if one has sufficient financial capacity and an acceptable housing is at hand. We also believe that family reunification is only possible once. Those who came to our country in the window of family reunification cannot allow others to happen to themselves. The N-VA adheres to the proposal of CD&V colleague Lanjri which is very clear in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I am going around. Because the PS dwarf is the present design despite your good intentions but a half-box solution. There are, of course, good things, such as the treatment of the admissibility, the substance of the applications, the limitation of appeals and the simplification of the asylum procedure. However, there are and remain too many gaps. The Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons was very critical and said “too little too late.” I can contribute to his words.

I invite you to read his interview in The Standard.

I think it comes from the standard.

I’ll show you it later, it’s an entire page. Then he puts his enthusiasm for the new legislation not under chairs or benches, but well.

I’ll look into my notes and I’ll give it to you.

I wanted to finish with the next. However, I note here — and with me many colleagues — that Ms. Douifi says that they wanted a stricter filter. In the newspaper I read a statement by Mr. Borginon: “Three of the four partners wanted a stricter filter.” I hear the minister, who then says: “Long the two sides of the language border we actually have a completely different vision.” My conclusion is: it is indeed true that one has a different vision on both sides of the language border. Thus, in this country, one always comes to half measures. That’s why it’s a square here in this country occasionally. It is a pity that Mr. Antheunis is gone, but I don’t really know what he means by ‘the average Belgian’.

Mrs Lanjri, you are the last speaker in this general discussion. Their

Mr. Minister, you have already answered a lot, but I will give you the opportunity, if you wish, to close the debate. Their

Subsequently, I will begin the discussion of the articles, after Ms. Nagy gave the floor to defend her amendments.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the Government has finally completed the adjustments to the Residence Act and the Asylum Act. CD&V has been working for years to reform these laws and more specifically for a shortened and clear asylum procedure, on the one hand, and for criteria related to family reunification, on the other. Their

Today, a number of steps are being taken in the right direction. This includes, among other things, a full-fledged status and, in our positive view, a supplementary protection, a subsidiary protection, for example for war refugees. A number of administrative practices were also anchored in the law, for example the circular concerning cohabitants is also anchored in the law. This in itself is positive. Their

On some very important points for us, no buttons are cut through. We wonder whether there is indeed a lack of consensus in the federal government. Mr. Minister Dewael, you have already shown that there is no consensus. Their

Mrs. Douifi, we also think that it is not always just about having a willingness to, for example, approve an amendment from us. You give it. I also saw that the VLD had the consent to accept an integration-related amendment, but that you went down for a moment, Mrs. Douifi. There was an iron discipline. Even though it were good and substantial amendments aimed at improving the whole, no dissident vote was permitted. Everyone had to walk in the railway. That was the only thing that counted, instead of saying that one was going to work on a legislation that is good and that can also be well applied in practice. Their

We had two days of hearings, with both the administration and NGOs. We held approximately 20 hearings. What is left of it? Bitterly little.

In very many matters and in three essential matters, it came to the conclusion that there was no political courage, that things were postponed for themselves. We find that there are three points absent in the reformed law. Their

First, there is the filter procedure. I will not go into this too deeply, because colleague Claes has already clearly stated this just before the afternoon. I will be very short. It has already been said by all the institutions. We are ⁇ not alone there. It is also said by the State Council and also within the majority. The filter is too large. It is not a filter, but a seed. The State Council said that it is simply creating a second appeal body. The stack will be moved from one side to the other side. This does not work. Their

Adjustments could have been made now. One could now have accepted the amendment of CD&V or the amendment of the majority. This was not done. Even the amendment of the majority has been withdrawn at the very last moment. Their

It does not need to be linked to other things. If it is a good amendment, it is of course that one must approve the good amendment and not link everything to everything, because then one does not, of course, take a step further. That is our first major concern.

The second issue concerns regulation. The criteria for regularization are not registered in the law, which still leaves arbitrary and uncertainness.

Belgium remains a very flexible country for family reunification. The measures invoked by the government will have little effect, as they also apply only to a limited group. Of the 32,000 family reunificators that are there annually, the measure will only apply to one-fifth of the group. It is therefore completely inadequate.

I will go a little deeper into the second point, the regularization. About how many people is it? In response to my question, there are currently 25,000 files pending. We know from last year’s experience that each file concerns at least two persons. Therefore, we are talking about at least 50,000 people, but the government sets out in the law only those elements that can ⁇ not be accepted as criteria for regularization. We believe that this can also be anchored in the law. Also in our bill we have said that, of course, we do not think of regularizing people who are a danger to society and state security. I have no problem with this in myself, but one must also include in the law the groups for which one considers that they can be regulated. At the moment, the government provides this only and only for the seriously ill. We think that one criterion is good, but we want to go further on that. We want clear criteria in the law. We are not in favor of a general regulation. I have not heard all the organizations in the field advocate for this too. They say that it should be about individual files, but on the basis of criteria in the law, which provide legal certainty, which provide clarity, so that one at least does not have the impression of partiality, which exists now.

A discretionary power may still be possible for us, but in any case there must be a duty of motivation for the Minister, both in the case of positive and negative decisions.

We say that the Foreigners Act must establish the conditions or circumstances within which we can proceed to regularize. We believe that this should be possible for people who have been in the procedure for too long because of the guilt of the government. If they have been involved in the proceedings for three years or more, they should be notified by the government and their dossier should be able to be examined.

We want to talk about deadlines and anything. But the fact, Mr. Minister, is that the debates were simply closed, that there was no discussion possible to put the proposals of the various parties, of majority and opposition, once thoroughly side by side. We could not do that, my colleagues. We advocate that still to do and actually call on you to approve at least some of the amendments that we are going to submit, or simply not to approve this bill.

In short, we believe that this should be possible for people who sit in the procedure for too long, and for people who suffer from a disease and who are unable to return because there is no adequate care or access to adequate treatment in the country of origin. We believe that for those people there should always be a bond with Belgium. That integration must be there, either because they have school children, have a job, a long-term residence. and so on. There are many criteria that clarify the relationship with Belgium.

In addition, and in that our proposal differs from the other bills, we also want for certain categories of people at least a temporary regularization, a temporary residence status. It is about people who are not covered by subsidiary protection, because in this we support – we have also said – the proposal. There are also other people who, for example, cannot return to their country of origin because their papers are not in order, because their nationality is in question, or because they are materially unable to obtain a passport or travel back. Let me take the example of a bombed airport. For those persons, it should be possible to obtain a temporary residence status for a maximum of 5 years. It can be for half a year or for a year, so that when the situation in the country of origin allows it to go back, they can actually go back at that time.

We therefore regret that of all the criteria that we want to put in the law and of the obligation of motivation that we want to see anchored in the law, nothing is realized. There are no criteria in the law. No, the law will only specify what is not possible. We find that a missed opportunity. I have heard this by the majority. It is a missed opportunity. Unfortunately, it does not appear in the law and even on my question to determine it then at least in a circulation letter, the minister in the committee responded negatively. I hope that in the meantime he may want to update his opinion, because internal instructions, only and only for his own services, actually means: nothing to change the situation that is today. That is already there today. The judges who must judge will not ask what the internal instructions you have given to your administration as a minister are. They naturally want things that are clear, either by law, or — if that is not possible — at least by a circular letter. Unfortunately, it is not there yet. There may be an opening somewhere.

Our third point of criticism concerns family reunification and the criteria set for it. The European Directive on family reunification should have been transposed into Belgian law on 3 October 2005. So that happens only now.

First, I would like to point out the points that we agree on. These points have also been highlighted in our own legislative proposals.

First, raising the age from 18 to 21 years.

Second, the conclusion of a health insurance for the partner that also occurs.

Third, the decision on a defective housing. This does not mean that one has to live in a villa, but that one cannot live in a cave or so. That should at least be clear.

We have also always advocated an extension of the control period, ⁇ in order to prevent abuse and false marriages. We also find this element in the draft law positive. We have clearly approved these points.

However, we find that absolutely insufficient. There is a part that is not done. The EU directive allows much more than was now chosen by the government. The government has actually made this European directive a menu à la carte. The things that were acceptable were chosen out. However, the Directive was not fully transposed into Belgian legislation.

What was not converted? The directive states that it is possible to link integration conditions to the residence permit. Of course, integration policy is a competence of the subcommunities; no one has ever challenged that. But that connection can be made perfectly. Minister Cologne, by the way, asks for the link to the residence permit. The completion, the content of those integration courses, and so on, is of course done by the Communities, but there must be a link. If necessary, then with a link you have a stick behind the door. The government did not do that. We were advocates for it. For us, the conditions for integration in each region can also be filled differently if necessary, because we understand that there are also differences in our country, which must be possible. However, it is not possible that one country part holds the other country part hostage in the policy it wants to conduct, namely in the citizenship policy, the integration policy. Now this is hindered by the fact that it is not registered in the law, while it could perfectly. Let me take Germany as an example. In Germany there are also several Länder, which do not all impose the same conditions for integration. It can be perfect. This government has failed to do that.

The same applies to Mrs. Douifi. Mrs. Douifi, I was pleased to hear from you that you believe that the language requirements should be included. However, when we proposed our amendment, you did not approve it. You were very angry at Mr. Anthuenis, who wanted to support our amendment. Already there was a lot of commotion, because the VLD could possibly support an amendment of CD&V. Anthuenis was not allowed to support us. One person, from the VLD, therefore abstained.

What I do not want to remember you is the following quote from the VLD congress on 11 and 12 March in the Zuiderkroon in Antwerp. The Internet is sometimes very useful. The VLD congress makes its backbone of all wisdom, but as a point by step comes we see here what is being voted for. At the VLD congress it was said: "The law on family reunification has resulted in the first generation of migrants continuing to arrive, marriages are still concluded too much with forced partners.... Also, elderly parents are brought here as part of family reunification and often left to their fate. The VLD urges the federal government that the European directive in relation to family reunification immediately and unshorted" — unshorted yet! — “is implemented in our legislation.”

I repeat: that is what you decided at your congress in Antwerp, but in the Chamber you forget your resolutions and forget what you approved with regard to your backbone and you say that you simply make a menu à la carte of it. That is the reality. I would say that you should not approve those resolutions! Therefore, have the courage to say to your voters and anyone else that you can’t actually stand behind it, that you just have to look for compromises. This is what the VLD has approved. You will know the text better than I do, but apparently you have quickly forgotten it if the matter should be voted here.

In any case, it is not yet too late. We will submit our amendment on integration again. You can still support it, if you want. You get a second chance, consider it as a second sitting and with a second sitting being through it is the same. You can still support it.

Therefore, integration conditions are not included.

Second, the cascade of family reunification is now limited to a maximum of two years. Also in this context we say that this is not possible: marry, divorce and re-marry. The debate cannot be closed on this. This issue should be discussed in the future and, if necessary, at the European level.

Then there is the combination with the fast-Belgic law. Since the entrance of the government-Verhofstadt, a total of 316,000 new Belgians have been added. In itself, I have no problem with people becoming Belgians, even if it is out of conviction. However, it may not be that this only happens in order to enjoy a more advantageous system of for example family reunification, and we see that happen. This was also cited by, for example, the OCMW chairs of Luik and Antwerp. They say that a lot of people use and abuse the rapid Belgian law, because as a Belgian one can do better on family reunification. One can then not only make minor children abroad Belgium, but even adult children abroad, without having a connection with Belgium, can become Belgian and in turn do again family reunification, even before they have ever made a step in Belgium.

Such practices cannot and for this we also refer to our bill in connection with the Fast-Belg Act, which we have also submitted for a long time and that we hope to be able to discuss here in the coming months as well.

There is another point on which colleague Anthuenis has given me right, but where I also confirm that there is no more than one abstinence in the majority. This includes stable and regular income. In the memo, we read that those who are engaged in family reunification must of course have a stable and regular income. This is what the European Directive requires.

However, if we look at this, we see that this is not asked to the large group of people who do family reunification, to those who marry or let their children happen. They are not required to have a stable and regular income. It is only used for a few exceptional categories. For the others, they are not asked.

Another missed opportunity and a risk of further abuse from abroad. If Belgium does not impose an income requirement, it is evident that the Dutch, and tomorrow also the French, will come to Belgium because in those neighboring countries there is an income requirement. It is a pity, but this is not included in the law.

The most important note we have is that all these criteria are drawn up from a perspective. Family reunification is a right that I fully support. However, rights are also associated with duties. A number of criteria should be linked to everyone who is engaged in family reunification, such as age, housing, and so on.

However, we see that the entire legislation that we will vote about later does not apply to all family reunificators. Nearly 32,000 visas were applied for in the context of family reunification between May last year and today. Four-fifths of them are not covered by the law, which will be approved here later. This is just one-fifth of the target group. It is only about foreigners. Foreigners who have become Belgians do not fall into this category, nor do ordinary Belgians fall into this category.

We have always pledged that everyone should meet those criteria, both Jef who marries a Thai, Mohammed who has become Belgian or Ali who has not yet become Belgian. For us, that makes no difference. We believe that one should not discriminate, that one should impose the same just demands on all those who engage in family reunification. This is not done and therefore it is nothing more than an empty box.

Debate for an empty box for two months, as this applies to almost no one. The one-fifth of which this applies, is again obtained through bilateral agreements with, for example, Morocco, Turkey, Tunisia and the former Yugoslavia. If, for example, the age is lower, this will also apply.

I would like to hear Mr. Anthuenis say that we will revise those bilateral agreements. It has not yet been done, while there are almost no criteria. How can we then expect that it will be renegotiated later if the criteria are introduced?

Finally, there is a lot of blade and little wool. On the three points mentioned above, the design is absolutely insufficient.

We submitted two other amendments.

First, the scheme for unaccompanied minors can no longer be arranged for us by means of a letter of reference. It must be registered in the law. We advocate — we will submit the amendment as soon as possible — that unaccompanied young people are not deported as long as they are minors. In the meantime, their situation can be looked at.

Second, the simplification of the procedure is in itself a good thing. Although the abolition of the admissibility phase in the DVZ is important, the admissibility criteria are still ⁇ ined. Therefore, there is no possibility for a thorough investigation. This has already been mentioned by Commissioner-General Van den Bulck. This may be the first amendment to the law, which will be voted today. Today you will vote on the bill, although the Commissioner-General himself says it is not good. Therefore, we propose, through an amendment, to improve that point already.

In short, the filter procedure is not in order. The regularization criteria are not included in the law. The target group covered by the family reunification is negligible and not all criteria were included in the draft. For the above three reasons, the uncertainty remains. The group of asylum seekers without status continues to exist. The arbitration in the regulations also remains. Furthermore, family reunification remains too smooth.

We do not demand half-measures, but we also demand that decisions be made and political courage be shown. We want to forge the iron when it is hot. We do not want to postpone the matter to later. Therefore, we will not be able to support the draft and therefore will not approve it.

Mr. Minister, you have already answered a lot in the dialogue with the Chamber Members, sometimes spicy and always interesting for the participants in the debate. You have the word for another brief summary.

It is good that the parties differ in views. It would be boring if we all said the same thing. Especially in asylum matters, in foreign affairs, the emotions can sometimes be high. Their

In addition, it is effectively seen that north and south of the language boundary there are different sensitivities. I propose this as a federal minister, responsible for the matter. It may be concluded that, in respect of certain matters, it is sometimes given different terms depending on the Community to which it belongs. Sometimes it happens on one side of the language boundary as if it is very obvious that one poncies certain points of view. Then one has the greatest possible misunderstanding on the other side of the language boundary. The weze so. Alleszins, the government has effectively managed to make significant progress in a number of very important matters with these two drafts. Their

The main feature of both designs is that they are balanced designs. It is of course a political compromise. What is wrong with making a political compromise? One can hold, Mrs. Lanjri, as I have also said to Mr. Claes, to his own great equality and as a group to say that if one does not get satisfaction on all the points brought forth in amendments, one does not approve something and the majority calls for the drafts to be temporarily withdrawn. We did not do that because I think that after many months of preparatory work we have effectively reached a balanced whole. Their

You have repeatedly stated in the committee that in terms of family reunification we have sometimes effectively expanded the matters here and there. I refer, for example, to the possibilities we have given to cohabitants or concubiners. This is a novelty. I also refer to what is recorded in the Directive in relation to the cascade ban. At first glance, this may appear to be an effective relief, but on the other hand, in connection with family reunification, the control options have become significantly stricter. I refer to the control period that we have brought to two years and even to three years if there are false documents in the matter. Their

I refer to the conditions, to the ascendants that we impose in connection with financial independence. You say it’s not going far enough, but it’s indeed in it. I refer to what we impose in connection with housing and health insurance. I refer to raising the age from 18 to 21 in terms of family formation. These are all things that go towards a struggle. One says you relax. The other says, you are struggling. There is a certain balance in it.

I give a second example. People who are victims of human trafficking and human trafficking are effectively given new protection by these designs, but on the other hand, we naturally punish human trafficking and human trafficking in a more severe way, in other drafts and legislation. Therefore, on the one hand, we show a great heart towards those who are the victims of this — if they are willing to cooperate with our Justice, we can guarantee them a certain status of residence — and on the other hand, we act harder towards the actual traffickers.

I would like to say the same with respect to the subsidiary protection, which, by the way, is already being applied, Mr. De Groote. You say that this will create new possibilities. The B protection or B status is already applied by my services. Now it has a legal basis. Now we are effectively translating the European Directive on the subject, but de facto this does not give rise to an extension, as some fear.

As far as the asylum procedure is concerned, I think I have heard good comments about it from all the banks. It is said that the new asylum procedure will be faster and more efficient. It is intended to be able to complete everything within a year. On the other hand, it is necessary to ensure a sound, legal, high-level and high-quality protection. I believe that these safeguards are effective with the Council on Foreign Disputes, because for the first time we will have perfect judicial control over all possible asylum decisions.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, these are all matters that I have heard much less about, because at the end of a debate one naturally tries to draw the whole discussion back to two or three matters, in order to be able to say that it is in fact a missed opportunity. I always hear the same examples from different sides: the regularisations and the filter procedure.

Let me first say something about the latter. The filter procedure is promoted as the ultimate proof that the new procedure will not work. What is much less mentioned is that the law provides for mandatory provisions and that an asylum procedure must be completed in any case within a year. Let me say that the filter procedure in the first version, before the drafts went to the Council of State, was wider. We have tightened the filter in the Council of Ministers, according to the opinion of the Council of State. I have heard two lines about this filter, because, of course, Members of Parliament always refer to the hearings based on what suits them.

It is said that the State Council itself has advocated for an even stricter filter. On the other hand, I have seen lawyers from the French-speaking bar come to the committee to say that the filter is much too spacious.

( ... )

It will require a double effort. The government is making efforts to strengthen the State Council, but the State Council itself will also have to make efforts to demonstrate through a policy plan that it is worthy of those resources.

We are seeking the same reform that we have carried out in the ordinary courts, the octopush reform. We said that the principle of judicial independence must be upheld. Indeed, we have no exaggeration with the content of judgments or judgments, but independence is not inviolability. The way in which the State Council deals with resources made available by the government requires a certain level of accountability and accountability.

Regarding that filter, Ms. Lanjri will later say that her amendment is being submitted and that it is a missed opportunity if it is not approved. I already see you rubbing, Mrs. Lanjri. If you are so sure of that, yes, then I challenge you to say what makes you so sure today that the procedure will not work. It is a new construction, it is a new legal figure. Let’s first put that into practice and let’s evaluate it after a year. Then we talk to each other again.

Let me give a second example, the regulations. I have answered this question countless times this morning and in the committee. Are there criteria? Yes, there are criteria. Are these criteria in the law? No, those criteria do not come into the law, because they are subject to certain evolution anyway. The first criterion is a long-term asylum procedure of three to four years. Normally, it must be without object after a few years. We then assume a new situation where there is no backwardness. Why do we do that today? There was a crisis in the asylum process. At one point there were more than 40,000 applications. I tell you, today there are less than 800 per month. Those figures are under control. The purification of the backwardness from the past is a fact that will soon belong to the past.

Disease is the second criterion. This is included in the draft on which you are going to vote.

The third criterion is formed by humanitarian conditions, pressing humanitarian conditions. I have bored the Commissioners to ask them to define it in an objective way. Write in an objective way into the legislation what this is, a pressing humanitarian circumstance. I guarantee you that, if you do, we will in the shortest possible time be confronted with cases of which everyone at the banks will say that the minister should do something about it, while they do not fall under any criterion, that it is registered in the law. So that will always be a denominator that the Minister of Interior will have to apply, not in an arbitrary, but in a discretionary way. He is responsible for this at all times to Parliament. That is the regularization.

You can ask if it is the Minister who should do that. Many say that the minister should do it, others say that it is better to have a commission. I gave my opinion on these committees this morning. Often there are committees that come up with certain decisions and opinions. Therefore, one does not give up on this, and in the last instance it comes to the Minister of Internal Affairs to indicate a solution. I said this morning that it is not the power I prefer to exercise, but that it is a necessary responsibility, which I want to continue to bear.

Then, of course, there are the aspects that have been less highlighted during this important debate and that have to do with economic migration. Colleague Bex is one of the few who has pointed to this. But let us be clear: it is a problem that goes far beyond the problem we are discussing today, the asylum policy. Of course, this is about asylum procedures, but there are so many aspects associated with migration, which will more and more, by the way, seek solutions at the European level.

We know the problem of the free movement of workers within the European Union and we know, of course, that one will have to look at it in the world in a globalized context. However, those who are blind without sight must recognize that in view of the demographic development, not only in our country but in the entire European Union, we must dare to conduct that debate in the future. We will have to carry it out. We will not be able to do this as Belgium alone. We will have to do this in a European context. These are, of course, problems that go far beyond the asylum problem that, if you look at the figures and see how in most countries of the European Union the number of applications decreases, has long been no longer the main problem when it comes to migration.

Let me take the communiqué of the CD&V Chairman in connection with the reform of the asylum procedure. I must say that Mrs. Lanjri has intervened, but apparently there has already been a communiqué with everything Mrs. Lanjri has told me here.

I am surprised that CD&V will vote against because in the committee there was an abstinence. Good things were found in the designs. According to CD&V, some things are not going far enough. Now, however, we are going to vote against.

I have already responded to the procedure. It is said that decisions related to regularization must be motivated. This is already happening today, because all those decisions are disputable anyway, even in the Council of State.

You have also criticized the fact that we are addressing a number of things "saucisonsionally". I can inform you, colleagues, that we will discuss next week in the Council of Ministers the second draft law, relating to EU citizens. We have already been able to unite many things in one design — or actually in two. Next week the Council of Ministers will present a second draft, a second translation of European directives related to the problem, which then will indeed include EU citizens.

Until then, Mr. President, colleagues, a few replies.

I might end up a bit ugly. Sometimes I can’t hold myself well when one speaks of slave followers of the majority, discipline, one can’t have debates here, and so on. I recently read in a newspaper that in another parliament, not so far from here, on the Flemish level, lawyers are hired by some ministers to prevent — Mr. De Groote — that certain colleagues in your group would even ask questions. It’s not even about what to do with certain designs; it’s not about discipline. Therefore, there are techniques invented to prevent questions being asked. Ask Mr. Peumans of your group.

I read that in a newspaper. I do not know if it is true. In recent days and weeks, the committee has shown an open mindset to enable a sound parliamentary treatment of these drafts.

I must remind you, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, that the Chairman of the Chamber has chosen lawyers to defend the freedom of expression of the Chamber. He also won his trial in the Court of Cassation. The whole room won.

I would like to comment on two points that the Minister has recalled. First of all, I resume his question: "What makes you say that the procedure will not work?"But simply, the file! The State Council itself states that the Office will not be effective. Who is better placed than the State Council to know whether the procedure will work or not? Furthermore, the numbered note of the State Council on the means made available to resolve the backfall shows very clearly that the resources made available are insufficient. So the file itself answers the question.

Secondly, the minister says: "Can you define what humanitarian circumstances are?" He suggests that it is he alone in his office, who examines each file and carries out the assessments. This can be inferred from his words. Mr. Minister, you regularized, and you boast of it, 11,600 files in 2005. It is obvious that you do not review them case by case and you give general instructions to your administration. There are some general instructions. What prevents them from laying on paper and making them public?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to summarize two points, because we cannot leave them without a response.

The Minister continues to inform the public about the so-called tightening of the provisions on family formation.

The effort is in the design.

He actually keeps them in front of them, because what is in the design? It states that, along with a number of other conditions, the age is increased from 18 to 21 years.

I want to. Only, Mr. Dewael, they are not applicable to precisely those countries from which the vast majority of family formers come, namely the North African countries and Turkey. Then you must tell it. That would be fair to the people.

Second, about the filter you say that you notice that there is a problem in the Room. You notice that on both sides of the language boundary there is a ⁇ large and ⁇ noticeable difference.

I would like to note that amendment no. 41 the crucial amendment is the amendment submitted by Mr Borginon for VLD, by the MR and by sp.a, which would be supported by CD&V, since they have submitted a similar amendment, and which we would also support.

Mr. Dewael, where do you get that there is a problem? There would therefore be an overwhelming majority in the House to approve that amendment to tighten the filter of the Council of State. It only shows once again that the PS vetoes and that the VLD — whether you like to hear it or not, Mr. Dewael — is again on its knees.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the request for the filter comes from the State Council because the latter has the feeling of being completely overwhelmed by the contentious of foreigners. It emerges from his various remarks a kind of cry of appeal to say that he no longer wants this contentious in which he "sweeps." However, the filter does not solve the back. The latter remains.

In addition, the Council of State informed the minister that it would take 10 to 15 years to handle the 26,000 files of the foreign dispute and the 18,000 of the normal dispute. The Minister has not given — and does not want to give — a response on this point. This has nothing to do with the filter issue.

The Minister also stated that a comment is accepted when it goes in the direction of the one who defends his point of view. of course ! But he acts in the same way. Indeed, with regard to the criteria of regularization, the criteria for the application of Article 9.3, the State Council points out that there is a problem in that this article is drafted in an absolutely discretionary manner. by

In fact, the law does not specify any criteria. And the minister decided, in this case, not to follow the State Council while it does so regarding the filter.

In summary, it seems to me that the minister does not follow his own argument as to the need to follow to the letter the opinions of one and another. by

To return to the important question of the filter, the latter was asked — I repeat — by the State Council, which feels completely overtaken by the extent of the backwardness in matters of foreign disputes. by

It is too easy on the part of the minister to claim that it is only through management and other measures that this backdrop can be absorbed while — I repeat it — according to the State Council, it will take 10 to 15 years to handle these files.

For the last replicas we hear successively Mr Claes and Wathelet and Mrs Lanjri.

Parliament has the last word. We are not in one of those parliaments where the minister has the last word. As long as I am chairman, it will be Parliament that has the last word!

Mr. President, thank you very much. I just thought to say that the minister may have a home-like to that parliament that you refer to.

I have no home.

Maybe it has to do with those rushing retirement benefits that are granted there, I don’t know. However, I would like to say again that it is unacceptable that we do not sufficiently tighten the filter procedure for the State Council here.

Let Mr. Claes speak. Mr. Claes, you should not provoke them either.

This is about the filter procedure and not just about foreign affairs. This is an important issue for all citizens of this country. What should we now allow? That we will look another year to see how many lawyers there will again initiate proceedings at the State Council and only then start evaluating it again? I find it unacceptable to extend the situation of an institution that has already suffered so much judicial downturn by another year. The evil will have been done for a long time.

First I give the floor to Mr Wathelet, then to Mrs Lanjri. After that, I will suspend the afternoon session to begin the article discussion five minutes later.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to further appeal to the Minister: he tells us two things, but mainly a little everything and his opposite, according to two arguments. by

Mr. Minister, when you talk about regularization with objective criteria, you answer us that this will not work, that we will come to interpell you and invoke your political responsibility. On the other hand, when you talk about the filter, you answer that the opposition cannot move forward that the system will not work until we have tried. by

Still, regularization with objective criteria has not yet been tried either, but you can tell us that the system can’t work. When the opposition tells you that the filter system will not work, you answer us that it is impossible to claim it unless you have already tried it!

Who is best able to tell us whether the filter will succeed or not? The State Council itself: he knows these files, it is he who gave his opinion and it is he who says that the filter is too wide. by

At the same time, you talk to us about the need to make the State Council accountable. How do you hold him responsible? By telling him, from the beginning, that his advice about the filter is bad and by not giving him the right on the element highlighted throughout the discussion of this new reform. Your way of making him responsible is to tell him that he is wrong, he who knows the practice of files in foreign State Councils!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I want to say clearly that here it should not be thought that one can mistake people something. What is approved today is very clear. There are a number of criteria included in the law, but even if there are still ten or even twenty criteria included in the law, it remains an empty box because it does not apply to four-fifths of the target group. Their

I gave the figures: 32,000 people in the context of family reunification. Well, on 25,600 among them this does not apply. If this does not apply to that target group, it is actually done for no one, except for a very limited group that is still being exhumed. People will notice this especially on the ground; they will see that nothing changes in practice, which is also approved in this Parliament. There have been many debates here, but the most important decision was not made: let those criteria apply to everyone. Whether you are Belgian, or a foreigner, or a naturalized Belgian, these criteria must apply to everyone. Only then can one do something, change something, not as you do it now. Now it only applies to those who have a foreign nationality. Their

If you say that a directive for EU members will be adopted on Friday next week, then you are already grandly late. Indeed, Directive 2004/38 should have been incorporated into our legislation as early as 1 May this year. That has not happened. Their

In terms of content, there are no criteria and it will be even more flexible for people from the EU. You are proposing to equate the Belgians with this. In other words, for Belgians or migrants who have become Belgians, in the future, there will be no criteria whatsoever, in terms of age, in terms of subsistence income or anything else. No criteria, that is the reality! This is what people will see on the ground.

July 12, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

We share the work.

Well, I will now let the report be presented by Mr. Dirk Claes, reporter of—what I would call—chronologically the first draft: n. and 2478. Following Mr. Claes, I will let Mrs. Lanjri present her report on the draft number. and 2479. Does the room agree? (the approval of)

If Mr. Boukourna or Mrs. Galant want to intervene, for me, it does not matter. We will have a single general discussion. If Mr. If the Deputy Prime Minister wants to intervene at a given time to respond to interventions, he can do so without any problem. I like the dialogue between the House and the Government. Does everyone agree? Om 16.30 uuur proberen we af te ronden met de stemming.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Colleagues, the discussion of these two bills in the committee for domestic affairs has, of course, been long. Nevertheless, I will try to give a not too long, good summary of the discussions that were held.

Together with the colleague of the PS we agreed that I will primarily address the part of the social organizations, which have also been discussed in the hearings. Mr. Boukourna will primarily reflect the statements of the Minister.

The Internal Affairs Committee insisted on organizing hearings during the discussion of the present bills, in which the various institutions and associations could present their views on the underlying problem.

Initially, a number of social organizations were heard.

First the League for Human Rights. The League points out that as long as there is no consensus on absolute freedom in the movement of persons, the migration flow must be controlled, but that in doing so the rights of already vulnerable people must not be endlessly challenged. The measures taken at the time by Minister Vande Lanotte, in particular the withdrawal of the social support of foreigners illegally staying in the country, have, as now shows from the many church occupations, not had their anticipated purpose. The League therefore regrets that the draft does not contain measures regarding the regularization of this group of people.

The policy that the government is pursuing, according to the League, contradicts the necessity that occurs in this file. In fact, at that time, Minister Duquesne proposed a three-pillar policy: first, the effective execution of orders to leave the territory; second, the revision of the procedure for the recognition of refugees; third, a one-time regularisation operation.

Only that third point was implemented by the Act of 1999, while only now, six years later, a simplification of the procedure is proposed to Parliament.

While Foreign Affairs now has a dual role to play, as a supervisory body in the recognition procedure and as a humanitarian body in the regularization, which explains the dissatisfaction with the service in part, this will no longer be the case in the future. That part of the design is already a step in the right direction for the league.

The League, however, warns that the pursuit of efficiency should not be at the expense of humanity. It also points out two important aspects of the proposed reform, in particular the minimum transposition of European directives, which are sometimes even used as a pretext to strengthen the regime for certain aspects of foreign law. It also points to a low level of protection in relation to certain fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution or in the European Convention on Human Rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life.

It then points out the role and functioning of the newly established Council for Foreign Disputes. Although that administrative jurisdiction will be granted full jurisdiction, the procedural safeguards are a decline compared to the current system at the Council of State. Thus, the procedural documents are limited to a single initiative proceedings. The judge has no investigative power and is considered to be based on the file prepared by the Commissioner-General for Refugees.

In non-asylum cases, appeals may also be brought to the Council for Foreigners Disputes. The League points out that the appeal is not suspensive in relation to previous decisions, which could then again be in conflict with Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr. Annemans, the second presentation was by Professor dr. by Marie-Claire Foblets

( ... )

That will take a while. We also spent time in the committee. We believe that the plenary session is entitled to a small summary.

Professor Foblets points out that the transposition of the European Directive is not complete and that a new draft is already being prepared, in particular to make our legislation in accordance with the directives "Free movement of European citizens" and "Long-Term Residents".

In addition, the many amendments to the law have resulted in the fact that the text has become virtually unreadable in the meantime, for example due to the many sub-numberings and the terminological inconsistencies that occur in the text. The professor therefore recommends that the next amendment of the opportunity be used to make the text readier again with a coordinated version of the Foreign Affairs Act.

As regards the draft, Professor Foblets pointed out the many cases in which the discretionary power of the Minister applies and the legal uncertainty that this creates. A solution could, according to the professor, be to allow the Committee of Advisory for Foreigners to play a greater role in the decisions and by the decisions to provide a non-binding advice.

The benefits are, first, the composition of the Commission; second, the personal appearance of the foreigner; third, the consolidation of jurisprudence and, fourth, a greater transparency in the development of criteria; fifth, the Minister or his representative must also justify his decision in case of deviation from the opinion. As regards the transposition of the Family Reunification Directive, the Directive provides the possibility to extend the period of the so-called dependent residence permit to five years. This should allow the administration to adequately verify that there is no abuse in the game. However, the present draft limits the aforementioned period to a period of only three years.

At the same time, the Directive provides an opportunity for Member States to provide effective participation opportunities for newcomers. The professor points out that the aforementioned possibility does not come back anywhere in the current designs.

In addition, the draft provides for the obligation of adapted housing and health insurance. However, the obligation to provide adequate livelihoods only applies in certain cases, whereas the Directive provides the possibility to do so.

Another point that does not appear in the draft, but actually forms part of the directive, is the possibility of applying for a residence permit for family reunification from Belgium. Their

In the present draft, this remains an exception, which according to the professor is also a missed opportunity. The control is easier to carry out from Belgium.

Regarding the asylum procedure, Professor Foblets raised questions, in particular, regarding the inclusion of the admissibility criteria contained in Article 52 of the Foreigners Act and the possibility for the Minister to intervene with the General Commissioner for Refugees.

In addition, the professor noted that the procedure for the Council for Foreign Disputes is reduced to an administrative cassation appeal. In the framework of the asylum procedure, this means, among other things, the absence of its own investigative authority, so far Professor Marie-Claire Foblets.

The third social organization is the Asylum and Migration Forum. During the hearing, the Forum emphasizes the regularization of foreigners and points out that these regularizations today happen very varied, sometimes for a limited period of time, after a long procedure without criteria and through an overshadowed and unattainable administration.

An appeal against a negative decision is possible with the State Council, which in turn faces a huge delay so that a judgment comes only after two years. According to the Forum, the same uncertainty applies to people without papers. The Forum Asylum and Migration therefore requests the registration of a regularisation possibility in the law of 15 December 1980 and cannot be found in the proposed article 9bis of the draft.

In addition, the discretionary power of the Minister may still remain. The FAM proposes the following six criteria for regularization: first, in the case of too long procedures; second, in the case of serious illness; third, in the case of materially impossible return; fourth, in the case of persistent bonds or stressful situations; fifth, for unaccompanied minors and finally for persons to whom a work card B or professional card was granted or exempted from it.

With regard to regularization, the Forum also proposes an adapted procedure in which the Foreign Affairs Service handles the files and in case of doubt forward to the Foreign Advisory Committee. The committee can then hear the applicant and give a positive or negative opinion to the Minister. The Minister then makes a reasoned decision that can be appealed to the Council for Foreign Disputes.

Finally, the Forum calls for a solution to the existing problem files by an official regularisation of the files that have been in process for three years through the procedure of Article 9, paragraph 3e. Coordination and Initiatives for and with Refugees and Foreigners (CIRE). The CIRE reiterates the criticism of the asylum procedure, stating that it is not only important for the future to develop a procedure that truly meets the criticism formulated, but also to take the dignified and humane measures to overcome the backwardness. In that regard, the dossier-asylum is still primarily considered and dealt with in terms of combating abuse.

CIRE thus considers that other measures initiated by the aim of combating the abuses, such as restrictions on access to the procedure with numerous cases of detention, the mainly written procedure and the reduction of the time of appeal, threaten to prevail over the protection requirement, thus reducing an asylum applicant’s chances of having the opportunity to express his fears in a fair and effective procedure. The abolition of the receptivity phase is a good thing in this regard. According to the CIRE, an asylum application should not be rejected on a formal basis. It may only be rejected if the person concerned does not need protection or can obtain that protection elsewhere.

The fifth social organization was Refugee Work Flanders. That organization is pleased that the designs are addressing some old gaps, but wants to also express its concerns regarding some of the choices made.

First, the abolition of the admissibility stage, but at the same time the preservation of the admissibility criteria, which still allows an application to be rejected on purely formalist grounds. Vreemdelingenwerk Vlaanderen points in this context to the European Directive, which is yet to be drafted, which obliges the Member States to make a substantial judgment on the dossier at each application. Their

Secondly, the role of the Foreign Affairs Service that was removed from the procedure, but must judge about new elements in the case of repeated asylum applications. Their

Third, the fullness of jurisdiction of the Council for Foreign Disputes which is significantly restricted when taking into account new elements by the court, and the lack of own investigative authority.

Then we get to the sixth organization: Doctors Without Borders. The representative of Doctors Without Borders wishes to pay special attention to the situation of seriously ill persons to whom this law applies. Often people who, despite their illnesses, are ordered to leave the territory. In that regard, it should be pointed out that sending a sick person to a country in which he would in fact not have access to the care required by his situation would constitute an inhuman treatment and thus a requirement for admission under the application of subsidiary protection.

The ‘appropriate treatment’ should take into account both the availability and accessibility of the treatment in the assessment of the dossiers. In particular, accessibility is often a barrier, says Doctors Without Borders, as there may be financial and geographical problems. Therefore, complete, up-to-date, accurate and impartial information on the country of origin will need to be collected.

Furthermore, the representative of Doctors Without Borders points out that the procedure for asylum authorities is not adapted for urgent medical cases. In this context, the speaker shall refer, inter alia, to the questions that may be asked regarding the independence of the official physician who must advise on the files. The speaker concludes by stating that the present text is the conversion of the system as it works today, but that it does not contain the necessary guarantees to come to a protection, worthy of that name. Their

The seventh, Professor Vermeersch. The professor states that the drafts in large part comply with the recommendations made by the committee-Vermeersch, in particular a drastic reduction in the duration of the procedure. Also the anchoring of the subsidiary protection in the law the professor finds a good thing. Regarding the entry of the regularization criteria into the law, the professor argues that this would be a wrong choice for two reasons. First, an exhaustive list of criteria would result in emergencies that are not accurately predicted could not be solved by humanitarian means. Each list of criteria would automatically create a suction effect. After all, people would, rightly or wrongly, argue that they meet these criteria. On the contrary, however, are the principles of legal certainty and good governance. In the context of the imprisonment of foreigners, the professor refers to the recommendations of the final report of the commission-Vermeersch. The maximum periods of detention should not cover delays resulting solely from the fact that the person concerned is so strongly opposed that removal becomes impossible. Their

Eighth, Jan De Volder, spokesman for the HOP action. The HOP action calls for a solution to the situation of people who have been expropriated and people without papers who have long stayed on the territory and many of whom are currently taking action across the country. To a large extent, the action can agree with the principles of the draft, such as an accelerated procedure and the introduction of a protection status, combating useless procedures and an effective expulsion policy. Finally, the problem arises what to do with those who are now illegally in the territory. The current way of regularization encounters a lot of misunderstanding, precisely because of the uncertainty around its application, says Mr De Volder of HOP. For its organization, regularization should be possible for people who have long been in a procedure, including at the Council of State, and for those who are no longer in a procedure or that never was, but are clearly embedded. Long-term residence, language skills, schooling children, working readiness can be decisive factors. Their

The ninth organization is the Flemish Minorities Centre. The Flemish Minority Centre calls for attention to some points in the design. In the first place, it is a step forward that certain possibilities, such as residence rights previously arranged through a circular letter, now get a legal anchor. On the other hand, with regard to the legal status of the foreigner, the draft is not immediately an improvement. There is still no simplification or harmonisation of residence statutes, for example in the context of family reunification. With regard to that family reunification, the Centre sets out a clear struggle in the design. It should be noted that arbitrary violations of family life are committed in the name of the fight against abuse. In this context, the Centre refers to the extensive capabilities for controlling marriage or adoption and possible abuses. Their

Furthermore, the Centre states that within the legal framework, the control of marriage has already been regulated in various parts of the law. After all, there is civil law, recently also the criminal law and now the administrative law. However, the Flemish Centre for Minorities stresses that there is no coordination between these different bodies, which does not benefit the legal certainty, policy coherence and legal transparency.

Furthermore, the Centre also points to the existence of a number of bilateral treaties that effectively undermine the conditions contained in the law on family reunification, such as the housing obligation and the like.

The creation of the Council for Foreign Disputes would have been a positive measure if it had not become a kind of separate Council of State for Foreigners, which, outside of the asylum appeal, only judges as annulment courts on substantial or on penalty of nullity imposed formal requirements, excess of power and deprivation of power. Furthermore, the Council does not have full jurisdiction and does not have an investigative power. The annulment appeal also does not constitute a new judgment on the substance and it is a strictly written procedure. The Flemish Centre for Minorities insisted on pointing out the problematic situation that may arise, especially with regard to family reunification — a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition, the Centre identifies permanent gaps that cannot be solved in the design. The Centre regrets that the draft does not provide for unaccompanied minors and the residence status for recognised stateless persons. The problem of regulation also remains untouched. Finally, the Flemish Centre for Minorities calls for more support and training for the services facing this problem, especially after the important and numerous changes implemented by the present projects.

Tenth, the representations of the trade unions. During the hearings, the committee also heard the representatives of three major trade unions, ACV, ABVV and the ACLVB.

The representative of the ACV cut off the problem of the regularisations. The trade unions were closely involved in the previous regularization campaign of 1999-2000. One of the criteria used at the time was long-term residence — five or six years — and the development of lasting ties with our country. The experience of that time taught us that some people developed lasting bonds after a very short time, while others, despite a long stay, did not. The opaque and arbitrary atmosphere of regularization, as it exists today, is problematic for the organization. The trade union therefore argues that there is a need for permanent criteria to be applied by a committee.

Indeed, the draft proposals in question cover the regulation of a number of residence statutes, but none of them apply to the cases that were also examined by the regularisation committee at the time. The ACV association Brussels thus advocates for an additional residence status due to lasting ties that are separate from the other forms of residence and the procedures associated with them. In the assessment, according to the organization, the following aspects should be taken into account:

First, any family ties of the applicant with Belgium. Second, the applicant’s personal situation, such as age, social network, professional skills here and in the country of origin. Third, his course in Belgium: jobs, active in association life, paying social security contributions. Fourth, the duration of his stay in Belgium and his knowledge of the national language.

Nevertheless, the criterion of sustainable links should not be considered as a residual group for the purpose of regulating aspects that should have been regulated on a different legal basis, such as economic migration and criteria for the granting and renewal of work permits.

The speaker of the ABVV declares that he can support the changes that are being made to the asylum procedure. In addition, however, we must not be blind to the problems that arise for the thousands of sans-papiers in our country. In many cases, they are deprived of any right, such as in cases of abuse of labour legislation or in case of domestic dairy. Because of their uncertain position, they are also afraid to denounce the abuses. His organization also thus advocates for a permanent form of regularization by an impartial, independent and permanent regularization committee.

The speaker of the ACLVB states that its organization also recognizes the importance of the draft proposals in question, in particular the importance of establishing an administrative jurisdiction that would specifically deal with foreign matters, of the discharge of the State Council and of the measures to prevent the abuse of professional opportunities.

Its organization also calls attention to the fight against linkage and against the networks of human traffickers, where a European approach to the problem is of the utmost importance.

On the eleventh, UDEP, the representatives of people without papers, brought the testimonies of the thousands of people who are in our country and who live under and with us. For them it is incomprehensible that today some people can be regulated, while others in exactly the same circumstances cannot. According to UDEP, proof that arbitrariness is an important factor, a factor that is inconsistent with the democratic principles for which our country stands.

In addition to the prosecuted, there are also a lot of clandestine foreigners in our country, the representatives of UDEP testify. They never dared to request a procedure. According to UDEP, any form of regularization should also take them into account.

Therefore, on the basis of the five criteria known so far, the organization makes a proposal to amend the law of 15 December 1980. It also notes that the present draft does not take into account these criteria, which are based on the actual situation in which many people are today. Given the numerous statements of support, UDEP calls for the organization’s proposals to be seriously considered.

This was the first part of the report.

Mr Boukourna, you are also part of the report.

Lanjri and Galant submitted their part of the report.

Mr Claes, you will then probably be one of the first speakers during the general debate that will follow. You were registered for the second draft, but we decided to hold a joint, general discussion.

Mr Boukourna, you have the word for your part of the report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, before reading this report, I would like to say that the coincidences of the calendar make that at the time of discussing this project the Interministerial Conference is held in Rabat, Morocco, which deals precisely with the issue of migration and development and in which Belgium is represented by Mr. Rabat. by Decker. We are waiting to see what part the security will take in this binom of migration and development. Mr. Speaker, please apologize for this momentary “migration” to considerations that seem very far away to some of what concerns us today.

As far as we are concerned, Mr. President, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the Internal Affairs Committee has deliberated for several weeks on the amendment of the law of 15 December 1980 on the access to the territory, the stay, the removal and the establishment of foreigners. On this occasion and in accordance with the request of the Interior Committee, numerous experts, representatives of trade unions, NGOs and public administrations of the Interior and Justice were heard. by Mr. Dirk Claes told you about it.

The government considered it preferable to link the reforms relating to the following two projects: the bill amending the law of 15 December 1980 and the bill reforming the State Council and creating a Council of the Foreign Dispute. These two projects also transpose the following European Directives: Directive 2003/86 on the right to family reunification, Directive 2004/83 on minimum standards relating to the status of refugee or person requiring international protection or subsidiary protection and finally Directive 2004/81 on the residence of third-country nationals victims of human trafficking who have been assisted in illegal immigration or who have cooperated with the competent authorities. by

The government does not make any reference to the legalization of foreigners staying illegally in our territory. This question, voluntarily avoided by the government, has obviously raised a lot of turmoil in the committee, as we will see later in the exhibition on the political debate that followed the hearings. The Government therefore proposes the establishment of a status of medical stay, the establishment of subsidiary protection, legally dedicates the granting of a residence permit to persons victims of trafficking in human beings and who agree to collaborate and, finally, the extension in some cases of the possibilities of obtaining a right of stay in the context of family reunification. by

The establishment of a medical residence status means that a foreigner suffering from a serious illness and who could not be treated in his country of origin or residence will be able to benefit from a residence permit. This status is subject to the following conditions: - he must be sick; - his return to his country must pose a real risk to his life or to his physical integrity.

The establishment of subsidiary protection would be granted to the foreigner for whom there is reason to believe that he would be at real risk of serious injury to his person in the event that he would return to his country of origin or residence.

The three cases are as follows: - when the death penalty would be applied or when he would be executed in his country of origin; - when he would be tortured or subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment; - when his life would be seriously threatened due to blind violence caused by an internal or international conflict.

I come to the granting of residence permits to persons who are victims of human trafficking and who agree to collaborate. This practice already existed, but it is now legally established.

With regard to the right of residence in the context of family reunification, the transposition of family reunification into Belgian law, starting with European Directive 2003/86, continues to bring European legislation on reunification closer. It also faithfully expresses the government’s concern for treating on an equal footing and in one disposition several dimensions: – respect for the fundamental right to family life; – the fight against human trafficking; – “white” marriages; – the abuse of immigration procedures.

A discretionary power will continue to be conferred on the Minister of the Interior who will have to judge situations not foreseen by the legislator. This includes humanitarian cases. by

A condition is imposed: except for exceptional reasons that only the Minister can assess, the application must have been submitted from abroad, in order to avoid an abuse of the resort to the discretionary power of the Minister.

The Council of State judgment defines exceptional circumstances as "the circumstances that make it very difficult, or even impossible, for a foreigner to return to his country of origin" in order to make the request.

In general, in addition to the technical categories, there are three groups enjoying the right of residence in our territory.

1 of 1. Foreigners whose asylum application has taken an unreasonably long time, who are therefore now fully integrated and who do not pose any danger to public order or state security. The government emphasizes that the LIFO method (last in, first out), introduced to deal with the crisis we have known, has helped to significantly reduce the number of asylum applications and more directly affect the group to which it was intended. However, the government acknowledges that this method has resulted in delays in the processing of certain cases to be studied in the background.

2 of 2. Foreigners who, due to serious illness or physical condition, cannot return to their country of origin or primary residence.

3 of 3. Foreigners whose return is difficult or even impossible for serious humanitarian reasons.

The Government considers that a limited list of reasons for issuing residence permits is impossible to ⁇ . The basic principle observed is that the refusal to grant a residence permit could constitute a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights or could be manifestly contrary to the judgment of the State Council. by

Specifically, what changes will be made by the bill? At the level of family reunification, first of all, the transposition of the European Directive envisaged by the project changes the conditions applicable in this matter for family members of persons not citizens of the European Union. Thus, if a foreign person joins another foreign person who is temporarily staying in Belgium, the duration of validity of the right of residence of the merger must be perfectly aligned with the limitations of the right of residence of the person already staying in Belgium. For example, the students.

The draft law clearly distinguishes between: - family reunification with regard to a foreigner who is admitted or authorised to permanent residence or authorized to establish; - family reunification with regard to a person who has only a limited right of residence.

The conditions for benefiting from family reunification have been expanded to align with European legislation. In addition to the spouse, minors and minors with disabilities, in the future, parents of a minor foreigner recognized as a refugee will be able to claim a right to family reunification. The foreigner bound by a registered partnership in accordance with a law to a foreigner admitted or authorized to stay in Belgium may also obtain a residence permit. Adoption of the cascade principle meaning that the person who has acquired a right of residence by means of family reunification can in the future constitute the basis for a new family reunification. by

The government warns against certain abuses that could be observed in the context of family reunification on the basis of a marriage. Therefore, it provides for additional conditions to be met in order to enjoy the right to family reunification. Thus, in the case of a marriage, a family reunification can only be carried out if the joining party and the joining party are at least 21 years old, in order to avoid forced marriages.

Then, the foreigner living in Belgium must have sufficient means of housing and the foreigners who come to Belgium will also need to have a health insurance.

Strengthening post-reunification checks will also be planned to verify whether the foreign nationals concerned de facto form a family cell and meet all the conditions.

The Government also intends to streamline the procedure for obtaining a residence permit on the basis of family reunification, in particular by allowing the application to leave Belgium in the context of a legal long-term stay or serious humanitarian circumstances, by inviting the Office of Foreigners to take a decision within nine months of the application.

If the foreigner does not meet all the necessary conditions, if there is no longer marital life or in the case of fraud, the right to family reunification may be terminated. The foreigner may appeal this decision to the Council of the Foreign Dispute.

As regards the protection status for victims of trafficking in human beings, one of the bills also transposes the European Directive establishing a protection status for victims of trafficking in human beings and trafficking in human beings. The emphasis is on the victim, as the bill provides for the protection of victims of human trafficking offences. This victim status may also be granted to both EU nationals and third-country nationals.

The method is as follows: the victim receives adequate assistance and can acquire a right of residence in our territory in exchange for its contribution to the investigation, which allows police and judicial authorities to collect valuable information to dismantle the networks.

Some provisions are also provided for unaccompanied minors.

As regards the reform of the asylum procedure, it is the most important chapter of the changes the government wants to make.

The Government’s objectives are double: on the one hand, to accelerate and simplify the procedure and, on the other hand, to ensure a quality treatment of all requests, accompanied by judicial control. For this purpose, a new distribution of competences has been proposed.

At the level of the competence of the Office of Foreigners, it remains competent to receive the asylum application and analyze it. It is also the Office that transmits the identity questionnaire of the foreigner and that assesses which country, according to the Dublin Convention, is competent to process the application for asylum, or whether the foreign applicant poses any danger to public order and public security. The Office of Foreigners has, in addition, the power to declare without object a repeated application when new elements have not been provided by the applicant.

As regards the powers of the CGRA, it is provided that the services of the Commissioner-General shall process all asylum applications in a short period of time, i.e. within 15 days for asylum applications of foreigners deprived of their liberty on an administrative or criminal level and within 5 days for applications submitted by EU nationals.

The bill aims to simplify the procedure by allowing the CGRA to limit itself to a single in-depth examination of admissibility and substance. This review will be followed by a single decision.

Foreigners recognized as “refugees” within the meaning of the Geneva Convention, immediately enjoy an unlimited right of residence. In the event that this foreigner enjoys the status of ‘subsidiary protection’, a provisional right of residence of five years is granted to him, at the end of which he may claim an unlimited right of residence.

Finally, the project provides for the creation of a Council of Foreign Disputes. This advice could be requested within 15 days by the foreigner who considers that his application is wrongly rejected or who considers that he is entitled to benefit from a refugee status instead of the subsidiary protection status granted to him.

In the framework of asylum cases, the Council of Foreign Disputes would have full jurisdiction. The magistrates will therefore be able to either confirm the decision of the commissioner, or grant the status of subsidiary protection, or also cancel a decision of the commissioner.

A prime rule in the study of files: the Council must give priority treatment to files of foreigners that are closed.

The appeal is, in the asylum application procedures, always suspensive. This means that no removal measure can be taken by the Foreign Office until a judicial decision has been issued.

The proposed procedure is as follows: 1. preliminary examination of the appeal without object or manifestly unacceptable; 2. If the appeal is admissible, the case is settled; the parties have at least 8 days; 3. At the hearing, the parties have the right to summarize their views. The foreigner may only cite elements contained in the initial appeal and any new elements must be justified; 4. the detained foreigner will benefit from an accelerated procedure in order to limit in time the measure of deprivation of liberty. The judge referred to the dispute must make a decision within 5 working days after the conclusion of the hearings.

The Foreign Dispute Council will therefore not only regain the powers of the Permanent Refugee Appeal Commission, but will also act as a judge of annulment with regard to all individual decisions taken under foreign laws. The Foreign Dispute Council will therefore take on a significant backbone of the State Council.

The foreigner who is the subject of a removal measure will have 24 hours to initiate a procedure for the suspension in extreme urgency with the Council. In order to guarantee this faculty, a custody service for magistrates will be established. If the judge does not take a decision within 48 hours, it will be up to the First President or the President to take measures to make a decision within 72 hours of the petition. by

Decisions of the Council of the Foreign Dispute Council may still be subject to an appeal in cassation before the Council of State. In order to avoid reconstitution of the current backwardness within the State Council, the government proposes the establishment of a filter to prevent legally unfounded claims. Sometimes these remedies are also called “dilatory remedies”. Three objectives are sought by this filter: - the appeals in cassation for which the State Council is not competent or which are without object or manifestly irrevocable will be declared inadmissible; - an appeal will be admissible only if grounds relating to a violation of the law or norms prescribed by penalty of nullity are invoked; - the uniformity of jurisprudence must be safeguarded.

Appeals in cassation declared admissible at the end of the filtering procedure will have priority. An arrest must be made within six months. by

The draft laws also propose measures relating to the structure and organization of the State Council to simplify procedures and address the delay of this instance in the files relating to asylum seekers. These include the introduction of modern management techniques, the discharge of the State Council from certain tasks such as those relating to the status of trade unions — the government considers that the ministry departments in charge of the middle classes can handle them —, the establishment of a mandate system with clearly delimited powers or the assignment of additional magistrates. Twenty-two judges were discussed during the discussions. by

In anticipation of the establishment of the Foreign Dispute Council, the Permanent Foreign Appeal Commission will be required to work according to the new rules.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to share with you the reflections that have arisen during our work. The government’s willingness not to incorporate the criteria into the law has created many riots within the commission and within the various parties. The committee addressed the issue during the political discussions that followed the hearings and which you echoed by my colleague Mr. by Claes.

This reflection focused on several elements.

Regarding family reunification, MEPs stressed that the rules relating to it only concerned nationals of non-European countries since another Directive on family reunification of EU nationals has yet to be transposed.

With regard to humanitarian conditions, MEPs wanted to recall their commitment to the principle that all persecuted persons in their country of origin should be able to enjoy the most appropriate protection. by

The question of the involvement of local authorities in the analysis of applications has, on the other hand, revealed very different positions. The PS, the VLD, the CD&V, the sp.a-spirit and Ecolo questioned the objectivity of the alternative, while the MR and the CDH were rather in favor of this idea.

As for the criteria for regularization, this issue has, as expected, raised many debates and quarrels in committees. The PS, Ecolo and the CDH questioned the motivations of the government not to register these criteria in the law, believing that their registration is in no way incompatible with the discretionary power of the minister. The PS was ⁇ concerned about the problem of people who have long settled in our country and who do not pose any danger to public order. These parties expressed their willingness to see these criteria defined in a broad manner conciliating respect for public order and that of applicants. MR and sp.a-spirit, on their part, considered that the criteria should not be formalized and should remain within the discretionary competence of the Minister.

More than a hundred amendments were submitted. It would be too long to expose them all here. That is why I will give you the big lines.

On family reunification, one of the amendments proposes, for example, that proof that the alien joining has stable, regular and sufficient means of substance, be required for all foreigners who come to settle on our territory, in order to avoid the abuse of social assistance once the persons have settled.

Regarding the criteria for the recognition of refugee status, an amendment, aimed at changing the definition of "social group" by transforming the cumulative conditions contained therein into alternative conditions, was submitted. An amendment, aimed at adapting the text of the bill in the sense of the European Directive on minimum standards concerning the procedure for granting and withdrawing refugee status in the Member States, so that the decision of the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons cannot be determined solely by whether the application meets or does not meet the criteria of admissibility, has also been filed.

Other amendments addressed the issue of detention. One of them proposes in particular that an unarrested asylum seeker who receives a decision of refusal of recognition from the General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless Persons and who has brought a suspensive appeal against the decision shall not be detained until the Council of the Foreign Contentious Council has issued a negative decision.

Lastly, some amendments were submitted on the criteria of the asylum procedure. For example, an amendment was submitted with the aim of introducing clear, permanent criteria, in particular for applications for a stay of more than three months, as part of a regularization procedure before a committee consisting of collegially three members, before which the applicant will be able to appear and defend himself orally. The criteria address the following categories of persons: - victims of the long asylum procedure; - persons in a situation of impossibility of return; - persons seriously ill or with disabilities; - persons with social ties and/or in humanitarian circumstances; - persons with a socio-economic contribution project in Belgium. The aim of these amendments was to introduce clear criteria in the law to avoid arbitrary decisions.

In response, the government explained that it was not in favour of the request made by some groups to include the regulation criteria in the law.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, reading this report and analyzing the debates, amendments and proposals relating to these bills, it must be admitted that there is currently no majority in this country to support the solution of the regularization and the formalization of criteria. While the PS and CDH voted in favour, all the others voted against.

We must also acknowledge that these questions remain. Even if some advances are proposed on this subject through these bills, it remains that the fracture, given the positions of one and the other, remains. It will, of course, have to be filled with legislation that is more consistent with the reality screaming at our European borders, at our doors, in our streets, in our workshops, ...

Are we still in the framework of the report? Does it seem to me that we are slightly diverted towards the general discussion?

I do not see what.

Some positions you have just issued are not included in the report.

I simply conclude by saying that this gap remains open and that at the present time, the positions have not converged towards a harmonisation of criteria and towards a regularization.

by Mr. Boukourna says that there is no majority in the committee; this is a statement of the rapporteur!

by Mr. Boukourna did not cite Ecolo, Madame Nagy.

Mr. Speaker, I obviously attended the whole discussion in the committee; I listen attentively to the report and I ask myself the same question as my colleague Galant. by

Some ways of reporting on a committee’s decisions are objective, while others represent the point of view of the rapporteur’s group. They should be distinguished.

It was true, it was a limit. I listened very carefully to Mr. Boukourna concluded his report. I thought that mr. Maene was registered and would probably give the opinion of the PS group soon.

Go on, Mr Boukourna! You are a young member.

I came to the conclusion at the interruption by Ms. Galant.

I thank you for your attention. I conclude my conclusion by drawing your attention to the fact that the problem remains and that it will be, at one time or another, to find the answer that should be brought to it. That was all I wanted to say as a conclusion.

As agreed, I will now report on the second part, if I can say so. The women are Lanjri and Galant.

I would like to thank mr. I am delighted to be replaced within a minute to allow me to attend the Conference of Presidents. There will also be a meeting of the Committee on European Affairs within the framework of the Lisbon Strategy.

I will then propose a list of speakers, after the rapporteurs. Mr. Claes may be the first speaker,

Madame Galant, you will be second on the list of speakers.

The speaker will be the third speaker.

by Mr. Maene would be the fourth and Mrs. Douifi the fifth, in order to alter the languages. But we will finish the reports first.

Mrs. Lanjri, if you want to publish your report now?

Madame Galant, Madame Lanjri will speak as rapporteur. Then I will begin with Dirk Claes, then you yourself on behalf of your group, before passing the speech to Mr. Claes. of Man.

President: Jean-Marc Delizée, First Vice-President Voorzitter: Jean-Marc Delizée, eerste ondervoorzitter

Mr. Speaker, as colleague Claes has already said, we have started hearings in the Committee on Internal Affairs in connection with these two bills. First were the organizations, the NGOs and the civil society. In addition, on a second day, we heard the representatives from different institutions.

First and foremost, we heard the State Council. The first chairman of the State Council recalled the worrying situation at the State Council. At present, there are approximately 36,200 files, a very large part of which concerns foreigners. Moreover, around 10,000 new files are submitted annually, of which around 2,800 are in ordinary disputes. Most of them are related to foreigners. For years, the State Council has been asking for the establishment of a judicial body of first instance as now included in the draft law. Nevertheless, the Council asks whether the establishment of that new administrative judicial body, the Council for Foreign Disputes, with the corresponding cassation appeal that is still possible at the Council of State, does not create a new appeal. That would not make the situation easier for the State Council. Everything falls or stands therefore with whether or not to incorporate an adequate shipping arrangement or, as we have often heard in the committee, a good filter, according to the first chairman.

In its opinion on the present draft draft, the State Council makes a recommendation on the shipping scheme using three permissibility grounds. First, the unity of jurisprudence to prevent courts from pointing out decisions that come out from all sides. Second, it must be a matter of legal principles, in other words, matters which concern all applicants and which outweigh the individual interest. Third, the non-compliance by the court of first instance with the essential formal requirements that guarantee the respect of individual rights. substantial procedural errors. Those are three criteria that the State Council requires to make the filter work efficiently.

However, the draft provides for an additional reason for admissibility, the Council of State considers, in particular the violation of the law. In reality, the violation of the law is not at all a basis of admissibility but a basis for a cassation appeal. The addition to the three above-mentioned conditions will ensure that the shipping mechanism is transformed into a seed, the first president warned, while it must be intended to limit the reasons of admissibility at the State Council as this is for example the case in Germany.

This view is supported by the Deputy Auditor General of the State Council. Based on the current files and the proposals that the government has included in the draft, according to the speaker, it will take about 15 years to remove the current backwardness.

In addition to the introduction of the permissibility grounds, it is inevitably necessary to provide for more resources for the State Council, he believes. Their

Regarding the introduction of new management principles in the functioning of the State Council, the Deputy Auditor General argues that the present draft has actually taken over the very formalist arrangement common within the legal power. According to the speaker, however, this does not work properly, while this is now applied to the Council of State. The numerous form requirements and the evaluations will take so much time that the processing of the files will be delayed, he fears. All these elements, such as, firstly, the inadequate filter procedure, secondly, the application of the new management principles and, thirdly, the fact that the old dossiers still need to be removed, will, in his opinion, lead to the achievement of the reform and its main objective, which is, in fact, uncertain. The State Council does not call for half measures. Their

Secondly, we heard the Order of the Balie of the French-speaking and German-speaking Community. According to the Order, three principles must prevail in relation to the problem presented. First, substantially remove the backwardness in the Council of State. There must be a guarantee of a fair trial for all. Secondly, in the settlement of the foreign contentieux, the level of protection of fundamental rights should not be lower than in other disputes. Third, the establishment of the administrative judicial authority in foreign matters with full jurisdiction to limit the flow of files to the State Council. Their

This last point seems to be included in the draft, but the Order wants to draw attention in particular to some tricky points. First, getting rid of the current backwardness in the files. A regularization of these dossiers seems to be the only acceptable procedure for the Order. Second, the shipment procedure concerning administrative cassation appeals. In this regard, the Order states that the filter proposed by the Council of State poses special problems, since according to the Order it would only apply to foreign register. However, shipment should be possible, taking into account that appeal must be open to all applicants, that the applicant can be heard and that the decision is motivated. Third, the publication of the decision so that there is sufficient transparency. Their

The third body we heard was the Foreign Affairs Service. During the presentation, Mr Roosemont discussed three important aspects of the present draft, namely the amendment of the asylum procedure, the adjustments of the conditions and the procedure for family reunification and the replacement of Article 9, paragraph 3° by two new provisions relating to regularization. With regard to the asylum procedure, the role of the DVZ will decline sharply after the legislative change. The Foreign Affairs Service is therefore only responsible for the recording of data, the determination of the language of the survey and the Dublin study. Furthermore, the Foreign Affairs Service will continue to act upon a second or repeated asylum application and when considering it. Their

Regarding family reunification, Mr Roosemont recalls the proposed changes, in particular the longer period in which control of abuse of family reunification will be possible.

With regard to regularization, Mr Roosemont repeated the criteria currently used by DVZ. Since 2005, all applications submitted before 1 January 2001 are treated as priority. This procedure was subsequently revised so that currently asylum applications filed before 30 June 2003 are still pending and eligible for regularization.

The fourth body we heard was the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons.

During his presentation, Mr Van den Bulck returns to the measures taken to address the growing backwardness of the Commissioner-General. For example, in January 2001 the LIFO principle — last in first out — was applied. As a result, over the past years, the Commissioner-General was able to make a decision on average within a three-month period. This does not exclude the fact that for a large number of cases from the past the aforementioned short decision-making deadline was not met.

Since 2005, however, continuous efforts have been made to eliminate the backwardness. This was made possible by the employment of good and highly motivated personnel, a better organisation of the work and, for a limited part, the closure of files without object after the regularization of stay due to a too long procedure.

In handling the files, special attention is paid to vulnerable groups such as minors, victims of human trafficking and gender issues.

For some important numerical data, I refer to the written report.

Mr Van den Bulck believes that the current procedure can be considered very good and efficient. In fact, it meets the main criteria that can be met in an asylum procedure: the definition must be comprehensive and the procedure must contain effective guarantees of the rights of asylum seekers. The latter means that access to the procedure must be guaranteed. In addition, the asylum seeker should have the real opportunity to explain his reasons. He must also be able to rely on an effective remedy and on a decision within a short time.

At the same time, the procedure should be efficient. A final decision must be made within a short time. Furthermore, the procedure should be structured in such a way that its abuse is minimized.

This does not exclude the fact that a reform, as it is now proposed, would not be necessary. Reform is absolutely necessary. Indeed, the introduction of the subsidiary protection status and the need to remove the backwardness in the Council of State are important.

With regard to subsidiary protection, the Commissioner-General was ⁇ satisfied with the application of the unique procedure — procedure unique — which was chosen in the draft. In this way, each file is simultaneously checked on the application, on the one hand, of the Geneva Convention and, on the other hand, on the conditions for subsidiary protection.

However, the design also has weaknesses, says Mr Van den Bulck. The current structure of the 1980 Act is ⁇ ined. This makes the text even more unreadable than it already is. A second weakness is the maintenance of Article 52 regarding the admissibility criteria, which he calls problematic.

Compliance with the Directive on minimum standards for asylum procedures, which is soon to be transposed into Belgian law, will require another adaptation of this Article. It might have been better if this happened at once. Their

Then we heard the OCMWs of large cities, the OCMWs of Liège and Antwerp. The Chairman of the OCMW of Luik drew in his speech some trouble points. Thus, he expressly opposes the situations arising from the introduction of the LIFO principle. He noted that this creates a FINO group, first in-never out. They will then naturally go to the OCMWs for support. These people are still entitled to financial support. Their

A second point he cited was the non-compliance or poor functioning of the asylum seekers spread plan. Their

A third point he cited was the hypocrisy regarding the order to leave the territory. The government must be much more vigilant that this is actually implemented, according to the Chairman of the OCMW of Luik. Their

The Chair of the OCMW of Antwerp was satisfied with some of the measures proposed in the draft. She said that this will give some of the illegal persons currently residing in our territory a legal basis for residence. It referred to the introduction of subsidiary protection, medical regularization and the extension of family reunification provided for in Article 10. Their

However, this does not take away for the chairwoman that there is still a problem around the foreigners with an illegal residence. In that context, it calls for an expansion of the resources available to the OCMWs. Their

The chairwoman stated that the reduction of the asylum procedure is a positive step, but that also here the question arises what to do with the people who are not recognized. Regarding the procedure at the Council of State, the Chairperson stressed that the proposed amendments are or fall with an efficient filter procedure for the Council of State and with strict compliance with the deadlines set forth in the present draft. Their

The Chairperson also called for an activation policy and respect for newcomers. Language retardation and potential cultural problems too often cause these people to remain in the support or living wage and that the group increases chance and generation poor. Their

The speaker also regretted that no measures were taken to change the family reunification of Belgians and EU nationals. Therefore, the draft does not provide a solution to the problem of Belgians of immigrant origin who have their parents or grandparents to be able to send them to the OCMW after a short period of time if they cannot continue to take care of them themselves. Their

In that context, the chairwoman of the OCMW of Antwerp also refers to the problems caused by the fast-Belg-law. This creates extensive possibilities for family reunification of the new Belgians. In addition, there is an organized use of the exceptions in the law by the consulates to grant Belgian citizenship to children born in Belgium. Finally, the President points out the problem of unaccompanied minors. Sometimes it must be established that specialized services, which receive the necessary resources for this, can nevertheless not deal with those children and nevertheless forward them to the OCMW, which has neither the setting nor the means to guarantee a qualitative reception. The guardianship scheme has not provided any solutions to this, the chairperson says.

The Standing Professional Committee for Refugees was also heard. The first chairman of the Standing Professional Committee was already satisfied with the draft, as it largely corresponds to the aspirations that the Standing Professional Committee has been formulating for years. First, there is the establishment of an administrative jurisdiction in full jurisdiction for all cases in application of the Act of 1980, as well as the extension of the investigation to the protection of the subsidiary protection status.

The speaker drew attention to the growing backwardness in the Standing Professional Commission. For years, the backwardness has remained limited, ⁇ compared to other asylum authorities. However, it was after the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless People began to work after the additional funding has been allocated, that the backwardness in the Standing Professional Committee has grown. That service faced a significant underoccupation and received fewer resources compared to other asylum services. It was only after the efforts in the course of 2005 that the backwardness could be stopped. Now that lag has to be removed.

Not to mention that with the current resources and with the application of the current procedure, it will take years to remove the downturn, which has now reached 11,000 cases. The present draft proposal therefore offers some possibilities, as the Chairman points out. For example, the written procedure, quantitatively viewed, could reduce the backwardness, although the first president admits that oral debates are actually the best means of examining the fairness, as well as the substance of the fear of the stranger. The speaker stressed that, in order to assess whether a person is actually being prosecuted or has reasons to fear prosecution, it is usually preferable to hear the person concerned himself rather than his or her lawyer.

In this regard, the First President welcomes the addition of Article 174 of the draft law reforming the State Council and the establishment of the Council for Foreign Disputes. As a rule, the applicant will no longer be able at any time to come up with new information, which he should have and can provide to the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless persons or in his appeal.

However, the court may, by way of derogation from that rule, decide to take into account any new data communicated to him, if that data can prove with certainty the reasonable or unfounded nature of the appeal. According to the first chairman of the Standing Professional Committee, the present draft addresses a number of key difficulties in that asylum procedure, as it is today. Notwithstanding this, special attention should be paid to the current backwardness of the files, more than eleven thousand files.

We also heard the Regulation Committee. The regularisation committee was represented during the hearings by two speakers, firstly by the Vice-Prime President of the Dutch-speaking Chambers, Mrs Vercammen, and secondly by the former President of the Fifth Chamber, Mr Funck.

The Vice-First President recalled the objective of the Regulation Act of 22 December 1999, in particular a one-off operation, which would take only a short period of time. In reality, not all the files are still handled today, in particular the files that were seized by the prosecutor’s office at the time.

In any case, it should be noted that the start of the regularization was ⁇ difficult. They could also go back to nothing.

The view of the course was also very different. Thus arose a different interpretation of the legal texts, which were not always clear. Parliamentary work shows that the government favoured a strict interpretation. The NGOs then again advocated for an extremely smooth filling, so that as many applicants as possible would be regulated. The magistrates then usually opted again for the principle of legality, as Ms. Vercammen testified.

Furthermore, it was quickly established that a number of files showed indisputable signs of fraud and abuse, and that the ability, experience and adequate investigative resources lacked to act timely and efficiently against those misstatements. In particular, it involved counterfeit documents, such as rental contracts and medical certificates, and false identity and nationality. According to Ms. Vercammen, the entire operation was rather chaotic due to the circumstances in which it had to be worked. The mass of applications should be handled case by case by case, in accordance with the fixed procedure, by an independent body. However, these obvious provisions were violated by imposing a time limit and providing quotas for the investigation secretariates, making the workload unbearably high for everyone and preventing serious investigation of each dossier.

Some concerns can also be formulated regarding the independence of the Chambers, the Vice-Prime-President stated. According to the speaker, the specific composition of those chambers was sometimes sensitive and gave rise to possible deontological problems and possible incompatibilities.

Some lawyers sat in the Chamber one day, while they acted as defenders of one of the applicants the following day. The NGOs on their side mainly referred to positive opinions. They were not under oath and were not bound by deontological regulations. The duty to keep silence or to respect the secret of the council was sometimes difficult for them. Criminality was rarely discussable, while in all that the magistrates were eventually placed in the minority and had to draw up an opinion, which they actually did not support.

Mrs Vercammen thus concludes that the regularisation commission in the form of the law of 22 December 1999 is not subject to repeat.

A completely different story, however, was heard from Mr. Funck. His experience with the regularization committee was rather positive and he was therefore surprised by the presentation of his colleague. The committee was an important step for Mr. Funck, both for humanity and for the enforcement of justice. In the human sphere, people emerged who until recently had no face. According to the speaker, the law contained clear criteria, which, however, in its application presented difficulties with regard to the assessment. For example, is someone who he claims to be; is the nationality correct; are the submitted documents authentic?

In the context of law enforcement, the committee had to apply legal criteria that were not previously applied by any jurisdictional chamber. The speed with which the files had to be handled was also a major problem in many cases. According to Mr Funck, the composition of the committee, where the contribution of NGOs and lawyers was essential, was the reason why the campaign could be successfully completed. Mr Funck concluded that the law of 22 December 1999 could indeed serve as an inspiration for new measures.

We also listened to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The High Commissioner should, among other things, monitor the compliance of the Geneva Convention by the Member States. In that capacity, the representative of the High Commissioner’s Office expressed satisfaction with the draft presented. In particular, the simplification and shortening of the procedure and the introduction of the subsidiary protection status are positive elements in the draft.

Nevertheless, the High Commissioner has a number of concerns. First, the admissibility phase, which previously belonged to DVZ, is deleted in the new procedure. Nevertheless, in the new procedure, admissibility criteria are retained, allowing refusal of recognition as a refugee on the basis of purely formal criteria, which are completely independent of any need for international protection. That is a first consideration.

Second, there is concern about the role of DVZ with regard to the newly submitted applications, or new elements. The High Commissioner’s Office asks whether the service will still have the necessary experience in the future, as the service will no longer have a role to play in the new procedure.

Third, detention is rather systematized by the design. It can be included during the Dublin investigation, during the investigation by the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, and during the procedure before the Council of Foreigners Disputes.

The High Commissioner’s Office wants to make it clear that imprisonment must always be proportionate to the objectives set forth. Their

Fourth, the High Commissioner’s Office also sees a problem in the difference between the possibilities of family reunification, depending on whether it is a recognised refugee or a subsidiary protection. Their

Fifth, the procedure before the Council for Strangers Disputes is either suspensive or suspensive, however, there is concern that due to the formal requirements of the procedure combined with the relatively short deadlines, the asylum seekers are at risk of having less effective options to clarify their case. Furthermore, the lack of own research possibilities of the Council for Foreign Disputes is also not an improvement. Their

The role of the High Commissioner is also limited in the draft. The representative states that, however, the High Commissioner’s Office will continue to exercise its role at all times. Their

Finally, the problem of stateless people is also mentioned. Currently, the processing of applications for statelessness is divided between the civil courts, the Foreign Affairs Service and, to a lesser extent, the High Commissioner. Although it is not easy to find information on this subject, some evidence shows that the existing procedures pose problems. The High Commissioner’s Office considers that this law revision should be used to improve it. Their

We also heard the director of the closed center for illegal persons in Bruges. The director of the Centre for Illegals stated that the closed centers aim to detain foreigners with a view to a possible removal from the territory and this in a humane and respectful way. The cornerstone of the fight against illegal immigration is the effective removal of rejected asylum seekers. Their

The detention in a closed centre cannot, according to the director, be compared to a prison regime. There are several reasons for this. The main goal is not to punish the stranger, but to prepare him for his departure. The duration of his stay in the center depends on his cooperation. The regime in the center is a group regime, while this in a prison is an individual cell regime. Finally, the centre also provides psychological and administrative guidance. Their

A frequently heard criticism is the possible duration of detention. The director said that this is initially two months and may be extended by two months in certain circumstances. If the foreigner voluntarily leaves our country, the detention period is almost always short. The foreigner may also appeal against his deprivation of liberty at various bodies. Their

Another point of criticism is the deprivation of liberty of minors. This includes both accompanied and unaccompanied minors. The accompanied minors are constantly involved in the procedure of their parents. For unaccompanied minors, every effort shall be made to keep the duration of detention as short as possible. This is what the director says. Their

In 2005, the number of places for families was also increased. Also there, the voluntary departure ensures a as short as possible period of deprivation of liberty. The director regrets that this is happening too little in practice. The average duration of family detention is three weeks.

The last two bodies are the Federal Police and the Centre for Equal Opportunities and for Anti-Racism. I will overwhelm them quickly.

The main task of the federal police services at the national airport is border control. Regularly, the services are confronted in the first line with people applying for political asylum. However, the task of the federal police is limited to the preparation of a form, and not to the taking of an interrogation or statement on the application. These are done by the Foreign Affairs Service. In attendance, the people are housed in a transit center.

The task of the federal police is of course also the detection of new phenomena related to human trafficking and human trafficking.

As a third pillar, the federal police are also responsible for the removal policy. During the forced repatriations, the coercion is always applied progressively and in proportion to the resistance of the foreigner to be removed. It also continuously evaluates whether the coercion applied is human and reasonable. If this is not the case, the attempt to remove is stopped and a new attempt is made, or the foreigner is provided for a joint flight. In that framework it is recognized that in recent years there has been an enhanced cooperation at the European level.

The Commissioner also expressed hope that the acceleration and shortening of the asylum procedure will also reduce the opposition to repatriation.

Finally, the Commissioner confirms that the draft provides for the implementation of a number of recommendations made by the Vermeersch committee in the context of a human expulsion policy.

Finally, the Centre for Equal Opportunities and for Combating Racism. The Centre expresses its satisfaction with the changes included in the draft, in particular as regards the legal status of victims of trafficking in human beings, the definition of the beneficiary of subsidiary protection and the establishment of an administrative court with full jurisdiction in asylum matters.

However, the law of 15 December 1980 has since become a ⁇ difficult text. The new changes ⁇ do not contribute to a relief. The Centre acknowledges the need for new changes and notes that these only solve problems, but the changes hardly anticipate future problems. For example, the current bill does not provide any tool to control future migration flows.

Regarding the drafts, the Centre notes that both new and existing, old statutes apply to a number of periods of residence with precarious status.

This refers to the granting of temporary residence permits pending definitive.

Some other comments the Centre has made regarding the design are as follows.

The discretionary power of the Minister is retained for certain matters, sometimes it is curtailed and often it is also extended. For example, the residence permit for seriously ill persons is regulated by law, which means the loss of the discretionary power, while the injunction power in relation to the commissariat-general is again an extension.

Even in the context of current jurisprudence, a democratic society requires the exercise of discretionary power to be more transparent and lawful. A number of measures could contribute positively to this: the anchoring of the admissibility criteria for regularization in the law, the assistance of an independent committee and a limitation of the discretion when a court of first instance recognizes a stateless person and when the status of unaccompanied minor foreigners was recognized by a guardianship service.

As regards children and minors in our Residence Act, it is regrettable, according to the Centre, that in the draft no measures were taken regarding their residence status. According to the director, a great opportunity was missed. This is about children, unaccompanied minors.

In the context of family reunification, the Centre has special questions about the age limit, which is raised to 21 years. The Director doubts whether the measure will ⁇ the intended objective. The concern has been raised by the observation that no similar measure is being taken for Belgium and by the existence of various bilateral agreements with countries of origin. These are exactly those two categories in which, for example, abuse of forced marriages is established.

With regard to the Council on Foreign Disputes, the Centre is more likely to see a deterioration in asylum applications, due to the loss of its own investigation power and the loss of the oral procedure. More than now, the foreigner will depend on the quality of the work of his lawyer.

In the context of non-asylum matters, the benefit of the establishment of a Council for Foreign Disputes is largely lost if that body for non-asylum matters is limited to a legality review competence. The disappearance of the request for revision and its replacement by an appeal to the Council for Foreign Disputes will ⁇ mean a decline in the protection of the rights of foreigners. The fact that the foreigners cannot be heard during an oral procedure and there is only a legality check, rather than a substantive investigation, as is now the case with a request for revision, can be cited as important points, the Centre points out.

So far the report of the hearings. Collega Claes has done a part and also I have done a part of the hearings related to the draft presented.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Dear colleagues, Mr. Boukourna has already summarized the introductory exhibition of the Minister of the Interior concerning Bill No. 2479 reforming the State Council and creating a Council of the Foreign Disputes. by

The hearings relating to this text were also ⁇ to you by Mrs. Lanjri. It is my responsibility to report the general discussion and discussion of the articles held on this project by your committee at the meetings of 23, 30 and 31 May, 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 21 and 26 June 2006.

Four bills were attached to this government draft.

The first proposal was intended to amend Article 71, paragraph 2, of the Act of 15 December 1980 on the access to the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreigners.

by Mr. Mohammed Boukourna (PS) recalls that a foreigner, even when he has a valid visa, can be denied access to the territory and kept in a centre for inadmissible. He may appeal against this decision before the Council Chamber.

The foreigner who benefits from a decision of release issued by the council chamber does not enjoy access to the territory, because the council chamber decides on the legality of detention, not on the removal measure.

The foreigner may appeal against the decision of the Chamber of Councils with a suspension appeal to the Council of State, but such requests are systematically declared inadmissible. Therefore, there was no other solution abroad than to wait for the State Council to decide on the substance, which can take several years. According to the authors, an effective remedy must therefore be recognized to these persons, both against deprivation of liberty and against rejection. The bill thus tends to confer on the Chamber of Councils full powers.

The second bill amends the Act of 15 December 1980 on the access to the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreigners in order to entrust the Permanent Refugee Appeal Commission with the competence to hear urgent appeals against the decisions of the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons. by

by Mr. Philippe Monfils (MR) affirms, first of all, that his bill aims to remove the important backwardness facing the Council of State. This delay is not only a source of problems for the individual citizen, but it also slows down the general processing of cases, including those that are not entirely related to the problem of foreigners. The speaker further points out that the State Council constitutes an administrative court. In the context of the problem of foreigners, the State Council is therefore called to play a role that, in reality, is not its own. In the past, a number of suggestions have already been made to address this problem, such as the acceleration of procedures and the establishment of administrative courts.

The solution proposed by the author is to make the Permanent Refugee Appeal Commission competent for appeals against CGRA decisions. Although the government has opted for a new college, Mr. Monfils believes that the bill reforming the State Council and creating a Council of Foreign Disputes fully meets his aspirations.

The third bill amends the law of 15 December 1980 on the access to the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreigners and establishes a Commission on Foreigners in order to remedy the backwardness of the State Council. by

Ms. Marie Nagy (Ecolo) emphasizes that the backwardness of the State Council concerns not only the problem of foreigners, but also other matters. by

This delay is caused by a lack of resources that has been ongoing since 1991, by the constant assignment of new tasks to the Council of State and by the fact that citizens turn to the Council of State more quickly to bring an appeal against an administrative decision. Therefore, it is necessary to wait seven to eight years for a deal to succeed. Therefore, it is proposed to create a Foreigners Commission in order, on the one hand, to discharge the State Council from the files relating to foreigners and, on the other hand, to establish a permanent consultation body responsible for formulating proposals of structural solutions to resolve the existing backward and prevent the creation of a new backward. Part of the solution is in fact to increase the staff of the State Council, the other part concerns the way of organizing work. The interviewer can therefore subscribe to a series of elements of the project reforming the State Council and creating a Council of the Foreign Dispute. Other aspects, including the extension of the mandate system, pose problems for him.

Ms Nagy emphasizes that this bill is heavily inspired by the bill establishing a Permanent Commission for Regularizing the Residence of Certain Categories of Foreigners Staying in the Kingdom.

On the fourth proposal amending the Foreigners Act regarding the procedure for recognition of refugee status, Mr. Dirk Claes (CD&V) refers to the development of his bill.

It is then not easy to distinguish, in these discussions, what falls within the draft on the Council and what concerns the reform of the law of 1980. Basically, in the context of the general discussion, here is what can be recalled from it.

by Mr. Anthuenis intervenes regarding the filter established for cassation appeals before the Council of State. For the speaker, it is obvious that this filter cannot be too loose, as explained, during the hearings, a representative of the State Council. by

According to Ms. Marie Nagy, the proposed procedure should lead to an increase in the grounds of inadmissibility and the non-consideration of asylum seekers. The foreigner who leaves his country and who does not submit his application for asylum to the Belgian border authorities when questioned about the reasons for his arrival in Belgium will see his application for asylum declared inadmissible without any examination of the fears of persecution being made. For the intervenient, a suspensive appeal to the Council of the Foreign Controversy will not be possible, only the appeal for cancellation to the Council of State can be considered. However, this appeal is not suspensive and therefore expulsion may take place. by

Furthermore, Ms Nagy says that even if the duration of detention is theoretically limited to one month, this period is suspended when the asylum applicant appeals against a negative decision of the General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless Persons (General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless Persons, CGRA), which has the effect of making this detention indefinitely. Indeed, the Council of the Dispute of Foreigners, the appeal body, is not bound to a deadline to make its decision. Then, for the interviewer, for years, the interest of a judicial appeal procedure that allows the foreigner to come to speak orally with his lawyer has been highlighted.

A new Court of Appeal of the CGRA is established: the Council of Foreign Disputes (CCE). The advantage is that in asylum matters, the appeal before the CCE is suspensive but of lower quality than the current Permanent Refugee Appeal Commission (CPRR) since its functioning is calculated on that of the State Council. The CCE does not have the instructional powers of the current CPRR. Ms Nagy recalls the bill she submitted to try to address the problem of the backwardness of the State Council.

Finally, the intervenient considers that the filtering procedure provided for in administrative cassation at the Council of State is too strict.

According to Ms. Douifi, one of the central objectives of the reform is to make the procedure shorter and more efficient. In this regard, the maximum duration of twelve months is often advanced. For the intervenient, the appeal in cassation before the State Council must remain a completely exceptional appeal. To avoid multiple uses, therefore, a powerful filter is needed that appreciates the acceptability of the request. The success of this reform will depend, to a large extent, on the efficiency of this filter.

Ms. Schryvers of CD&V points out that the proper functioning of the highest administrative courts in a rule of law is of the utmost importance. The prosecutors must be able to enjoy legal certainty. The speaker evaluates the contribution of the project to the examination. It notes a procedural improvement, namely the fact that the request for suspension and the request for cancellation can be the subject of a single act. It recalls the enormous backwardness that has been created over the years in the Council of State, not only in terms of foreign disputes but also in ordinary proceedings. In this regard, Ms. Schryvers defends the fact that the bill under consideration is insufficient and incomplete, inasmuch as it focuses only on certain elements of the State Council reform instead of reviewing its functioning as a whole.

With regard to the reform of the Council of State, Mr. Maene emphasizes the introduction of management techniques in order to adapt the institution to the needs of modern management (with the establishment of a mandate system and an evaluation system). On the procedural level, the challenge for the intervenient is to speed up the proceedings without thus reducing the right of defence. For this purpose, conditions of admission for appeals in administrative cassation are introduced, that is, a filtering procedure as before other European courts.

by Mr. Drèze says that the hearing of body heads has shown that the High Administrative Court does not currently have the means to handle foreign disputes within acceptable time limits. With regard to the establishment of an administrative court, namely the CCE, Mr. Drèze considers that the staff planned are clearly insufficient. The interviewer also refers to the 24-hour period open to the applicant which would be unavailable to bring a suspensive appeal against an order for expulsion, followed by the 72-hour period, too short, which is granted to the judge to decide, after which an order for expulsion can be issued even if the applicant has received no response. In conclusion, the speaker believes that the drafts, bills and resolutions under discussion must meet the various points outlined in order to develop a process that is both human, fast and fair.

In response, the Minister of the Interior highlighted the following elements.

The Foreign Dispute Council and the proceedings that may be initiated before this Council are new elements. Although these are unknown to date, the introduction of the possibility of exercising judicial control in all cases constitutes an important step forward.

As regards the proceedings before the Foreign Dispute Council, the fact of providing for a written procedure and not granting any investigative power to the Council’s magistrates constituted a clear political choice. The main part of the asylum procedure must be entrusted to the General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless Persons, which is independent. You have to make a quality decision. In this regard, it must also ensure that all charge and discharge instruction documents are submitted. If he does not, he can be punished. The Council of the Foreign Controversy may indeed cancel its decision and require it to constitute a better supported file if it is not possible to take a clear position on the asylum application based on the file submitted.

Therefore, the General Commission has every interest in constituting a solid file or not. According to the Minister, the procedure before the Council of the Foreign Disputes meets the requirements of Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (effective recourse). The First President of the State Council expressly confirmed this during the hearings.

Within the framework of the functioning of the State Council and the proposed adjustments to effectively resolve the backdrop of this jurisdiction, the filter has been widely discussed. According to the State Council, this system is not strict enough. For lawyers, it is too much. In making this choice, the government thought first of all of the justiciable. If he has legal means of cassation, he must be able to assert them. by

The cassation filter is a new feature in the Belgian legal order. Experiences from abroad teach us that this is a valid instrument that can work perfectly. Therefore, the Minister does not see why this would not be the case in Belgium. by

Some believe that the State Council should have even more personnel and resources to quickly resolve the backbone. A policy limited to providing financial resources has not in the past resulted in a significant increase in the number of arrests made. Therefore, another path needs to be given a chance. In addition to a limited increase in the number of State Councillors and Auditors, a series of procedural and structural adjustments are also planned to help remove the backbone. In this context, it is stressed that 80% of the appeals submitted to the State Council concern disputes relating to the application of the Foreigners Act. This dispute is transferred to the Council of the Foreign Dispute. by

In the future, the State Council will only have to deal with one-fifth of the current number of disputes, while its staff will continue to increase. In this context, it should logically be possible to resolve the non-foreign disputes faster. by

For the Minister of the Interior, the introduction of modern management and evaluation techniques will also ⁇ bear fruit.

Then came the replicas for which I allow myself to refer to my written report. by

As part of the discussion of the articles, amendments are defended by Mr. Articles 6, 8, 12, 25, 33, 45 and 53. by Mr. Drèze also proposed to create articles 212bis and 212ter and to amend article 216.

Ms Nagy submits an amendment to Article 8 and with Mr. Drèze proposes to amend articles 79, 118, 153, 155, 156, 161, 176 and 184.

Ms Lanjri et consorts submit an amendment to Articles 8, 14, 19, 68, 69, 70, 79, 174 and 241bis. by Mr. Maene et consorts propose to amend articles 27, 52, 61, 206, 207 and 216 and an article 52bis is also proposed.

by Mr. Borginon and consorts propose amendments to Article 206.

Through long interventions, for which I refer to my written report, Mr. The Minister of the Interior develops the Government’s view on each amendment. by

Amendments to Articles 27, 52, 61, 150, 206 and 216 shall be adopted during voting. Article 52a is introduced. These amendments relate respectively to: - the composition of the jury responsible for the examination of applications for the functions of Deputy Auditor and Deputy Referent to the State Council; - the function of Administrator, which should be considered as a re-evaluated and adapted to the requirements of a modern management; - the assignment of holders of a position to the State Council to an international or supranational body; - the treatment of Deputy Secretary to the State Council; - the fact that the duration of the mandate of Administrator is equal to that of Deputy Director of the State Council, i.e. 5 years; - the evaluation after one year of cassation appeals to which the State Council is referred; - the deputy mandate of Director of personnel management of the State Council and the organization; - the mandate of Deputy Director of the Budget and Management, which for the end of this period renews the administrative period and for which a period of 5 years is renewed.

The entire amended text is adopted by 12 votes against 1 and 2 abstentions.

Madame Galant, I thank you for your report. by

We have heard the rapporteurs of the various draft laws and proposals. We can now continue the general discussion. by

Eleven speakers are registered, the first being mr. by Dirk Claes.

I will make a brief presentation, less long than my oral report. On behalf of CD&V I will talk about the Council of State and the Council for Foreign Disputes. The other part is discussed by my colleague Nahima Lanjri.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the present draft had a promising starting point, the draft on the Council for Foreign Disputes. The establishment of a full-fledged administrative jurisdiction, which would handle all appeals concerning decisions taken in implementation of the Act of 15 December 1980 is a good thing. In addition, the State Council would be drastically reformed, allowing it to address the immense backwardness it faces.

However, the final result, colleagues, is less positive than it is suggested. First, there is the Foreign Disputes Council. In asylum matters, the council acts in full jurisdiction. We acknowledge the positive contribution that the measure has to the handling of the asylum dossiers and the simplification resulting from it. However, the negative remains that the council does not have its own investigative powers, an important asset that its predecessor, the Permanent Professional Committee, has. In non-asylum matters, the Council for Foreigners Disputes has only the role of cassation judge. Compared to the current procedure for the request for revision, that is undoubtedly a weakening of the position of the foreigner who, for example, requests family reunification.

As for the reform at the State Council, the major trouble remains the faulty filter, which came out of the bus as a compromise to the design. The State Council itself explicitly asked for shock therapy and not half-measures. It is clear that the proposed measure will be insufficient. However, it is of paramount importance that the flow of the files to the State Council is controlled, otherwise the whole draft has been a measure for nothing.

We have therefore based our amendment in this regard on the criteria proposed by the State Council itself, in particular only those matters which may be subject to the jurisdiction of the State Council in case of cassation and which, in the first place, relate to the unity of jurisprudence, in order to prevent courts from issuing judgments with different power. Secondly, there must be principled legal issues, which outweigh the individual interest. Third, it must be substantial procedural errors or the non-compliance by the judicial authorities with the essential formal requirements that guarantee the respect of individual rights.

We were pleased to find that sp.a and VLD had also seen the light during the discussion and had submitted a similar amendment after us — it was almost identical. However, the fate or rather the discipline of the government has decided differently.

However, it is not too late for members to rethink. We will therefore submit our amendment again to vote.

Mr. Anthuenis, you can think again about what you are going to do with that filter amendment. That is important.

All this is also the reason why we, as CD&V, requested a thorough review, 1 year after the law came into force. We provide an assessment not only of the filter but of the full functioning of the State Council and the Council for Foreign Disputes. We also suggest that the evaluation should be done by the Parliament and not by the government. However, this was also reduced by the majority amendment to the minimum minimum. In this context, I would like to say that I regret a number of things. Minister Dewael has initially announced openness during the discussion of these bills. However, not much has come into place as it turns out that the majority parties should also swallow their amendments. Despite the treatment and the many hearings, we must nevertheless conclude that a bill is submitted by the government with potential, at least, that potential would exist on condition of proper treatment and the necessary guidance by Parliament. However, it should not have been. And the announced openness, Mr. Minister, was unfortunately not there.

Can I replicate that? First, as regards the evaluation, you say that it will be done by the government and that it should actually be done by the Parliament. It will happen through the two. It will be done by the Government and the Government will of course come to Parliament once the evaluation of the procedure has been made and the Parliament will of course have the opportunity to make a decision on it through questioning and interpellations, or whatever, through questioning and interpellations. That is one.

Second, as regards openness, I have told you, from the beginning, that I am in favour of an open parliamentary reading, but for me it is important that at least the two drafts, such as those approved by the Council of Ministers, can be approved. There is consensus among the four majority parties.

Amendments can be made for me, provided that you of course have a consensus or, if there is no unanimity, still have a majority. What should I do if I find that majority does not exist, just alone, Mr. Claes, within the government majority? However, if I read the amendments of CdH and Ecolo, I assume that you also do not agree. In short, the amendments have been submitted for voting. If the amendments are unable to obtain a majority, the government, I have said, at that point returns to the two drafts it has submitted to Parliament. This is the normal parliamentary procedure. You cannot say that the committee has not been able to put time into this. We discussed it for hours and hours. At one point I said that, after participation, including through hearings, it would decorate the Parliament to come to a certain judgment. The decision was made by the committee.

Alleszins was not fulfilling the bill as it was submitted in my opinion. A lot of good amendments have been proposed, even by sp.a and VLD, but they have to swallow them themselves. I do not understand that.

The filter process was very important. We wanted to improve them. That even this was not to be swallowed, I think a bridge too far. Their

In terms of evaluation, it is important that Parliament could set up an independent committee to carry out the evaluation. We do not think it is correct that first the government does this and only then the control by Parliament will be able to take place. Mr. Minister, instead of a complete draft law that we should approve here, there is a refined preliminary draft. Per ⁇ more time and energy was invested in not having to change anything about it, than it was spent writing the design itself. I think there has been a lot of consultation within the majority and that the conclusion was always that nothing else would be changed. I am not saying that I agreed with all amendments, but there were still good points that would have been an improvement on the legislative level. They did not go through because of the mutual discipline in the majority. Their

I think we will soon face repair legislation and new legislation on the same topics. In addition, there are still European directives that we will need to implement and apply quickly. By the way, you said that you will come here with this. There were proposals to include this in this already, but that has unfortunately not happened.

Mr. Speaker, before going into the two drafts presented, I would like to outline the situation as it has grown in recent years and which led, colleagues, that the notion of “illegal residence” under pairs almost completely disappeared from Belgian legislation. Their

Let me go back to history. In 1999, one of the first major announcements from Verhofstadt I was that there would be a massive regularization campaign. Purple green gave more than 50,000 illegals — the people without papers, as they so euphemistically describe it — the chance to get papers anyway. The majority of illegal foreigners were granted a residence permit in the following years. However, we can not know exactly how many there were, because not all the files have yet been handled. We are probably around 40,000 now. Their

However, there is more. The regularization campaign announced in 1999 generated a giant suction effect, bringing a record number of asylum seekers to our country. In 1999, there was already an increase to 36,000, coming from 22,000 the year before. Then came the year 2000 with no less than 42,000 asylum applications. Their

The government today shows that the numbers have decreased in recent years, but that is of course not difficult, if one first triggered a tsunami of asylum seekers. Between the end of the reign period – Verhofstadt I – Verhofstadt II, from 1999 to the beginning of next year, around 200,000 asylum seekers will have entered this country. That is the population of Bruges and Mechelen together.

Third, Verhofstadt I introduced the lifo principle: last in, first out. This means that the most recent asylum applications were processed first. As a result, new asylum seekers were quickly informed whether or not they had to leave the country. Nearly 90% of the cases are not political refugees. With the latter one could still agree somewhat, if the asylum fraudsters would also effectively leave, but that is not the majority. Since the leftist government has refused to conduct an active search policy for years now, tens of thousands of them continue to hang around in our cities as people without papers.

If you are right, what is your solution?

The asylum problem? Dear colleague, constructive as we are, we first criticize and then we propose our policy on asylum.

The man will tell us.

I will tell you, Mr. President. No one will stop me.

If you can wait a moment, Mr. Cortois, you will be served on your hints.

Fourth, the lifo principle also meant that older asylum applications remained behind for years. In other words, there was a new leak to regularize foreigners in making. What do we actually see? Many of those foreigners are currently receiving regularization from Verhofstadt II, nota bene because they had to wait too long for a decision. You have to do it, Mr. Dewael. The government is still in shortfall. The illegals are rewarded and the people are the pineut. As the Minister of Home Affairs, you now automatically issue a residence permit if the asylum file is four years old, which is your fault. You give them a residence permit, even after three years, if the asylum seeker or asylum seeker has a child.

More and more cases of women who deliberately get pregnant in order to obtain a residence permit are becoming known. Colleagues, that has been said with so many words by the Chairman of the Antwerp OCMW. According to the statistics of Child and Family last year, in Flanders alone, 1,220 children were born to mothers without papers. It can be assumed that in Brussels and Wallonia it is ⁇ not less.

Therefore, one can come to the following conclusion: the so glorified lifo principle was turned over to the fine principle, first in never out. If the asylum file lasts long enough, one should no longer leave the country.

That is not all yet. Even those who have never or never applied for asylum can, whether or not through a church occupation, count on a human gesture of Dewael. In early July, several newspapers ⁇ that he was also eagerly granting regularisations to illegal persons who had not even submitted a regularization application. According to his spokesman, Jo Deroo, another such left-liberal, a church occupation comes down to an implicit request. Admit, Mr. Dewael, that it is truly an act of great humanism if you already give residence permits while the person in question does not even ask for them.

( ... )

Mr. Cortois, I go first as I said...

( ... )

Wait a little, Mr Cortois.

( ... )

It hurts, Mr. Cortois, because from your Minister of Home Affairs the population has noticed the following: by surrendering to the church occupants he has become the first responsible for the dozens of church occupations of the past months. You actually worked that hand in hand. You have given in the occupation of SintBonifacius. Encouraged by the troglodites of Green!, Ecolo and part of the PS, dozens of church occupations have naturally followed.

( ... )

One thing is clear, Mr. Cortois: the humanism of the VLD does not suffer from the fact that there is an appeal from the Church. This is indeed a great progress for the, let us say, liberal liberal party.

Leteness and indulgence thus treacherous! As a proof, the number of regularisations under the current Minister of Internal Affairs was spectacularly high. Last year there were 11,630 and this year it is likely to be around 10,000.

Colleagues, again, this is not about an Ecolo minister or a PS minister. This is a VLD minister. Mr. Dewael, however, assures the voters that he will never or will never carry out a second, mass regularization. He tells every journalist who wants to hear it — today he will not be able to do so at all, because there is, quite by chance, no journalist present — that he only regularizes individual cases.

Mr. Dewael, how individual are 11,630 cases? It reminds me of the racial riots of 2005 in France, when there was a fire in Belgium. At that time, 120 vehicles were individually set on fire. I don’t know if you realize how hypocritical you happen to the population at such moments.

Then ask Mr. Tastenhoye what inspires your group. While you find the number of regularisations far too many, for Mr. Tastenhoye, one regularization is all too little. After all, he felt that his case was worth it to be regulated. Explain that.

He considered the case humanitarian. There were children and more involved. He went to the Minister of Internal Affairs. There was a big mistake made by the Minister of the Interior. After all, I did not regulate the case, submitted to me by the Flemish Interest. Sir, try to talk to each other.

Does the Minister give the word today?

You have the word.

Mr. Dewael, for the third or fourth time, our party is not opposed to Article 9.3. (The Romanian)

Your own regulations first.

The argument “Our own people first” is not really concerned here.

It’s not just Mr. Tastenhoye. I also have another letter exchange from your group. I will confront you with this occasionally.

Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister become nervous now, when Mr. Man only denies the spectacular rise of his regularization policy?

We are conducting a debate. The man has the word.

However, you must be able to accept that we say that Article 9.3 remains for us as well and that the competent minister makes decisions on this subject. Only, previously, a few hundred individuals each year were granted their residence permit through a decision of the Minister, precisely for humanitarian reasons and on the basis of Article 9.3. That few hundred cases, however, have risen over the past few years from a few thousand to 11,630 regularisations in 2005. Article 9.3 has not been adopted.

Article 9, paragraph 3, has become an automation. The Minister, by the way, says this very clearly, Mr Cortois. From four years of illegal stay, it is granted or from three years of illegal stay if one has children. The principle may exist from us, but the mass application...

The Minister asks for the word.

I refer to the case of Mr. Tastenhoye. He has openly advocated it, but others in your group do so in letters as well. It is telkenmale about the application of Article 9, paragraph 3. It is about people who, according to the letter writer, have been in the procedure for too long so that their children go to school here, are perfectly integrated, speak Dutch and so on. That’s exactly the criteria I use, but of course it’s about more people than those picked up by your group. I will not say I get hundreds of letters, but they all refer to the criteria I have advocated in the committee. If a person has been in a procedure for three or four years and the asylum authorities do not respond, then on an individual basis, if there are no problems with public order, a regularization should be considered. That is exactly the conclusion I read in every letter that comes out of your group.

It is nevertheless unheard that this government and the previous government organize the backwardness, for years leave the files behind and then say that they have made a mistake and that they thus automatically — last year 11,630 people — regularize. You have made it. You made a caricature. Article 9, paragraph 3, is for urgent, humanitarian cases. Again, we don’t have a problem with that, but if you let things rotten and you have to regularize more than 10,000 illegal persons a year, what is actually the notion of illegally staying in this country? It apparently no longer exists.

If the government in this country fails... The file of the asylum seekers, Mr. Cortois, has been discussed for about fifteen years now, because that number is beginning to rise in the early 1990s. After fifteen years, we finally come to the conclusion that all those asylum seekers who remain in the procedure for years are granted mass residence permits and soon all become new Belgians. You know that too. This is the lesson we have to learn from fifteen years of mispolicy.

Mr. De Man, Mr. Bex wants to intervene.

Mr. De Man now assumes that a new Interior Minister can make tabula rasa and must not take into account the mistakes of the past. I am just as upset that these asylum applications have been drawn up for so long.

Your party is responsible for this.

First, my party did not have a majority in the previous legislature, but this is not even the matter now. Mr. De Man, you will have to read your history books for a moment. During the previous legislature, my party did not form part of the federal majority.

The [...]

They seem to like to be formalistic. I can only repeat that my party was not in the federal majority during the previous legislature and that I gave a party a few weeks ago on the occasion of my 30th birthday. You may say that I am responsible. I do not think that someone who becomes Minister of Home Affairs, for example, can be held responsible for a problem that arose at a time when he was not yet in power.

Mr. De Man, my question is very simple. You say that you are right with Mr. Tastenhoye’s question of regularization. Suppose you would become Minister of Home Affairs – which hopefully won’t happen – and you’re facing that burden of the past. How will you resolve that? Will you dare to say that you are facing a problem from the past – as it always happens when one comes to power – and that you will regularize in the given circumstances that 10,000 people who have had to wait too long for a response in connection with their asylum application, for humanitarian considerations?

I understand that if Mr. Tastenhoye would write you a letter, you would regularize that individual person. Would you dare to say that the same laws apply to everyone, that someone who has had to wait so long for an answer must be regulated and that this must happen to everyone?

Colleagues, I had apparently better focused on Mrs. Douifi. For years, she has been the right hand – or the left hand – of Mr. Vande Lanotte, then Minister of Interior. I should have turned to her and not to the split-party spirit, for which I apologize, Mr. Bex.

I continue to tell you that we are applying Article 9, 3. No questioning at all. We only say that through a bad policy one comes to use this as the ultimate means to grant a residence permit to the tens of thousands of illegal residents who reside here and in addition, in the long run, still give them the nationality. We think that goes too far.

You will not deny, however, that in recent years this majority has pressed through many regularizations and naturalizations, which at least raise questions. I will not name the names of the terrorists and human traffickers who have passed here, but honestly you would rather sing a little lower in this regard.

Certainly, some of those people will be repatriated. Mr. Cortois, the fact is that there is more regulation than repatriation. Regularization has become the rule and repatriation has become the exception. This is now the case. The figures prove that, Mr. Dewael. You regularize more illegal foreigners or asylum seekers than you repatriate there. That is the absolute truth.

I gave figures in the committee. Their

Now you have to answer Mr. Bex’s question. If Mr. Tastenhoye’s criterion is a criterion of an unreasonably long procedure that makes people integrated, what would you do if you had to decide? Would you take anyone who objectively meets that criterion? Or would you just take those that are recommended to you by your own faction? If there is a letter attached from the Flemish Interest, they are eligible and otherwise may not. Their

Or would you say that three to four years is an objective criterion? If you come to the conclusion that thousands of people respond to it, will you carry out another shipment in it? You are not opposed to the principle of regularization. You are for a certain criterion.

The [...]

Mr Annemans, is that not a criterion? Then I can show you letters showing that according to members of your group that is a criterion. They point out that. They say that these people have been in Belgium for so long, are still in an asylum procedure that has taken too long and that the children here go to school. They ask that those people please be considered for regularization. It is members of your group who do that.

Mr Annemans, do you ask for the word?

(...), then he did not speak on behalf of the Flemish Interest. So simple is it.

Then I will confront you with a few other things in the coming weeks.

I would like you to discuss above the table and not below it. Their

The criterion of a long stay here is not a criterion for regularization for the Flemish Belang and for the VLD. So simple is it.

What we do with it is what the VLD promised to do with it in 2000, just the same. There is a difference between the VLD of the past and the VLD of today, but there is no difference between the Vlaams Blok then and the Vlaams Belang now.

Mr. Cortois and others of the majority, you are now trying to provoke something to the Flemish Interest. You ask what criteria the Flemish Interest would use if it had Internal Affairs in its hands, which we hope of not? This is a clear question that is being asked. The answer was given by the Minister himself. He says that he cannot set the criteria, that he refuses to set the criteria.

The [...]

However, Mr. Minister, because you said, "I can't include all cases in texts." You want us to submit texts here suddenly and say sister and so on. It simply cannot. Therefore, the discretionary power of the Minister in this regard must be abandoned.

No, you did not listen at the committee meeting. I have said that there are three categories, and in the future they will be reduced to another category, which is the humanitarian cases. These cases are very difficult, if not impossible to describe.

Exactly what I say.

I also talked about the sick. They are arranged separately in the new design.

Third, I also talked about a category of people who have been in a procedure for an unreasonable length due to the seizure of the asylum authorities at some point. You now say that this criterion is not yours. Mr Annemans says that the Flemish Belang rejects that criterion. I only say that members of your group regularly point to me, and ask for understanding. “Listen to my words and do not look at my deeds.” You have no responsibility — I hope it will remain — but even without taking responsibility, you are already as bi-sexual as it can.

Mr Dewael, it testifies to ill-intention if you do not want to accept that we say that Article 9, 3d can be applied. With this we have no problem. At the time we had no problem with it, when it was about hundreds of cases per year.

We have a problem with it if, as you now say yourself, there is an automation in the group of people who stay here for a long time, who are in a procedure that actually, by your mistake, continues to last so long. In fact, we have a problem with this. Collega Annemans is 100% right that escaping from a number of matters or extending a procedure, of course, can not provide an entry card to be regulated here. That is pretty widespread. The duration of the asylum procedure can therefore never be an argument. However, the humanitarian reason can be an argument, the category you are talking about. For humanitarian reasons, indeed, a text can never be drafted, because all those reasons can be impossible to be contained in a text.

So, again, the humanitarian reasons remain ahead of us. One can stay here for a long time, because one stretches the procedure, for example. You also know that those lawyers will extend this procedure as long as possible.

Now we may come there. The humanitarian reasons, as Ms. Douifi says, have nothing to do with this.

I am talking about that unreasonably long duration. I contribute to you in the sense that when it comes to people who are themselves at the basis of the persistent illegality therefrom, at a given moment, no rights can be purified.

and right.

But if it is the government that is unable to handle the 42,000 to 43,000 applications ...

... ... Which you have created yourself...

... ... in a reasonable period of time to finish the work, about which you say you reject it. The government should not have allowed that to happen. I note that there are numbers, groups of people who have had to wait too long for a judgment. This is where the government is mistaken. It is not the people who are wrong, but the government.

This is Verhofstadt I.

In these cases, we say we need to do something about it. There is also a support for this. We see this in the neighborhoods, in the neighborhoods, in the municipalities. People come with petitions. They say they are integrated people who do not pose a threat to public order. In addition, they want to work.

Mr. De Man, you say very clearly: NET. That is your official party position. Those who then want to do something for their backbone, write letters to the Minister for Home Affairs, which, however, should not overcome.

Well, so if you count the waiting and the rejected asylum seekers, it is about 50,000 foreigners who are currently applying for regularization as provided in article 9, 3 of the Foreigners Act. According to the ministry’s statements, there are 25,400 files, which on average involve two persons. So grosso modo there are 50,000 in the pipeline, Mr. Dewael. You, of course, think this expertly from the press, but we will still try to communicate that to the public as much as possible.

The second large-scale campaign for regularization is therefore in fact full of work, colleagues. However, the government is trying to hide that, especially the VLD, who knows that the blue voter does not like that. Dewael continues secretly, Dewael continues to massively regularise. We have seen the VLD go through the knees many times in the last six to seven years and the PS has been slightly hit by the recent wave of scandals. Although the PS can no longer, as in the past, bring down the government with a finger-knip of Mr. Di Rupo, the VLD continues to persist in the slave attitude, which has actually existed since Verhofstadt I. Mr. Dewael, I tell you: there has been almost a murder in your party on foreign law, hohoho. There has been a king drama between De Gucht and Verhofstadt, hohoho. I don’t think anything about it, hohoho. Why did you get the foreign voting right in your neck? Because you are crawling in bed with the PS. That’s why there has been a king drama, that’s why you have lost so many votes and that’s why you will lose so many more votes next year, Mr. Cortois. You just have to learn to straighten your back, Mr. Dewael, otherwise you will, of course, get the lesson.

Sometimes to say clearly.

Well, it didn’t shake much. The Gucht was really defenestrated in connection with this case.

The [...]

This is the reversal of all reality. There is therefore a prime minister, who outstamps his party chairman and says that he himself will again become president of the VLD. And then we are the men who run around with knives, coman.

[...] You must keep your mouth. That is the line. There are two or three who can speak and go to the debates. The second, third and fourth rows should be silent. Then ...

See me standing here.

Maybe you might be able to keep silent. If you get the microphone before your mouth or before your nose, you, in the first place, do not know what to say. If you say anything, you say that you will ask Mr. Dewinter what you can say.

Mr. Dewael, I don’t get that. It was a dossier that was represented precisely by Mr. Dewinter in our party.

What else do you have to answer in God’s name? Come to!

"Come back with your microphone, I must first call Mr. Dewinter to know what I can say."

That is not true.

Long live the freedom of expression!

If it’s a file that Dewinter is dealing with, you can’t expect her to say anything other than, “Dewinter knows that file best of all.” What is this now for something? I do not immediately see a problem.

There is another aspect that cannot be left untold and that is about the many tens of thousands of illegals who are not only regulated, but in a relatively short term also again naturalized into 'nouveaux Belges'. A lot of regulated persons from the Duquesne period received and currently receive Belgian nationality through the fast-Belg Act, which then naturally again gives right to all social benefits and to the political voting right, something that the French speaking — Mr. Cortois — and the leftist parties make great advantage with in the elections. The VLD stands up again and looks at it. Once, a VLD Minister of Justice stated that it had to be done to throw with the Belgian identity cards, but that white knight of the time had to bite in the sand in that respect of course.

By the way, I ask myself the following. Minister Dewael, you who are in the nuclear cabinet and vice prime minister, where is the revision of the rapid-Belg-law? Where is the revision of this shameful law? Your colleague Onkelinx has been promising to Parliament to come up with a draft for almost a year now. You confirm that. Where is the amendment of the rapid-Belgic law? Or maybe you should drop your pants again? In any case, this will not happen before the recession. In any case, the rapid-Belg-law no longer comes for the recess. The PS keeps the VLD on the line, but again, for the VLD that is apparently no problem.

In the meantime, this minister presents two drafts. He says that the asylum procedure will be shortened, which is still to be seen, right? He also says that family reunification will be complicated, which is thus in very limited degree true, and that the State Council will no longer curl among the tens of thousands of foreign file files.

With regard to the latter, we can already say that the Council of State completely disagrees with the optimistic vision of the Minister. During the hearings, two top judges of the State Council expressed their outrage over the reform. I quote: "It will take another 10 to 14 years to remove the various lags." The State Council further says: "We do not want half measures, but rather a shock therapy." Regarding the so many discussed filters, they spoke of "une passoire" and they said intrusively at the end: "Je vous exhorte de remédier à ce flot insurmontable".

This is stated by the head of the State Council. In French, it is said, excusez du peu! If you have to hear that from the Supreme Court.

The only answer the minister could come up with was the following. I quote you: "The Corps Chiefs of the State Council should only let their employees work a little harder and a little better."

Do you not agree with this?

Yes, but if one is fucking...

I would like to hear your opinion on this. Now you take the Council of State in protection. I am still waiting for the day that in some procedure your party might be in trouble due to a decision of the State Council.

The Process . Say it in so many words: the process by which you want to take our money...

Then your opinion about the Council of State will be slightly different.

But today I am therefore determining that Mr. De Man protects the Council of State!

The [...]

I also listened carefully to what you said about the judges. I have heard it well. But now you take the Council of State in protection.

The [...]

We are talking about a...

( ) Minister of

Gerolf Annemans (Flemish Internal Affairs on a procedure before the Council of State against the Flemish Interest, which speculates on its outcome.

Yes Yes Yes!

I think you are selectively upset.

No no no no. You know very well that this procedure...

If there is a judgment of the judicial authorities and it does not stand you, you will equate those magistrates with the ground, with the use of the word that is your own, but now the first chairman of the Council of State...

No, no...

...and the Auditor General quoted to say: stupid Minister of Home Affairs, you have to help those people more!

Yes Yes Yes.

Yes of course. Absolutely absolute .

The [...]

What are you waiting for?

What will ever happen that will change your tone.

Is there anything going to happen that could change my tone?

I have seen what you have said in the past about magistrates.

Nothing is! Not a word. All the legal protagonists of the trial against the Flemish Interest are engraved in my memory. The point. That is all I said. But what you say about what the Flemish Interest will do when the Council of State will have spoken, is, in my opinion, a decision that the Minister of Internal Affairs should not allow himself, because for now there is no reason for the Flemish Interest to be dissatisfied with it. Or is it?

The State Council has not even dealt with this matter.

What drives the man to now

I have said the same thing to him in the committee that the State Council and the first president will have to work too much and they will have to get even more staff.

I say, why is there no higher productivity at the State Council? Could the Flemish Interest not dare to ask that question? Are you always as concerned, as kind and as kind to the magistrates?

Yes absolutely .

Yes absolutely ?

The Council of State is equal. And if the State Council is right, we, and the Flemish Interest in the first place, will give the State Council the right. I would like the government to do that too.

That, of course, they will now be a little overloaded because of the things that our companion of spirit has done...

Honestly speaking...

We can still say what we want about the State Council. The point.

In particular, Mr. Annemans, we can cite the State Council as the first president and the auditor-general express their dissatisfaction with a draft government. It can still be, right?

Absolutely absolute .

If you see in it a prayer from me to give us a free speech in September or October and not to take our money, then do it! I am so perfidious, frankly, I am not. You apparently do. Sorry to.

The [...]

You talked about a procedure. What Procedure ?

Tell me now what you have against the statements I made in the committee. I said that the State Council on management should also look at its own productivity.

Mr. Dewael, as a responsible minister, you get too easily out of it! Those poor people at the State Council have been sitting with tens of thousands of files for years and now you say, “It’s not our fault, you just need to work a little better!” That’s a long way away, and that’s why I take here, as far as I can, the Council of State in protection.

In fact, you’re actually getting a little bit into the State Council, after you’ve gotten tens of thousands of files stacked up. Then you say that you used to be a lawyer and then you noticed that in some courts it was done well and in others badly. So the State Council works badly and you find as a lawyer, who has seen that in a previous life, that they just need to work a little better. This is serious about.

I have said two things and look forward to hearing your opinion on this too. I’ve said that we’re getting a little bit in giving more resources and more efficiency to the State Council. However, this process cannot be left aside: in the Council of State itself, more efficiency must also be achieved. In other words, with management techniques, he must ensure that productivity increases. One, on the one hand, gives more resources and one, on the other hand, asks him to come up with a policy plan to overcome the backwardness within a reasonable timeframe.

You are apparently against the second! You say that more resources need to be given, more magistrates, more auditors, more state councils. Asking that one comes up with a policy plan or asking whether the State Council works always and everywhere equally efficiently should not. of which act.

You put words in my mouth. Who says there is no need for better management? No one has said that here. I’ve said that you get rid of it a little easily by saying that you used to be a lawyer and then saw that one court works well and the other doesn’t and you just need to work a little harder. That cannot be enough.

You give the State Council additional resources, but it says sorry. The auditor-general says at that time that you will have to wait another ten to fourteen years, Mr. Dewael, if you don’t give more resources than that. You don’t even want a filter.

For days there has been discussion about the filter for the Council of State. There was an amendment by Mr. Borginon of the VLD. You will still remember that, right? What did Mr Borginon’s amendment say? We should try to tighten the filter for the Council of State, otherwise there is a problem. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Anthuenis has signed it. Mr. Borginon is still the VLD faction leader, though it has been recently. That’s someone who determines the policy of the group, I thought. Well, Mr. Borginon, the Christmas fresh “lider” has the amendment no. 41 submitted, that the filter had to tighten. What does the PS say? The PS says: “Njet, non, cela ne passe pas.” So Mr. Borginon was allowed to pull his tail.

And what about Mr. Van der Maelen?

Mr. Van der Maelen idem dito for the sp.a. But I do not even refer to the SP, because the members are all for such things. We only had a little hope that the VLD would be more back-to-back in such files. Apparently this is not the case.

You made the amendment shoot because the PS said “No”. That is the truth.

The minister then tried to save the appearance - he is very good at it - by saying that we will evaluate the filter after a year. I well understood that, right? In the meantime, however, the evil has happened, colleagues. Meanwhile, thousands and thousands of appeals will have entered the State Council. I really do not see the usefulness of an evaluation after a year. The big mass is in the pipeline now, not in a year. It will now be carried out by all those kinds of leftist lawyers to the State Council.

The second part of the reform concerns family reunification. In many cases, it is about family formation. I can tell you as an interesting fact that the effort will hardly be carried out. There were a lot of critical sounds during the hearing. This is about 30,000 foreigners annually, who are still a significant part of the burden of our community. The Chairperson of the Antwerp OCMW is very impressive in her text – I will submit it to colleague Annemans later – very impressive. The chairman of the Antwerp OCMW, who is not from Vlaams Belang or VLOTT until later, states - I quote -: "You let the situation cancer." She says that in the long run there will be a very heavy pressure on our social security. She says that we should be careful not to attract all fools with medical problems. There is now indeed such a thing as medical tourism, at our own expense, of course. She says that grandparents are taken here and dumped in a studio after a short time. Colleague Annemans, the status quaestionis in that text is impressive; you can only take advantage of it in the coming months.

I will also give an example from the Gazet of Antwerp of 14 June. A regulated foreigner leaves his wife and nine children. The four adult children immediately apply to the OCMW for a living allowance.

Colleagues of VLD, that is happening now, at a time when the deficit of the OCMWs in the cities is growing every year and the taxpayer needs to adjust more every year. I really wonder if you now believe that the Flammers will continue to pay for this open-door policy. Do you think that the population accepts or continues to accept that the government imports tens of thousands of support trucks to our country every year?

There is also hypocrisy. There is the announced stricter application — I am talking, among other things, about raising the age of 18 to 21 years — of the regime for family reunification or family formation. This does not apply, for example, to foreigners from countries with which a bilateral agreement has been concluded.

Colleagues, which countries are these? Take a look, these are Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Turkey. These are precisely the countries, Mr. Anthuenis, where the majority of family reunificators or family formers come from.

Strengthening the asylum procedure is also not right. First, the Foreign Affairs Service will hardly play a role. The Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons is aware that it gives a very broad interpretation of the concept of "refugees".

The following anecdote can count. It can hardly be interpreted otherwise than the above-mentioned concept at the Commissioner-General is very broadly interpreted, when you know that there even staff who wear an Islamic headscarf must assess asylum applications. People do not believe their own eyes or ears. However, the Commissioner-General himself acknowledges it in The Standard. Father Leman also said it a few years ago. This is really Belgian. Surrealism at the highest level.

By the way, it is the Commissioner-General himself who stated in the newspaper on 20 June that the asylum law represents a relief, including through subsidiary protection.

Mr De Man, Mr Bex asks for the word.

Mr. De Man, I would like to ask you a question, because I do not understand exactly where you want to go.

I’m not going to comment on whether that person should be sitting there with that cloth. That is another discussion. Are you now arguing that whether or not that person wears a headband will change the decisions that the person makes? I assume that you do not claim that that lady would not sit there either if she did not wear that headband. Do you claim that such a headscarf makes people suddenly change their minds?

I absolutely disagree with the fact that anyone who displays as a Muslim may review such asylum applications. I find this unacceptable. For me, the head cloth is the symbol of adherence to the Muslim faith. I think that cannot be done. If you want to fight these kinds of issues in the elections, I wish you a lot of success. It simply cannot.

Mrs. Freedom of Religion means a number of things, but ⁇ not that officials should be judged with a headscarf on asylum applications.

Do you claim that Muslims, whether or not they wear a headscarf, are incompetent or should not handle files at the Foreign Affairs Service or at the General Commissariat?

I think Muslims do not want that.

I find that a purely racist ruling, which, in addition, is completely contrary to the freedom of religion, which is guaranteed in our Constitution.

You are talking, Mr Bex. I believe that Muslims at the Commissioner-General have no right to speak about asylum applications. So simple is that.

by Mr. Boukourna asked me for the word.

Mr. De Man, (...) that Muslims in the Commission for Naturalizations in this Chamber have the right to express their views on naturalization applications?

That is exactly the same and you claim that this could not be. I think this is scandalous, I think it is racist. You have already been convicted for this in the past, and if you continue to do so, you will still be convicted for this in the future.

We knew that a number of professions were banned from foreigners. This issue could be the subject of extensive discussion.

Today, we learn that people of certain confessions will not be able to participate in a number of decisions. This situation is scandalous. I am joining Mr. Bex to draw the attention of members on the new step taken by a party in this assembly in the affirmation of a racist attitude.

I have been interrupted here at least a dozen times. I try to round.

There is hypocrisy here. The increase from 18 to 21 years does not apply to a number of countries where exactly the vast majority of family reunificators and family formers come from. The strictness of the asylum procedure is indeed in its Belgian. The Commissioner-General himself stated in the newspaper on 20 June that the whole reform represents a easing, including through subsidiary protection.

Ladies and gentlemen, I come to our view on this subject. I will close, if at least I am not interrupted. We are opposed to the open border policy that you are now de facto pursuing. Indeed, it is carried out in an obscure and indirect manner, but you must admit that it represents an open border policy.

We advocate closed reception centres for asylum seekers and a list of safe countries from which asylum applications are not accepted. Mr. Cortois, this is ⁇ true if the note bene concerns countries that are members or candidate members of the European Union. What are we doing to deal with requests for political refugees from those countries.

We also advocate a stricter limitation of family reunification and ⁇ of family formation. If one wants to form a family, it must be done in the country of origin. For example, if a Moroccan wants to marry a beauty from the Rif Mountains, he must do so in Morocco. If a Turk wants to marry his nephew, he must do so in Anatolia.

We advocate for reception centres on the external borders of the European Union.

We advocate for the return to the original layout of the Geneva Convention, which will accommodate political refugees in their own continents. For those who didn’t know, the Convention was drafted by Europeans after World War II to give displaced European populations a new chance. At that time it was ⁇ not intended to play OCMW for the whole world.

Dear colleagues, I invite you to listen again to the intervention of Mr. Mr. Maine before closing this morning’s session. by

Eight members will speak this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. But, it should be recalled, the strength of a democracy is measured by its capacity for tolerance and by the way in which it is reflected not only in intentions or statements, but also and above all in actions.

After lengthy debates in the Interior Committee, we have to consider today, in this hall, two bills that concrete two reforms. by

The first concerns the administrative status of foreigners, which essentially concerns the right of asylum and the right to family reunification. by

The second concerns the State Council. It aims to improve its functioning in order, in particular, to resorb, to control the back. This last reform will have an impact on the entire administrative litigation of the State Council.

I would like to thank the rapporteurs for telling us about the discussions we had in the committee. The work done was difficult. I would also like to thank the House Services for their contribution to the implementation of this report.

As I said, the discussions in the committee have sometimes been lively. They are also today. They attest to the sensitive nature of the subject matter examined. by

I am therefore pleased that we have been able to hear, in committees, public actors from the sectors concerned, but also the voice of representatives of civil society, in particular delegates of the paperless.

However, I would like to make a few remarks about them. Indeed, if the commission was able to listen to them, I am not sure that all its members have heard the words of those who, by accident or by choice, one day found the way of our country with the hope of being able to put their suitcases there for a certain time, or even, for many of them, definitively.

The bills we are examining also concrete the commitments of the Government Declaration of July 2003 on a human and realistic asylum policy for the future.

Our country also had to transpose into domestic law a series of directives on access to the territory. The policy pursued by European countries in the field of legal status of foreigners, immigration is essentially defined at the European level at present. This is the logic of European integration and the will of the Member States to create in Europe an area of free movement, freedom and security. Security is indeed preponderant in all that Europe tells us, as is the anti-racist and anti-discriminatory side of the positions taken at the European level.

The context in which our parliamentary debate enters is marked both by this europeanization of the decision in the matter, by the increase and complexity of migration flows in the world as well as by the internal situation which, paradoxically, is reflected by a relatively significant economic boom, at least in a part of the country. This same part of the country continues to question itself on allogeneous issues, which does not lack to interpell us!

In this context, the challenge is to maintain our model of reception of foreigners and our model of citizenship while daring to refuse the knock-outs of the backbone supporters on themselves. We have just gotten a very good example!

As socialists, we believe that voluntary or forced migration must be regulated and accompanied. When people come to us and invoke humanitarian reasons, it is our duty to welcome them with dignity. In this context, the legal certainty granted to foreigners is one of the indispensable conditions for the credibility of our rule of law.

The reform of the asylum procedure became more than necessary, the current being indeed too long and complex, so that the bodies responsible for deciding on asylum applications know or have experienced too much backwardness. Thousands of people are currently experiencing far too long waiting and uncertainty times, and this has been too many years.

We have long called for a faster, simpler and more respectful asylum procedure for foreigners. We are pleased that the various texts under discussion incorporate significant advances in this direction. for the future. by

Tomorrow will be a better day, so many human dramas may be avoided. In fact, today, well-integrated persons are expelled after having stayed in Belgium for several years because they receive a decision of refusal late, too long after their application was introduced. by

The improvements introduced by the bill are significant. For us, these different reforms of the asylum law ensure the implementation of a more humane and coherent protection policy, with greater respect for the dignity and rights of foreigners. It is our duty to welcome in Belgium people who flee their home country for humanitarian reasons or who express fears of their fundamental rights being violated. by

Furthermore, if these reforms constitute considerable advances, we believe that this process must continue. If, within this parliament, we dare draft laws that are part of the concern of improving the fate of those who knock at our door and if the will is good to make more humane the conditions of reception or refusal of access to the territory, then we must dare to act without frilosity.

The bills in discussion regulate the future and will prevent the situations we know today from repeating themselves. It remains the present and the consequences of the weight and complexity of the procedure. by

I recall that thousands of people, whom we meet every day, live peacefully among us but are in a situation of semi-clandestinity or even total clandestinity, which is intolerable in a rule of law.

The question is, therefore, what is the right choice between a policy that promotes control in its multiple facets, including what can result (maintaining in precariousness, expulsion, clandestinity, etc.), or a policy that favors integration. Some, we have heard it in the committee and still today, claim that we can only develop an integration policy on the condition that we carry out a very restrictive access policy, based not on these prior criteria, objectively defined before entering the territory, but on draconian conditions of integration or, of course, on the fact of presenting an economic interest.

The new article 9bis, which will replace the current article 9.3 of the 1980 law, leaves intact the right to request a stay for exceptional circumstances. This provision is acceptable as a residual procedure or to resolve technical problems, but it is completely insufficient to find an acceptable solution for all people who have resided in our country peacefully for several years and who, by the very fact of their presence for so long, fully justify their will to integrate. The competence of the Minister of the Interior remains discretionary and the objective criteria for the administration’s assessment of exceptional circumstances are not specified.

The Socialist Group submitted a bill specifying the objective criteria for regularizing a number of persons and providing for a procedure before an independent committee.

In the presentation of the bills, you mentioned, Mr. Minister, certain criteria for regularization that correspond to the current practice of the Foreign Office. Instructions are or will be given in order to enable the regularization, on the one hand, of persons who have lodged an asylum application for three or four years, except for issues of public order or national security, and, on the other hand, of persons living in very serious human situations.

The other persons not covered by the agreements remain: - persons who have submitted a request for cancellation and suspension to the Council of State and whose procedure has been ongoing for many years; - persons who have never submitted a request for residence and who have resided peacefully in the Belgian territory for also many years.

We have not reached an agreement. I regret that in the majority, we found ourselves alone. Our uncompromising will not pay off. by

We believe that it is essential to resolve past situations. It is a matter of the success of this important reform because if we do not settle these painful situations, which result from inaction or lack of means by the administrative authorities, it will be counterproductive. We will signal that the reform will once again allow for unacceptable situations, which will empty it from its objectives and its content. I am afraid, Mr. Minister, that this is already done!

Another point remains, in our view, problematic; it is the imprisonment of minors and families with children (s) in closed centres. by

While, on the initiative of Minister Christian Dupont, the situation of unaccompanied minors has been significantly improved, the situation of families and their children remains.

So far, dozens of children are locked in closed centers. The number is variable; it can happen that about fifty children are present.

This situation is unacceptable. Experts report that the imprisonment of minors in a closed centre constitutes psychological abuse with inevitable consequences for the development of the child. This has been long exposed to us in the committee and I have not heard, among the many speakers, any defenders or supporters of this imprisonment.

I would like to remind you that Belgium has signed the International Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989, which contains the following principles. The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration. The child may not be separated from his or her parents against their will and the detention of a child may be only a measure of last resort and must be of the shortest duration possible. Belgium clearly does not respect these different rules because children are detained with their families in closed centres, sometimes for several months.

Mr. Minister, you have stated to us in the Committee on the Interior that the imprisonment of children should remain an ultimate measure and the only justification given to this is that it is the only way to prevent the disappearance of these families in the event of a decision on expulsion. You have committed to ordering an academic study on possible alternatives to the detention of families with children.

If we are especially attentive to the implementation of this commitment, we can only regret that in our country family confinement is used as a horror, especially since the effectiveness of this device is not proven. Also, I wonder whether it is not the relevance of the enclosure that would deserve in priority a university study and, in the meantime, if it would not be appropriate to conserve in the text that the enclosure remains an extreme measure applied by default.

Last week, parents with children were brought to centres, while they were very far from considering any clandestinity, and this in total contradiction with your words. by

Mr. Minister, as far as I am concerned, I tend to want to trust you, but your services do not apply what you say, because this is not specified in the texts, because they have not been told that the imprisonment of children remains an extreme measure. Also, at our request, our bills and resolutions on this subject have been disjoined from the bills under discussion. We will return to it with determination.

As the representatives of the Centre for Equal Opportunities said during the hearings, these bills constitute a first step in the reform of the foreign law in Belgium. Other meetings await our Parliament. We will not be able to make the impasse on the implementation of the European Union’s Green Paper on economic immigration. This will be an important debate that may allow a repositioning of some. by

The PS will vote in favour of the two bills under discussion. by

With regard to the right to asylum, the new procedure will help to avoid the situation we know today. This is an improvement. However, this will not resolve the case of paperless persons. I reaffirm once again our regret that we have to see, for now, the absence of a parliamentary majority in order to resolve this problem. This is the democratic rule, but for the Socialist Party, this issue will be one of the priorities that it will try, if possible, to include in the framework of the next government agreement.

Finally, I would like to refer to an actual point: the expulsion of the undocumented from the church of Anderlecht and the acts of violence that were allegedly committed by police officers against some of them. I make myself here the echo of the press or of certain associations, whose seriousness does not suffer any question. by

Last Wednesday I asked you about the police measure taken by the liberal mayor of Anderlecht to order the expulsion of the paperless from the church. You answered me: “The Foreign Office performs its legal mission and I must enforce the law.” But there is a way to apply it.

Recently we learned that some foreigners were – conditionally – victims of police violence when they were transferred to the center of Vottem. I am referring to both the CIRE press release and the police press release; the truth must be somewhere between the two versions presented. A complaint was submitted to the Committee p.

Mr. Minister, when addressing these more than important legislative texts, I think a clarification is necessary on your part. The Office of Foreigners and the Federal Police Detachment that carried out the transfer of these persons are your responsibility. Could you give us your version of the facts? What happened on the evening of July 4?

Mr. Maine, you need to know this.

What we want. If these are facts — and you have told us of them conditionally — they deserve an examination.

If a complaint is submitted to Committee P, it must wait for the report of Committee P. Or a complaint is filed with the Minister of the Interior: I can ask the General Inspection to instruct an investigation.

I cannot comment, conditionally, on facts that should, if necessary, still be examined. The Committee P was within the competence of the Parliament and the General Inspection was within my competence. If I get a complaint, I will do what is necessary to start its examination.

Mr. Minister, I just wanted to insist on the fact that this makes detestable the climate in which we must place our debates.

On the same day we vote in commission, the police land in a church to hang a series of measures; violent acts would have been committed, etc. It is poisoning our existence.

You are the minister responsible for these different services, so I ask you to clarify what really happened. It seems to me that this is part of a normal debate in this parliament.

If the facts were proven, there would be no doubt that it would be a regrettable bullshit, a breach of the law and the new police code of ethics, recently adopted by the government. If the facts are proven in relation to the implementation of disproportionate measures towards certain persons — I think they are — it will confirm my conviction that it is useless to proclaim what one does not want to write in a normative text.