Proposition 51K2565

Projet de loi sur l'accueil des demandeurs d'asile et de certaines autres catégories d'étrangers.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

June 16, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive foreign national legal domicile child infancy political asylum political refugee welfare residence permit

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Nov. 23, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The purpose of this bill is to transpose into Belgian law the European Directive 2003/9/EC of the Council of Europe laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers.

This Directive constitutes a first stage in a process aimed at establishing a common asylum system and a uniform refugee status in the EU. The aim of this Directive is to establish minimum standards for the accommodation facilities for asylum seekers in order to guarantee them a dignified life and to grant comparable living conditions in all Member States, thereby preventing or reducing the secondary flows of asylum seekers.

The Directive had to be transposed into Belgian law by 6 February 2005. However, the government has stated that it has chosen to link this bill to that on the reform of the asylum procedure. It is important to emphasize the fact that the reception of asylum seekers is established in parallel with the reform of the asylum procedure.

Due to the attractiveness of the Belgian reception system, the granting of financial assistance in 2000 was replaced by the granting of so-called material assistance in the first phase, in particular the eligibility phase. To support this, the government has strengthened the reception network and increased the number of shelters to 15,600 places.

The design implements the principle of material reception throughout the entire procedure, and this in two phases, during the first four months in a common reception structure and then in an individual reception structure, managed by an OCMW or another reception partner. Of course, certain exceptions are also possible.

In preparing the draft, the general principle was that asylum seekers should be guaranteed a standard of living in accordance with Article 1 of the OCMW Act.

This bill contains the general principles underlying the organisation of the reception, as well as a summary of the rights and duties of asylum seekers on the one hand and of Fedasil responsible for the reception on the other. It clarifies the mandates of Fedasil, in particular on the reception of unaccompanied foreign minors and on voluntary return.

Furthermore, this bill seeks to combine the provisions previously spread on the organic law of 8 July 1976, which thus provided the basis for the material receipt, the program law of 19 July 2001, which provided the basis for the operation of Fedasil, and the law of 15 December 1980 containing provisions on the mandatory place of registration, into a single text.

The Bill No. 939 from colleague Dirk Claes and myself was also linked to the present design. The proposal aims at harmonious distribution of asylum seekers. The spread plan stipulates that the municipalities will be allocated asylum seekers according to a number of parameters. In practice, however, the asylum seeker can easily bypass that measure and settle in other municipalities than those to which he is assigned. We, as applicants, are convinced that a sanction mechanism is needed for the OCMW if it does not make every effort to accommodate the asylum seekers, but there must also be a sanction mechanism for the asylum seekers who do not settle in the municipality assigned to him, which has so far been lacking in the legislation.

We believe that the obligation to establish should also apply for the duration of the entire asylum procedure. An actual establishment is a prerequisite for the asylum seeker to receive support. Thus, we want to provide an instrument for the OCMWs so that they can establish asylum seekers in their territory.

In the end, we decided to disconnect our bill from the draft, since we would like to wait for the evaluation of the law first. This evaluation will come after a year.

Until now, I have given a sketch of the bill itself and the associated bill of Dirk Claes and myself.

I now come to the general discussion of the draft law. It would take me too far to give you a comprehensive report of all the discussion points and of all the amendments submitted, no matter how valuable they may be. Therefore, I will limit myself to a few points that have been discussed in the committee.

First, as regards the medical care provided to the persons in the reception, the draft provides for a exclusion by royal decree of the medical care which manifestly does not prove necessary. Several speakers in the committee express their concerns about that passage and ask whether the provision of medical care can be ruled out in advance by a royal decree.

A second aspect that was discussed was work. There is uncertainty about the implementation of the EU Directive on the work aspect. Mr. Benoît Drèze and Mrs. Marie Nagy, as well as myself, were of the opinion that the Minister should continue to consult with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, in order to align the regime of reception with full material support to the possibility of the asylum seeker to access the labour market, and to examine when adjustments are needed in one direction or the other.

A third point that was discussed in the committee was the duration and form of reception. Mr Drèze and Mrs De Meyer noted that it was originally intended that the duration of granting material aid would be limited to one year. After this period, the material assistance would be converted into financial assistance granted from the OCMWs. Asylum seekers would have access to the labour market as proposed by the Directive. However, the Council of Ministers has chosen not to limit the duration of the reception in the law because it did not want to overload the OCMWs unnecessarily if the procedure would take more time. According to Mr. Drèze, this is a wrong choice. He added that the reception policy has been in crisis for several years and that the procedures currently in place have resulted in a large number of people sitting in reception structures for a very long time – an average of four to five years. Mr. Bultinck had as a fundamental objection to the draft that asylum seekers are still accommodated in open structures.

There was also some discussion about unaccompanied minors. Ms Nagy considered that the draft law lacked the scheme for unaccompanied minors. She was of the opinion that it is not appropriate to arrest a minor whom there is no doubt that he or she is a minor in a closed centre located in the border area. Therefore, she called for a specific regime for minors.

These were some discussion points. A number of amendments have also been submitted to the committee. I will not overlook them all, I will limit myself to the approved amendments. First and foremost, there is the government amendment. The government’s amendment aims to introduce a new article 40bis on unaccompanied minor foreigners. This amendment is a solution to the problem of unaccompanied minor foreigners. From now on, those minors will no longer be held in a closed centre but will be taken in a secure centre that is equated with a specified place located in the border area. It is actually called an observation and orientation center. The stay there should not be longer than 15 days. If the repatriation of that minor cannot take place within 15 days, the minor shall be admitted to the territory or further followed by the guardianship services.

A second amendment that was adopted is the amendment submitted by Mrs. Burgeon and Mrs. Lambert, amendment number 28 to Article 20. That article concerns the right to respect for private life, the right to respect for family life and respect for his or her convictions. The original text was somewhat unclear. As a result of an adjustment that was approved, it is now clear that that respect applies both in the individual and in the collective reception. The amendment was unanimously adopted.

Finally, the amendment No. 30, the last amendment, aims to insert an article 65bis. It was submitted by myself and provides for the Government to carry out an evaluation one year after the entry into force of the law and report it to Parliament. The amendment was unanimously approved.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the services of the House for the excellent report.

The draft law was divided by the committee, pursuant to Article 72.2 paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure. I will say a word about it soon when I go through the articles.

Mr Drèze has the word in the general discussion. Lanjri, Nagy and Bultinck.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I look forward to the transposition – although late – into Belgian law of the European Directive on the harmonisation of reception conditions. While jurisprudence mostly answered the essential questions concerning the right to financial or material assistance of asylum seekers or other categories of foreigners, such as families with illegally staying children, it was urgent that a text of law clearly replicated these established principles. The development of a coherent legislative and legal framework ensuring equal treatment among asylum seekers remains a commendable goal.

Together with my colleagues from the CDH, I would like to highlight the initiatives of the project that we seem to go in a positive direction.

1 of 1. The aim of the text is to offer residents an accommodation tailored to their particular needs, including through the identification of vulnerable groups, such as isolated women and victims of torture.

2 of 2. The definition of designation criteria in host structures as well as a clear transfer policy.

3 of 3. The establishment of a clearer system of medical, psychological, social and legal support intended to ensure the recipients of the reception a life consistent with human dignity.

4 of 4. The establishment of procedures for appeals against decisions taken by the reception or handling structures of complaints.

Nevertheless, Mr. Minister, it is worth reminding that, although this project is mostly positive, the reception has been experiencing for several years in our country a real crisis situation. The congestion of the various asylum institutions, and more ⁇ of the State Council, has resulted in allowing thousands of people to live in reception structures for extremely long periods.

It is currently estimated to be approximately five years for the examination of an appeal for annulment of a CGRA decision before the State Council. Many asylum seekers who have been removed from the procedure and appealed to the State Council have resided in community centers for sometimes four years, waiting for a response regarding the appeal and in fear of expulsion. These abnormally long stays in structure lead to serious psychological consequences. ECRE, UNHCR, the Red Cross, Rode Kruis and Fedasil argue that the maximum duration of the reception structure is six months. Finally, the reception structures are saturated. More than 40% of the network is currently occupied by asylum-seekers who have appealed to the State Council.

Initially, the reception reform had as a praised goal to limit the stay in material aid, i.e. in a reception structure, to a duration of one year. After this period, the material aid was converted into financial aid charged by the CPAS, according to the distribution code 207, with access to the labour market as ordered by the European directive. Nevertheless, the Council of Ministers has chosen not to limit the reception to a maximum duration because, to hear it, it did not want to overload the CPAS due to a poor calculation.

This is, in our opinion, a wrong choice, especially when we know - this has been proven - that the costs incurred by the material reception are far greater than the costs of financial social assistance borne by the CPAS.

As a result, asylum seekers will remain in the reception structures for the entire duration of the procedure. This is why I am proposing an amendment to limit the duration of the stay in a community reception centre to one year.

Furthermore, by introducing a broad filter in the State Council and rejecting any policy of regularization, the asylum reform risks not to provide any solution reducing an abnormally long procedure. By linking the procedure to the reception, the legislator does not provide for a reasonable and objective limit to the duration of the applicant's stay in the reception structure. I also submit an amendment aimed at preventing pro deo lawyers from being the only ones in charge of legal assistance in the asylum procedure. To be effective and of quality, it is necessary to combine several stakeholders, in particular the associations and social services referred to in Article 33 of this text.

I also propose to incorporate a new Article 40bis to guarantee MENAs an automatic right of residence if no sustainable solution has been proposed at the end of the two-week period and to ensure a smooth flow of information between the orientation and observation center and the tutor. The transposed Directive also contains provisions relating to asylum seekers detained in a closed centre. It lists categories of especially vulnerable persons who must be subject to specific welfare measures after an assessment of their needs; I think in particular of children held in closed centres.

Regarding social and medical support, the government’s project raises the concern of several associations including Doctors Without Borders. In fact, the project guarantees the recipient of the reception a right to the medical and social support necessary to lead a life consistent with human dignity. However, it also introduces some limitations that create new discriminations. First, in our opinion, the text contains in germ the foundations of a two-speed medicine: the first for persons legally established in the territory, the second for asylum seekers.

In fact, Article 24, paragraph 2 of the draft allows the government to establish a list of benefits whose refund may be refused to asylum seekers, while these same benefits are explicitly refunded for persons regularly residing in our country. For the CDH, this is a matter of principle: if the State has established a list of reimbursable benefits deemed necessary for our health, all human beings established on our territory are entitled to it.

The Minister said in a committee that the list of benefits of reimbursable medicines for beneficiaries would have been negotiated with Doctors Without Borders. This non-governmental organization, however, confirmed to us that only one part of the list has been negotiated, namely the one that does not arouse any ethical discussion: the list of medicines currently not reimbursed by health insurance. The other, the most delicate part, namely the refundable medicines that would now be excluded from the refund for asylum seekers has not been negotiated.

The second element in the limitations that, in our view, generate discrimination. The text causes difficulties for asylum seekers in accessing a doctor freely chosen outside the reference centre. Indeed, depending on the exposition of the reasons, the beneficiary of the aid may choose a doctor outside the centre; in this case, the cost of the consultation will not be reimbursed. However, in the committee, the minister answered the questions raised on the subject: this refund could indeed take place.

There is therefore a contradiction that would have been necessary to clarify in the text of the law itself. The right to the free choice of professional practitioner is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Patient Rights Act. This right implies that the conditions of reimbursement of care are the same for all those who are entitled to it and not only for some of them.

The third and last limitation I will mention. We contest that the proposed text does not change the situation of asylum seekers who live outside the reception centres. On this point, I agree with the criticism of Médecins Sans Frontières that finds, on the ground, great difficulties in accessing care for these people.

The Minister responded in a committee that he is preparing a royal decree to solve this problem. This problem could have been resolved in the law itself.

On these three points, the CDH introduced amendments in the committee and put them back here in plenary session.

A last revised amendment aims to clarify in the law that the code of conduct applicable to all staff members of the host structure should be negotiated with the relevant categories of staff. Indeed, certain occupational categories are already subject to their own codes of ethics; I think in particular of doctors and social workers. This amendment aims to avoid possible contradictions.

Finally, Mr. Minister, the CDH regrets that the Minister of the Interior, you, Minister of Social Integration, and your colleague Minister of Employment have not agreed to transpose timely and simultaneously the European Directive of 27 January 2003 on minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. Some texts are adopted, others are not; the dates of entry into force do not coincide. All this will not be without posing a number of problems.

Finally, we do not accept that Article 11 of the European Directive is currently in the limbs. This article deals with access to the labour market for asylum seekers; it is unacceptable that the government has neglected this positive dimension of the directive while it has sought, before the parliamentary holidays, to tighten the right of asylum and reject any progress, even partial, in regularization.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, colleagues, when we look at the draft technically, we find that the draft does two things.

On the one hand, the draft is a transposition of a European directive of 27 January 2003, which obliges us to transpose a number of minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in the Member States into Belgian law.

Mr. Minister, it can be repeated again: here too, as in other, similar files, we have failed to be a good pupil of the European class. The Directive had to be transposed by 6 February 2005.

On the other hand, and in second order, the draft does not much less than provide a number of clarifications and completions to the specific assignments relating to the Federal Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers.

The draft law implements the principle that the material reception of asylum seekers will apply throughout the entire duration of the procedure, thus both in the administrative and in the judicial phase. The principle is, of course, linked to the reform of the asylum procedure, approved before the parliamentary cessation, which was then discussed very extensively and for months in the Committee on Internal Affairs.

The result of the reform will be that the existing distinction between the admissibility phase and the gratification phase will disappear. This could ultimately lead to an accelerated processing of asylum applications.

We all know the problem. During the admissibility phase, material assistance is provided, while, once the file has been declared admissible, financial support is also granted by the OCMWs.

In this regard, now follows the complete abolition of the aforementioned social services in the form of financial support. Our group has no problem in acknowledging that it is a step forward compared with the current course of affairs and with the practice as it existed.

Mr. Minister, however, we remain in our role of attentive opposition party. We continue to stress that it is too early to congratulate all banks.

To be honest, even after the work in the committee, there is still much uncertainty about the entry into force of the present draft law.

Mr. Minister, I will say even more. We have repeatedly emphasized in the Committee on Public Health that we expect it to enter into force before 1 April 2007. However, yesterday I was also able to take note of a number of answers given by your colleague on approximately similar questions about the entry into force. In the end, the two are linked, namely the present bill, to the discussions on the renewal and change of the asylum procedure in the committee for internal affairs. Your colleague Dewael remained quite vague in that regard.

There are still a number of major questions. When will the conscious, crucial action come into effect? However, it seems that some things will remain dead letter. That may not be the intention.

Much more fundamental – you will not be surprised, Mr. Minister, because you know the views of our group on this subject – is that we have difficulty with the permanent procedure, in which the reception of asylum seekers takes place in open structures. I think this is a crucial data. I have also said in the committee that we take note of this, but that the Flemish Belang is by no means happy with it, and that we realize that the Belgian legislature in this area is bound with hands and feet by the famous EU Directive of 27 January 2003.

“Asylum seekers may move freely within the territory of the host Member State or within the territory designated for them by the Member State. This designated area should not affect the inalienable sphere of private life and should provide sufficient freedom of movement to ensure that all facilities provided by this Directive are accessible.” However, there are a number of exceptions, such as the famous public order exception. There is thus a certain possibility and room for questioning whether the procedure can only be carried out through open centres. Our option to opt for closed centers should remain open.

We recognize, and we are not happy with this, that even in this Europe there is indeed a significant barrier to the possibility of pursuing a serious immigration and asylum policy. It is not bad to say here for a moment that my group remains behind the assertion that closed reception centers are the only way to ensure that a removal decision – which is crucial in a number of cases – can be concrete.

Unfortunately for you, Mr. Minister, even the friends of the multicultural society finally share my analysis. What does the Refugee Integration Consultation Centre say? In practice, approximately 85% of outgoing asylum seekers – I describe it euphemistically – disappear in the wild, as a result of an order to leave the territory.

What happens in these cases, Mr. Minister? We all know the problem. She was also extensively discussed in the Public Health Committee. Those people move to the problem neighborhoods and the big cities – Antwerp, Brussels and Liège – where they undoubtedly fall into the prey of house milkers and can only survive through black labour, crime and prostitution.

I must honestly tell you, Mr. Minister, that in the long run one would be frightened in these politically correct times, when multiculturalism has become a state religion. Can we still say it? Can we still ask? Our group does dare to ask questions about the so-called generous asylum policy, which – if you look at it really seriously – is not as human as it seems at first glance. If we look carefully at the figures and find that very many, including all the worshippers of the multicultural society, close their eyes to the tens of thousands of prosecuted asylum seekers who disappear in the illegality after receiving their order of expulsion, then it seems to me that, as a socially feeling Flemish Interested, everything except social responsibility. I would describe the policy of the past, and I fear also the policy of the future, on asylum as a non-policy rather than as a policy.

Let me make it clear again: the closed centers, of which the Flemish Interest actually speaks, must indeed be distinguished from the closed deportation centers that exist for out-processed asylum seekers. For us, there must indeed be an adapted regime. There must be the necessary comfort. The procedure should be as short as possible. In our vision, we also assume that the procedure can still be much faster than the prevailing procedure. At the same time, if the asylum application is rejected, the rejected asylum seeker should be transferred to a closed deportation centre. We therefore consider that it is not possible that the capacity of the reception centres is used for the much too long stay of a number of out-processed persons, who can still bring an administrative cassation appeal to the State Council.

Furthermore, we must have the courage to ask whether the famous cassation facility at the Council of State has not become superfluous. In fact, if we look at the numbers, we must conclude that the number of justified professions does not exceed 5%. You hear that well, colleagues. Then you can’t be angry, Mr. Minister, that we put great questions in the policy.

Let me go deeper into two matters, Mr. Minister. In Title 1 of your draft, it is about allocating a mandatory place of registration. Article 10 of the draft stipulates the principle of the designation of a mandatory place of registration for asylum seekers. This can indeed happen in a federal reception centre, the Red Cross reception facilities or the famous OCMW shelters, which provide for the reception of asylum seekers. You cultivate the silent hope, Mr. Minister, that the evolution you seek to initiate will lead to a better spread of asylum seekers across the territory. You also hope that the asylum seeker declared admissible will not be punished, as is the case in the existing spread plan. This is now the practice if he voluntarily chooses not to settle in the municipality where he was assigned to the OCMW of it. The renewal you are now carrying out could lead to slightly less concentration in the big cities.

There is one important but, Mr. Minister. It is not the Flemish Importance that says this. To make it easy for you, I will remain within your own socialist family. I refer to the statements of the very well-known Antwerp OCMW chairwoman, Ms. Monica De Coninck, who makes it clear that there is only one solution to the problem in the file, namely the mandatory housing as long as the asylum procedure runs.

Already in May 2006, she said that the new Acceptance Act still preserves the freedom of establishment, where the fundamental problem lies. Monica De Coninck: “If the federal government wants to maintain the spread of asylum seekers, it must shorten the procedure and impose an obligatory settlement place for asylum seekers until their file is completed.”

Much more crucial – it is good to say this here, colleagues, because one is not always this ordinary of socialists – is what Ms. Monica De Coninck then says: “I don’t see in what could be inhuman about forcing people to live somewhere for a few months.”

Where is the fundamental problem? The problem, of course, lies with your own Wallish socialist family, which does not want to touch the freedom of establishment. This leaves the whole problem out of shoot.

I return to Mrs. De Coninck because she played a crucial role in this case.

The [...]

Indeed, Mr. Leader of the Group, she will join us on the first day. It is a pity that she is not present here yet. Otherwise we could have conducted a contradictory debate and we could have confronted Mrs. De Coninck with the statements she made a few months ago. In this way we could have determined whether or not she would have taken a substantial curve in exchange for the parliamentary plough.

Ms. De Coninck makes it very clear that the new reception law will not improve the situation in the major cities. On the contrary, Ms. De Coninck says that cutting off the financial support will not deter asylum seekers. They will continue to come to the cities. Now that they have to roast it without a penny, the federal government is forcing them to do their black work or provide their livelihoods in any other way. The government must know what it wants, as Ms. De Coninck continues. If it wants to uphold the freedom of establishment, it must provide the cities with sufficient resources. With the resources available to the cities today, this is not possible at all. So far, Mrs. De Coninck.

Mr. Minister, I could also point to your own socialist family and to the decision of the mayor of Antwerp in full campaign period. Just before the municipal council elections, he stated that he would no longer want to register asylum seekers from other municipalities. In early October, he says literally, I quote: "All conversations with the federal government on the problem of asylum seekers placed by other OCMWs in Antwerp have produced nothing. So we have to move to civil disobedience. I don’t want to register such asylum seekers anymore.”

Mr. Minister, I would appreciate if you, as a fellow socialist, reacted to this within the socialist family. If two eminent socialists say these kinds of things, who am I then as a simple Flemish Interesting to speak against those people.

A second point I would like to return to is the famous Title 5 of the draft which deals with the integration of collective reception structures in the local environment and subsidies to the municipalities. Article 51 provides for the possibility of allowing the collective reception structures, with the exception of those organized by the OCMW, to take a number of neighborhood initiatives aimed at promoting the integration of the collective reception structures in the local environment and to create a positive image – you hear it well – of the reception policy for asylum seekers in society.

Mr. Minister, you will understand that the Flemish Interest, in its softest terms, has the difficulty of using more and more subsidies to keep the multicultural propaganda machine running. If we want to stay a little serious with ourselves, we have a serious difficulty with this. That you will understand.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I am going around. The Flemish Interest has no problem with acknowledging that this design contains a number of very small positive steps, but we remain convinced that this will be another window dressing of the government-Verhofstadt. Much better than anyone, you know, Mr. Minister – and your political party is in the best position to know this – that you have no benefit from reforming the fundamental file of asylum or foreigners. After all, these are the people who provide you both in Brussels and in Wallonia with enough new cattle – disrespectfully speaking.

Therefore, the Flemish Interest very clearly fears that as long as one does not dare to touch the fundamental problem of the freedom of establishment of asylum seekers, there is no real solution in sight. I am afraid that after the evaluation that is provided within 1 year, you will be back here with hanging feet to establish together with us that in this file fundamentally nothing has been turned to the good.

I would like to reiterate our position for a moment. The Flemish Interest has always said to prefer a return to the original layout of the Geneva Convention, in particular the admission of only European asylum seekers.

Secondly, the procedure should be much shorter than it is now and a list of safe countries should be drawn up. As far as we are concerned, that procedure should be much shorter than as specified in your design. In your design, in the best scenario, you still talk about a one-year procedure.

A third main theme that we always focus on is that as long as this procedure is in place, asylum seekers must stay in closed institutions where merely material assistance is provided.

Fourth, if a strict and fair asylum policy is to be pursued, it also means that persons who have been prosecuted must be effectively repatriated.

Mr. Minister, you will understand that after such an explanation, it is quite logical for us that we will not approve this draft and vote against it with full conviction.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs for the excellent report on the discussions in committees that were in-depth and extremely interesting.

It is obviously with some delay that the Government intends to transpose the Directive 2003/9/EC on the reception of asylum seekers. Belgium has been prosecuted before the European Court of Justice due to this delay.

Although this is a transposition, the project poses major problems. The duration of material assistance planned throughout the procedure may exceed one year, contrary to the declarations or good intentions of the Minister. Furthermore, it is not acceptable that certain care provided for by the INAMI nomenclature are excluded by the royal decree from care provided to recipients of the reception. Finally, there is no reason to provide for a border reception center for unaccompanied foreign minors for whom there is no doubt as to their minority status.

The principle provided by Article 11, §1 of the draft is to provide material assistance throughout the procedure, including during the appeal to the Foreign Dispute Council and the State Council, providing that a maximum period must be fixed by the Government after the evaluation of the new asylum procedure. However, the maximum duration of reception in a community center is a primary issue, too important to not be defined in the law! It is up to the legislative authority to determine it by fixing it to one year in this case and to put the government in the face of its commitment to process asylum applications within a reasonable time.

It should also be noted that no maximum deadline was fixed for the processing of asylum applications in the reform of the law of 15 December 1980. As a result, asylum seekers are not safe from further exceeding a reasonable processing time and are likely to have to remain in the reception centre for the entire duration of the asylum procedure. However, it is not acceptable that they still have to suffer possible risks of clogging and therefore of delaying asylum instances due to possible future malfunctions, at the expense of their conditions of reception in Belgium.

Living in a host structure is absolutely not a formula suitable for too long stays. Currently, many asylum seekers have been staying there for several years, which has serious psychological consequences. In addition to the fact that they have to wait during these troubling years for the outcome of their procedure, the life in the reception center does not allow respect for privacy, respect for the intimacy necessary for the psychological balance and the development of the personality of each individual. In addition, the network of reception structures is saturated. Saturation that continues to increase.

Finally, as the CIRÉ points out, in a very relevant manner, in its note drawn up in the context of the discussion of this project, an indefinite stay in a reception centre is completely inadequate and incompatible with the obligation provided by the directive to give access to the labour market to the asylum seeker who has not received a final decision within one year.

It is impossible to concrete a combination of material aid with access to the labour market because material aid including, among other things, housing and food is supposed to cease when the person concerned receives income from work. However, in the current conditions of the labour market, which has a great success of short-term contracts and interim contracts, it is rare to get an employment on an indefinite basis. We will therefore find ourselves in the situation that people receive income, but cannot leave their center, in the absence of a minimum of stability of their income.

Also note that material social assistance is more expensive than the financial social assistance granted by the CPAS. A maximum period of one year in a reception centre should therefore be fixed in order to respect not only the privacy and the psychological and psychosociological balance of asylum seekers, their better integration in society, but also the internal logic of the directive which requires access to the labour market beyond a period of one year of procedure, where no final decision has been taken with regard to the asylum application.

The draft provides for the adoption of a royal decree which will determine the medical care that, although included in the INAMI nomenclature, will be considered to be manifestly unnecessary to asylum seekers and, as such, may not be dispensed as well as those who, although not included in this nomenclature, will have to be dispensed because they belong to everyday life. It is obviously positive that medical care within the daily life can be provided, even if they are not included in the INAMI nomenclature. On the other hand, it is not acceptable that certain care provided for by this nomenclature may be excluded by royal decree from the care provided to beneficiaries of the reception.

As the note addressed by a platform of non-governmental organizations in the medical sector, including MSF, to members of the Public Health Commission, it is strange that the bill allows to exclude by royal decree a specific group of patients from the benefit of health care, while these care are nevertheless taken back into the current nomenclature, referring to health care that have already been the subject of a cost/benefit analysis detailed by various councils and commissions with the intervention of the Ministry of Social Affairs and which have finally been deemed sufficiently necessary to be reimbursed by the health insurance.

The fact that care can be excluded a priori in the case of asylum seekers paves the way for a duality of health care and for discrimination between different patient groups.

Furthermore, it is in total contradiction with the spirit of the bill which underlies the principle that the recipients of the reception are entitled to the same health care. These must enable them, as well as other inhabitants of the country, to lead "a life consistent with human dignity".

Finally, there is no reason to provide for a reception center at the border for unaccompanied foreign minors whose minority status is undoubted.

This provision tends to legitimize, through reception, the principle of detention of unaccompanied foreign minors and confuses the separate question of reception with that of access to the territory. The Government amendment is based on Article 74/5 of the law of 15 December 1980, which regulates the detention at the border of persons who attempt to enter the Belgian territory without bearing the required documents, pretending to ignore that a special protection regime must be applied to the minor on the basis of his or her minority status. This specific regime arises also from the program law of 24 December 2002 establishing the guardianship regime for unaccompanied foreign minors and from the circular of 15 September 2005 which provides for the issue of an arrival declaration to the unaccompanied minor non-asylum seeker or to the MENA asylum seeker debited at the request of its guardian.

The detention of a foreigner at the border has no other purpose than to enable his removal and repatriation. However, a specific regime was organised for the MENA through the custody and circulary of 15 September 2005 in order to prevent detention of minors, followed by expulsions, from repeating in the future without a sustainable solution being evaluated and found, which cannot be done during the “short” period, by definition, of detention of minors.

This notion of "centre at the border" is ambiguous and reminds us of closed centers, also considered as centers at the border where foreigners who do not have access to the territory are detained. Although the Minister has repeatedly recalled that this was an open center and not a new type of closed center, it is important that the legal text removes ambiguity on this point.

Furthermore, the concept of “centre located at the border” is a legal fiction that can create certain problems for young people concerned. For example, if a young person residing in such a centre submits an application for regularization to the mayor of the municipality of residence, who transmits it to the Foreign Office for treatment, the Foreign Office may declare its application inadmissible on the grounds that the minor does not reside in the Belgian territory. This is what happens to foreigners detained in closed centers 127 and 127bis.

This could also pose problems for the jurisdiction of the youth judge, which is determined in relation to the municipality of residence of the minor in Belgium.

Now, although the scheduled period for the reception in this centre is fifteen days, it is well known that at present the youth hosted in the two observation and orientation centers of Steenokkerzeel and Neder-over-Heembeek generally stay there for several months, due to the shortage of other reception structures that can accommodate them.

It is therefore regrettable that the government does not draw consistent lessons from the condemnation of Belgium, a little more than a month ago, by the European Court of Human Rights, in the so-called Tabitha case.

Rather, it tries to re-inject into the legislative arsenal, through a draft law on reception, legal bases for founding the detention of unaccompanied foreign minors. It should be remembered that the imprisonment of children in a closed centre should be prohibited purely and simply.

For all these reasons, my group will abstain when voting on this draft.

Mrs Lanjri, I put you in the line of speakers a little later, because you have already delivered the report. Usually the opposition comes first. Apparently that was no problem.

Already at the establishment of the federal agency Fedasil, CD&V has been the requesting party for an autonomous legislation in relation to the operation and reception by the agency. Until today, this was spread across various laws and in particular a number of program laws, which did not promote readability and transparency at all.

In this regard, the design contains a number of positive points. We see a number of other positive points, including that a number of recommendations from the report of the committee-Vermeersch are being taken over. As a result, asylum seekers will need to be clearly informed about the progress of their asylum procedure and the possibilities of voluntary return in the event of a negative decision. Also taking into account the special needs of a person in the accommodation is a positive element in the design. Again, Europe is making an important contribution to the creation of this law. This was already the case with the amendment of the Foreigners Act, which was also the basis for a number of European directives that had to be transposed.

This brings us to the first point of criticism. Directive 2003/9 of 27 January 2003 requires the transposition into Belgian law before 6 February 2005. We are therefore again too late with the transposition of the Directive, especially since the entry into force is not yet established. This is related to the entry into force of the amendments to the Foreigners Act. The government has already anticipated the date of 1 April 2007 here, but it is at least unclear whether it is effectively achieved.

What are our points of criticism? First, there is uncertainty about the time when the new law will come into effect. During the discussions in the committee, I, like other colleagues, asked Minister Dupont when he planned to bring into force the new Acceptance Act. He responded constantly on 1 April 2007, because that is the date that the government has pushed forward for the entry into force of the third and final phase of the amendments to the Foreigners Act. I was therefore surprised when the Minister of Home Affairs did not confirm that date yesterday when I questioned him about it; he spoke about the spring of 2007. Spring, of course, can last until June 21 and my question is, therefore, whether the government plans to just postpone the matter until after the elections. So today we actually pass a law that we don’t know when it will come into effect.

Second, what about the closed centers? Are there minimum standards for reception? We must conclude that not all elements of the directive were regulated in the draft, because they did not fall within the competence of Minister Dupont. Reception in closed centers remains outside the scope of the law. It should be noted that there are still problems in this area.

The EU directive sets minimum standards, but the implementation is waiting. We also know that there are problems. Last week, Amnesty International addressed this problem and called the alarm bell. I think in particular of the situation of minor children in closed centres.

We will continue to urge the Minister of Internal Affairs to impose the minimum rules on the closed centers and to ensure better regulation. We are also awaiting the results of the investigation he announced following the complaint of Amnesty International.

A third point of criticism is that there is no time limit on the duration of the reception. The draft provides for the material reception of the asylum seeker throughout the entire period of his asylum application. In the discussion of the Foreign Affairs Act, the Minister of Interior pointed out that this procedure would be completed in the future within the year. Since the majority then chose to introduce only a weak filter procedure in the State Council – unlike the filter procedure we proposed with the CD&V and which was also advised by the State Council – we fear that the one-year period will not be fulfilled.

We have a strong suspicion that this fear also exists in the government. The preliminary design provided for a material reception of one year. This term has disappeared in the final draft. This decision has significant budgetary consequences. Furthermore, a longer reception period also means that more people stay in that reception longer than it is now. Therefore, more reception should be provided.

Fourth, there is and remains uncertainty about the right to work. The decision on material reception has undoubtedly also resulted in the asylum seeker having in principle no access to the labour market. Until now, he was able to obtain a work permit during the consideration phase of his asylum application. Given the change in the asylum procedure, this consideration phase expires and one will have to comply with the European directive which clearly stipulates that up to one year after the submission of the application for asylum, Member States must develop a system relating to the employment of asylum seekers, whether or not with restrictions.

We have tried several times in the committee to obtain clarity from the minister. Minister Dupont pointed out that this was not within his competence, but within that of his colleague. Can an asylum seeker who goes through the procedure work? From when can this be possible? Can it be unlimited? Does the asylum seeker lose his right to material reception? Will he eventually have to adjust part of the cost of the reception?

Can he remain in the system of material reception? For us, it is one of the two. Either they can work from a certain moment, for example after six, nine or twelve months, and then they must also contribute to the costs of their housing and food in the reception center. They may not work as long as they remain in the reception facility during the entire asylum procedure.

Minister Dupont could not answer. So I went to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Vanvelthoven, who also did not provide clarification. Apparently, the problem is being dismissed. Minister Vanvelthoven clearly states in his answer that the problem will then be solved. In any case, we hope that the node will be cut through before the entry into force of this law. However, we fear it.

A fifth point of criticism is the fact that the law only applies to new asylum seekers. This may seem obvious. The question, however, is what is done with the asylum seekers who are already here. How is it dealt with? That is apparently a burden that the municipalities must bear, while, in my opinion, it is intended that, as long as those people are not recognised, the collection costs must be fully borne by the federal government.

The costs should not be transferred to the municipalities. This is now arranged for the new asylum seekers, but what about the former asylum seekers who are still involved in a procedure? A lot of asylum seekers are now also faced who move to the major cities on their own initiative or are dumped by cities. What is done about it?

I give the example of the city of Antwerp, which has 7,404 asylum seekers on its territory who were not allocated to the city. These come from more than 500 OCMWs across the country. It is established that, after a negative decision in the asylum examination and after they have been ordered to leave the territory, nothing remains to them but an illegal existence in the big city, with all the consequences thereof: black labour, exploitation and so on. This problem is also not yet solved.

Sixth, Minister Dupont does not create additional shelters for asylum seekers. As of 2 October 2006, there were 15,875 places in our country, where 12,750 asylum seekers were housed. There are still over 2,000 vacancies. However, I think that is too little to capture everyone in the future. Indeed, these people are now captured for a limited period, namely the period of receptivity. In the future, they will be welcomed throughout the entire period of the asylum procedure, a period that could even last longer than one year. This guarantee has not yet been included in the law.

In my opinion, there is really too little reception capacity. The government is apparently not convinced of this and says the capacity will be sufficient because the procedures have been shortened. If you really thought so and were convinced that the procedures were shortened, then you could have written in the law that one may stay in a reception center for a maximum of one year, if you are so sure that the procedures would be shorter. Apparently, however, there is no certainty about that deadline and no additional reception is provided.

I would also like to say that in the past we have repeatedly proposed to the Minister to allow more LOIs. There are many local reception initiatives, about half of the number of shelters. There is currently a moratorium. We believe that there is also a solution. If there are insufficient seats, we believe that this moratorium should be lifted.

Finally, we think that this law is not entirely waterproof. We have questions and concerns about this law. Will this law work? Will the dumping end permanently? This law is, of course, and we acknowledge it, a significant step forward. It also goes completely in the direction of the philosophy of the bill we have submitted. That is why we want to approve it.

However, one should also be clear that already, in the current state of affairs, in the current procedure, 10% to 15% of asylum seekers simply do not appear in the center to which they are assigned, in the LOIs and choose, above all, to move to a city. Now it is 10 to 15 percent. That’s people who say they don’t need shelter and even no financial support. This is about that group.

We also think that it is not really a deterrent. We ask ourselves whether, if one does not give financial support, but only material, that is really a stick behind the door and whether everyone will therefore remain in the center. They allow themselves to be ⁇ ined by family or end up in the circuit of black work or ⁇ even in crime.

The law presented today is ⁇ not waterproof. Who does not want material support, because it is ultimately a right, can just go where he wants. The law does not impose an obligation to live somewhere, contrary to our bill. Our bill imposes that obligation. The asylum seeker must settle in the municipality to which he is assigned.

Minister Dupont, you think that this cannot be done because one must guarantee the freedom of coming and going. We also think so, but the European directive also very clearly permits a restriction to be imposed during a certain period, for example the period of asylum.

I conclude with the following. To see if this law will work, we asked for an evaluation after one year. We have included this in the law as well. This amendment was also accepted.

That is why we want to pass the law today, despite the many questions, concerns and shortcomings. We hope that this criticism will be viewed as a constructive criticism and that you will correct the seven points of criticism that we have given in the short term. If, after the review period we have requested, it turns out that the law does not work, then you know, Mr. Minister, that we are again ready with our bill and – who knows – a bill.

Ms Belhouari is the last to speak in the general discussion. Mr. Minister, you will be brief in your response, right? (Yes to)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, my political group can only welcome the initiative taken by the Minister of Social Integration. In fact, in addition to complying with our European obligations by transposing the directive into our law, the project goes beyond what is proposed by the latter, ⁇ ining more favourable practices than what the European standard imposes on us.

Beyond the minimum standards set for asylum seekers, there was also a question of the fate to be reserved for unaccompanied foreign minors, a problem that is not found in the directive but in a government agreement. The proposal has been amended in this regard.

As I pointed out in the committee, it is important that these people benefit from specific protection given their age, high vulnerability and being alone. A proposal for a socialist resolution had also been submitted in this sense to ensure that unaccompanied minors are not held in a closed centre, this to ensure respect for the rights of the child; I will return to it.

We look forward to the study commissioned by the Minister of the Interior on the situation of children staying in a closed centre with their families.

What is obviously formidable in this project is its willingness to bring together the provisions already existing but which are found in different texts, while incorporating new European provisions, which is in a way to make the system more coherent.

This project, which modules the right to material assistance by ensuring coordination between the reception centres, aims to provide material assistance during the entire duration of the procedure for examining the asylum application.

After these general considerations, I would like to highlight a few points that I find important.

The project aims to increase the number of seats while limiting the duration of people’s stay and this in a concern of humanity; I welcome this. This should also reduce the high cost of medical expenses.

The project should ensure equal treatment for all, while ensuring individualized accompaniment, which would respect both the situation of individuals, such as isolated women or unaccompanied minors, by providing them with legal or medical assistance. Particular attention will be paid to the psychological accompaniment of these persons, by definition highly precarious.

We also took the initiative to amend the draft in order to guarantee to the asylum seeker, whether he stays in a community or individual reception structure, the right to respect for his privacy and his religious or philosophical beliefs.

The project encompasses guarantees for the system to operate as efficiently as possible: a code of ethics, staff training as well as the issuance of an information brochure containing the rights and obligations, an internal regulation concerned with respecting the nature of each host structure.

These new instruments should, in the long run, enable a better collaboration between services.

I would like to discuss two topics now.

I will start with unaccompanied minors. I am pleased that the government has proposed an important amendment on unaccompanied minors. It complements the mechanism for the protection of this ⁇ vulnerable category of asylum seekers or migrants.

In addition to the provisions of the December 2002 Program Law on the guardianship of unaccompanied minors, the holding of MENAs will be limited and replaced by an alternative measure more respectful of the future of these children.

Recently, Belgium was condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the little Tabitha, considering the detention of minors as an inhumane and attentate measure to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. According to this international act ratified by our country, detention of minors must be a measure of last resort and as short as possible.

The draft law thus concretizes this provision with regard to unaccompanied minors. Therefore, there remain the other minors, that is, those who are detained with their parents in closed centers. I continue to question whether the current practice of the Foreign Office in this regard is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Together with other colleagues, I submitted a bill limiting family detention in closed centers and calling for alternative measures. The Ministry of Internal Affairs announced a study. It is important that the debate continues quickly. I hope that we can continue to humanize the fate of asylum seekers in our country.

This brings me to the second point: the transposition of the Accommodation Directive into a closed centre.

As the State Council pointed out in its preliminary opinion, this directive must also be transposed for persons detained in closed centres. This is the responsibility of the Interior Minister. We will be especially attentive to this, especially when I take note of the reports of NGOs and the Centre for Equal Opportunities about closed centres.

In conclusion, our group supports the project. In the future, we will remain attentive to the systematic and regular evaluation of its implementation.

Mr. Speaker, I think I can be brief because, as a committee, we have responded broadly to all of the arguments I have heard here. Since some elements return systematically, I would like to give one or the other precision about them.

Material assistance shall be granted during the entire duration of the asylum procedure. Some would have wanted it to be limited to one year. We answered that this duration should be assessed after one year of operation of the new asylum procedure. Therefore, it is a good solution to see how long this procedure takes before making arrangements. This was the argument of Mr. It’s hard, but many of you have taken it back.

As stated in the commission, the law provides for the possibility of concluding agreements with associations to provide legal assistance to asylum seekers.

Regarding the INAMI list, it is true that it must be reviewed; it will do so in collaboration with all partner associations.

I think I have answered in general in the committee the questions concerning the amendments submitted by Mr. and Dresden. I also spoke about those with whom I disagree.

Mr. Bultinck – and you too, Mrs. Lanjri – asked me about the mandatory place of registration. I do not give you an intention. All I can say is that one has already tried that in a law, in particular the law on the waiting register. The State Council gave a negative opinion. Subsequently, the Arbitration Court also gave a negative opinion on the mandatory place of registration. We cannot do that, at least not at the moment.

As for material support and effective dissemination – that is for you, Mr. Bultinck – the following. The material support will ensure an effective distribution of asylum seekers.

Madame Nagy, you also talked about the INAMI nomenclature. You have much insisted on what you call closed centers and who are not. It was explained long and broadly in the commission that the so-called "frontier" minors will be welcomed in an observation and orientation center that is said to be "secure", because neither you nor I would like that ten-year-olds arriving in a center, coming from nowhere, can come out and go back nowhere. That’s why they say “secure” and “framed”. There is no other difference with our observation and orientation centers.

That their stay now lasts several months, is not true. I myself visited Neder-over-Heembeek where the "turnover" is much more important. What makes the task of the workers of Neder-over-Heembeek difficult is precisely the fact that, every day, they start again with a new group. I’m not saying that this is a different group every day, but that individuals leave or join the group every day. I invite you to visit this center, go see its director and maybe some of your prejudices will disappear. Maybe you melt before his speech and his approach! That was my case!

I thank you for your constructive criticism, Mrs. Lanjri, and for your advice. As to the duration of the reception, I have already answered.

I now come to the access to the labour market.

Everyone talked about access to the labour market.

Well, next week, with my colleague Vanvelthoven, there will be an IKW, an inter-kabinet working group, on the subject. So we will discuss the issue together. You can see how quickly we react. You can verify that. We will also inform you about what happens and when it happens.

As far as the number of places is too small, that is absolutely not the case at the moment. In the committee, I stated that I could not step into the government to ask for more seats, while there are still free seats in our centers.

I have not avoided any questions. In any case, if this could have been the case in this council, it ⁇ wasn’t in the commission. The discussion was very long and constructive. The proposal has been positively amended. I would like to thank the members of the committee for the work they have done and for their interventions today.