Proposition 51K2793

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 8 juin 2006 réglant des activités économiques et individuelles avec des armes.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Philippe Monfils
Open Vld Martine Taelman
PS | SP Thierry Giet
Vooruit Walter Muls

Submission date

Dec. 7, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

conventional weapon arms trade

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Contact form ¶

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

⚠️ 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 ¶

Dec. 20, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs. Deom returns to her report.

Dec. 19, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

A number of colleagues are rapporteurs for the different parts of the two draft laws containing various provisions, the two drafts of program law and the other laws.

The first topic will be National Defense, followed by Foreign Relations, but not related.

Then there are the internal affairs and justice.

We begin the discussion of the section "Land Defense".

We begin the discussion of the section "National Defense"

Dear colleagues, Mr. Harmegnies is currently on the road; he has some problems to join us.

Not being able to be present at the time, he contacted me to ask the Chamber to apologize for the weather and let me know that he was referring to his report.

As regards that chapter, there is, therefore, a reference to the written report.

There is a joint general discussion of both draft laws containing various provisions and of program law. Per ⁇ tomorrow afternoon we will hold the article-based discussion of each draft separately.

Are colleagues listed in the chapter "National Defense"? I communicated my proposal to your group leaders last week. It is a matter of elegance between us so that we can order our work as best as possible.

Mr Verherstraeten has withdrawn from the general discussion, which also took place in the committees. I know very well.

Do you want to intervene on a point? (Not to)

I can therefore conclude unanimously that our discussion has ended on this part.

Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with the discussion itself, but I see that here maybe ten bodes are brilliantly engaged in placing dozens of documents on all banks. Everyone today has a mouth full of sustainable development, administrative simplification and what I know all. I see that on the 150 banks again stacks of paper begin to be laid. Then I must unwillingly think of what happened a few years ago in the amendment strike of Mr. Daems. Is it really not possible to make agreements on this and, for example, to submit one or two documents per group? We get them double. We also get them all sent home or on our desk. Now the stacks here begin to grow again. I find it unimaginable.

Can we really not agree on this, Mr. Speaker?

We have already done that. I’m not an expert in paperless communication, so I’m not well placed to do it. We sent a questionnaire to all colleagues months ago – I think already two years ago – on the insistence of the services of the Chamber and of the Questionary. I still remember that some have said they didn’t want paper. 81 out of 150 said they want the documents on an electronic medium. I have to tell you that I tried it at home. I let it print out. That was quite impressive. About half still want the paper carrier.

What do we do? Every member has the same rights, so I follow what the members have requested. I agree with you. I will insist on it again and try again to do it in a different way. Sometimes I get similar or identical texts on paper three times.

I think future generations will see it differently, but today we are not there yet. I note the comment. It is also shared by myself and by all those who are concerned about this matter.

I come to the bottom. Mr. President, I can move to the second chapter, given that Mr. Is De Gucht probably abroad?

Belgium has a large foreign country!

We welcome the discussion of the section "Foreign Affairs".

We begin the discussion of the "Foreign Affairs" section.

I have all the parts well defined and hope to keep it that way. Mr Chevalier is registered as speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I concluded this morning that global warming does not yet affect the accuracy of trains. As regards the program law and the draft law containing various provisions, I refer to the written report.

I have noticed that the Foreign Policy Letter will be discussed on Thursday. At that point, I will have a more general discussion.

We need to meet well. On Thursday last week, the Conference of Presidents agreed that the matters relating to the draft law containing various provisions and the Program Law – of course separately – will be dealt with today and tomorrow. The discussion of the budget follows on Thursday afternoon, with the exception of the budgets and accounts of the House and the dated institutions, which will be discussed tomorrow evening.

You wish to intervene on Thursday, Mr. Chevalier.

Mr. Secretary, I do not know if Mr. De Gucht will be present Thursday afternoon.

He returns on Wednesday.

In this case, it is easier

Are there any other members who want to make a brief presentation in the budget and who today refuse to intervene on Foreign Affairs? I suspect not. Mr Chevalier, I will give you the floor at the budget discussion on Thursday afternoon.

At the same time, the discussion of this small part is also closed.

We will start the discussion of the section "Interior Affairs".

We begin the discussion of the “Interior” section.

Ms. Galant, who is a reporter for that part, has been detained for a personal regrettable fact, namely a funeral. It refers to the written report.

However, I have some concerns regarding the examination of the program law and the law containing various provisions regarding the "Interior" chapter.

I had Dirk Claes on the list. He is still on the way.

If you start this way, the work will not progress!

I understand it. It was not easy on the road.

I should then begin the discussion of the part Justice, on which there may be more interventions. Mr. De Crem, you were early in Brussels, I heard. Would Mr. Claes be far from here? Do you not know? Of course, it can happen to anyone.

Mr. Speaker, I think neither he nor Mrs. Schryvers wished to take the floor.

If I have an idea of where they are now, I can arrange the work.

In the meantime, Mr. President, I heard that Mr. Claes will hold a brief intervention. He is on the way. He will be present around 10.45.

I am a little bored here. Can I contact Mrs. Onkelinx?

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I am bored with this. However, we also have respect, you more than anyone else, for a member of Parliament who is detained. If you agree, I will do the following.

Mr. Claes is there in three minutes.

Is he already in the building? Who was still registered for the discussion of the Internal Affairs section? Per ⁇ the Secretary of State also has a delay, Mr. De Groote. Mr. Claes is a diligent member of Parliament. I know that if he’s late, that’s not his fault. Should I suspend the meeting for five minutes until the colleagues arrive? Then I will begin with Mr. Claes on your part, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister.

Colleagues, this short interruption was due to the difficulties that one sometimes has in reaching the capital.

In the Internal Affairs section, Mr. Dirk Claes is registered as speaker. The government is represented by Deputy Prime Minister Dewael.

Colleague Claes, you have the word in this part of the debate that, as you know, deals with both the various provisions and the program law.

Mr. Speaker, please apologize for being a little late, but I thought my colleagues from Defence and Foreign Affairs would have had more work.

I must say that your group leader did this with a lot of talent.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why I am holding a presentation today is to seek from you rather than from the Minister. I am more interested in you than in the Minister.

I would like to refer to the program law in relation to which the government came late with an amendment. I do not agree at all with the motivation that brought this amendment on the agenda of the program law. I also think that in the texts there are a number of things that I think are not correct, both with regard to the various provisions and with regard to the program law.

Mr. Speaker, you also know that in the discussion of the law on electoral reform the opposition wanted to discuss a number of amendments. You prevented us from doing so, including by a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on Internal Affairs, Mr. Frédéric. You then prohibited discussing our amendments, which were related to electoral reform. We said then that in the discussions of the program law and the law containing various provisions, we would keep a close eye on what would happen with amendments from the government. We believe that these cannot simply be added. We will therefore have some monitoring on this.

It is not about the content of the amendment concerning ASTRID. There is no discussion about this. However, it is about the method that has been followed here and about our recognition and our rights on which we stand as parliamentarians. The provisions concerning ASTRID were originally in the preliminary draft containing several provisions. However, the State Council refused to give an opinion on the matter because the Council considered that the high urgency here could not be accepted. Therefore, we find that there are two sizes and two weights. That it could be done in the treatment of the program law, we find it a little exaggerated.

I quote what the minister says about the fact why this was submitted as an amendment to the draft program law: “But from the opinion of the State Council it turned out that this has clear links to the budget and thus included in the draft program law. Consequently, by decision of the Council of Ministers of 17 November, this provision was removed from the draft law containing various provisions in order to incorporate it in the form of an amendment to the Program Law. The State Council’s opinion on this amendment reached the government only on 1 December and therefore the amendment could not be submitted earlier.”

Mr. Minister, you suggest that the State Council itself would have suggested to clarify it and that the decision belonged rather to the program law than to the law containing various provisions.

In the report of the State Council to the various provisions is stated about the law on radio communications, so about ASTRID: “In the present case, the request for urgent treatment as follows is covered with reasons. In order to enable ASTRID to operate more efficiently, it is necessary to apply this provision from 1 January.” What does the State Council say about this? The State Council states: “While legitimate the intention, namely to make the company ASTRID operate more efficiently, that intention is not sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed measure is so urgent that it is necessary to request the State Council’s opinion to be communicated within a period of not more than five working days, rather than within a period of thirty days. Consequently, the request for advice is inadmissible for that article and for that preliminary draft.”

Mr. Minister, I no longer understand it. It is said that there is no high urgency for the opinion and that there is no reference to the budget in the Council of State’s opinion, and yet you take it to address this with the Program Act.

I would also like to involve you in this. Would you just let this happen? Can it be that because of the so-called reason that it relates to the budget, it should now be dealt with quickly?

Therefore, my question is about working with two sizes and two weights. We are therefore still in favour of clarifying this amendment from the Programme Act and bringing it back later, simply for the sake of recognition of our work as members of parliament.

I have a few questions about the content of the law containing various provisions. It is, of course, mainly about the shop surveillance and the surveillance of theft from companies. There is a problem in general with surveillance companies.

This was discussed last month. The General Inspection on Private Security currently has insufficient resources. There is a large pot of money of more than 8 million euros, collected by the various security companies to organize the control of the surveillance companies. This private general inspection does not work sufficiently.

Committee P has also pulled the alarm bell and says it does not have sufficient resources to control the inspection services. I am afraid that there will soon be something missing in the country in the field of surveillance and security. Indeed, the Committee P does not sufficiently control the general inspection and the general inspection does not have sufficient resources to control the private security companies.

I think we really need to be careful of the wildlife that is being warned – you yourself sometimes take the word cowboys in your mouth – and that the control of control must be organized. We can expect that as a member of parliament, and we therefore advocate, colleague Van Parys, that Committee P would be given more resources to control the security companies more thoroughly. This is also important for the companies themselves. Thus, the good companies can distinguish themselves from those that work with less good intentions. On the other hand, it is also important for the citizens of the country that they know and realize that the surveillance companies are also being controlled and that the control of that control of the General Inspection by the Committee P can also be performed in an adequate manner.

With reference to colleague Schryvers, I had, Mr. Minister, a few more questions about the backwardness of the Council of State on foreign affairs. Collega Schryvers has requested recent figures on the backwardness at the Council of State and on her request I remind you once again. We know that there will be an increase with six auditors to resolve the judicial gap at the State Council. That is already something. We would still like to have a figure on the backwardness at the Council of State and possibly also at the Standing Professional Committee. The staff of the Standing Professional Committee could be transferred to the Council on Foreign Affairs, which is at least the intention. More informatively, I would like to ask how this is done.

Regarding my suggestion of checking baggage at events, you have, of course, answered that this is not possible at this time. I agree; this is not specified in the legislation. Per ⁇ we could even consider the possibility. I think that control has little impact on privacy, but it would allow us to ensure security at major events in a more secure way. It is just the baggage that is checked. In this way, we avoid things being smuggled with less good intentions.

These are my questions to the Minister.

Mr Claes, I thank you.

Do you respond immediately or would you like to provide further explanations? Could other members want to intervene?

Mr. Speaker, I will immediately answer two elements. Regarding the amendment, I have sufficiently clarified in the committee that the halving of the number of commissioners and auditors at ASTRID was already decided within the structures of ASTRID during the general meeting of shareholders in May of this year. This was subsequently approved by the Board of Directors. There is, therefore, no dispute between Mr Claes and me on the basis of the case.

However, he disputes that I have proposed this in the form of an amendment. I would like to remind you once again that this was first included in the draft containing various provisions. The State Council issued a negative opinion on this subject. However, there is also a link to the budget. I had asked the State Council for advice within five days, but received it only on 1 December. Therefore, I had to submit this as an amendment and I also explicitly explained in the committee that this was the reason why it was not included in the draft, but must be in the form of an amendment. Again, the second opinion of the State Council does not contain any comments on the procedure used.

So let us not look for nails in low water. The second opinion of the State Council goes in the direction in which I have acted. On the basis of the case, we agree. It is not a world-shocking reform: the number of commissioners and the number of auditors will be halved.

Then there is the comment on the control of the private security sector and the observations of the Court of Auditors. In a speech that I was allowed to hold for the sector, I have recently responded in detail. The press also clearly showed that in recent months the number of checks has almost quadrupled. There was an observation from the Court of Auditors that the salaries of the sector were excessively raised. Spending too much money is not good, but too much spending is also not good: there must be a ratio between collected remuneration and delivered performance. The sector is now much better controlled.

Then there is the comment or the question of Mr. Claes on figures on the backwardness at the State Council and the Standing Board of Appeals. This was ⁇ by Ms. Writers. I had an informal contact with the State Council on Friday and asked for the figures. The Foreign Affairs Act is now in full implementation: the Standing Professional Committee, the Council for Foreign Affairs or the dissolution of the Foreign Affairs Controversy of the State Council and the postulation and completion of the names for the start of the Council for Foreign Affairs are full of work.

Last Friday I had a very interesting exchange of ideas with the responsible corps commander of the Council. I asked for the most recent figures. I therefore promise Mr. Claes that, as soon as the Council provides me with the latest figures of the downside and also of the Standing Appeal Committee, I will leave them directly to him and to Mrs. Schryvers.

There was also a discussion about the controls at events. I know Mr. Claes’ interest in events and also the role that the private security sector plays in them. I will make his suggestion the subject of a benevolent investigation.

Mr. Minister, I thank you, ⁇ for passing the figures and for the fact that you will let the suggestion be examined.

Our comments on the amendment to the program law do not concern the content because I fully agree with you on this. However, I have difficulty with the fact that the State Council has been requested the urgent treatment twice.

For the first time, the urgent treatment was requested by the law containing various provisions. At that time it was clearly not said that the amendment belonged to the program law. You motivate the fact that it belongs to the program law by referring to the financial consequences. However, they are very minimal. There was also a five-day deadline. Also there, the State Council’s opinion has been limited to the three essential matters that they normally do. So it would have better been given a normal, parliamentary treatment, ⁇ because you declared that it was approved by ASTRID in May 2006, rather than, as it is now, to be promptly approved by amendment.

Regarding the control of the private security sector, I agree that you have made efforts and that the control will be improved. However, we must not forget that the Committee P has also emphasized that the control of the control of the aforementioned body is insufficient. There are hundred and nine inspection services, not all of which can be properly controlled by the Committee P. This is a matter that concerns us and that we should pay attention to in the future.

This morning I opened a colloquium organized by the Committee P and another company, in which hundreds of magistrates and inspection services talk about the famous BID, Special Inspection Services, or SIS, Services d’Inspection Speciale. I counted a hundred and twelve. Mr Van Parys, the Committee P makes a report on this, on our request.

In my capacity as chairman of the special committee responsible for parliamentary guidance of the Standing Committee for the Supervision of the Police Services, I say that this is a relevant observation to which attention should be paid.

I rarely interrupt a speaker about the content, but the colloquium continues today all day in the Military School.

Thank you for this supplement, Mr. Speaker.

There are no other speakers for the Internal Affairs section.

We begin the discussion of the “Justice” section.

We will discuss the section “Justice”.

Congratulations to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice. There are more interventions on this subject. We will be able to handle a number of matters in terms of content, knowing very well that I will treat them differently in terms of legal provisions. The rapporteurs are Ms. Deom, Ms. Muls and Marinower. What is the most appropriate order of intervention for the report? This is the content that interests me.

I am a reporter on the draft law. It is 2760.

From a logical point of view, we will therefore first hear Mrs. Deom for the reading of the report. I would ask Mr. Muls and Marinower agreed to intervene later. Often there is a lack of reporters. Now we have a lot of them!

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, as you have just heard, I have the pleasure, together with my colleague Claude Marinower, to report on the project containing various provisions (Article 77 of the Constitution) which includes several components.

The first chapter deals with the main changes introduced in the field of the management of confiscated property in criminal matters.

The provisions under consideration are intended to clarify and simplify the law of 26 March 2003 which, on the one hand, itself led to the establishment of a central body for seizure and confiscation and, on the other hand, established provisions on the value management of the confiscated property as well as on the execution of certain patrimonial sanctions, inspired by the practices established by the central body that I have just cited.

The simplifications are made to the special criminal reference organized by the articles 28 octies and 61 sexies of the Code of Criminal Instruction.

Furthermore, the concept of assets referred to in Article 3 of the aforementioned law of 26 March 2003 is defined by taking inspiration from the definition given by the College of Prosecutors General in Circular No. 7/2004 published on 2 April 2004. It shall be movable and immovable goods, bodily or incorrect, susceptible of seizure or confiscation, the sale of which is lawful and which fall within the categories determined by the King or have an apparent value that exceeds a threshold fixed by him.

A second chapter deals with the changes that are made in order to uniformise and simplify the procedures for carrying out the tasks assigned to the houses of justice.

It specifies the legal framework in which a social investigation is carried out, in particular in the context of preventive detention. It is also proposed to harmonise the deadlines within which guidance reports must be made by judicial assistants.

Finally, the project under consideration establishes consultation structures bringing together all the actors involved in the various investigation and guidance processes so that the indispensable dialogue between all these actors can find a structural framework.

Some amendments have been made to the Judicial Code and concern the third route of access to the judiciary as well as the increase in the number of deputy secretaries of labour courts.

In addition, significant changes have been made to the Law on Punishment Courts in order to optimize their tasks. Thus, among the proposed measures, it is planned to arrange certain deadlines within which the TAP will have to take a decision, to ensure better information of all relevant actors and better circulation of this information, to provide, in case of non-compliance with the deadline relating to the decision, that the exit permit and imprisonment leave will be deemed to have been granted only if the director has given a favorable opinion on the matter.

Another important chapter is devoted to the amendments to the Law of 8 April 1965 and the Law of 1 March 2002 on juvenile delinquency. The most important part of this chapter concerns the exits of young people entrusted to a closed section of a community institution.

In the interests of public security, the judge must have as much information as possible in order to be able, if necessary, to intervene and prohibit certain exits and contacts. Therefore, without challenging the pedagogical contracts concluded by the IPPJs, it is planned to suspend the appeal of the prosecutor's office against a decision to leave for a young person placed in a closed centre.

Finally, Article 37 of the Law of 13 June 2006 is amended in order to confer an additional task on the liaison magistrates, namely to establish permanent contacts with the officials of the services of the Communities in charge of the implementation of the decisions and orders of placement, respecting the competences of the services of the Communities.

When examining these different provisions, the members essentially requested clarifications on certain articles, which is why, Mr. Speaker, I allow myself for the surplus to refer to the written report while specifying that this part was adopted by 11 votes for, 1 vote against and 3 abstentions.

Thank you for your report, Madame Deom. You will intervene on behalf of your group.

Mr. Speaker, my report is relatively short because it is a small piece of the draft program law, namely Articles 309 to 318 concerning the financial element of weapons permits and financing. This part of the program law was adopted in the committee with 10 votes for and 3 against.

Mr. Marinower, I think your report will not be so short. I do not say this because I know you well, but because it is a comprehensive report.

Mr. De Crem, I would like to start with Mr. Vandeurzen. I also have Mr. Mortelmans in mind. I will see who is present.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I have the honour to report to you, on behalf of the Committee on Justice, on the draft law containing various provisions that was discussed in the Committee on Justice.

The draft law is divided into amendments to provisions of the Civil Code relating to determination of descent. It is intended to amend certain provisions of the Civil Code concerning matching. This matter has been the subject of a reform contained in a law announced on 1 July 2006, but not yet published. It was shown that certain provisions of the Civil Code, in conjunction with the Act of 1 July 2006, could in turn be considered discriminatory. According to the Minister, the necessary improvements should therefore be made so that the new law can enter into force within the shortest possible time.

Article 473 amends Article 312 of the Civil Code concerning the contestation of maternity. As with the question of paternity, it is also provided that the claim must be filed during the year of discovery of the birth. Articles 474 to 476 set deadlines for paternity disputes in which the starting point of the deadline may be postponed for several interested parties. The date to be taken into account is that of the knowledge of the incorrect nature of the relationship of descent where only the claim of the child did not enjoy this possibility. Article 475 is announced by the Minister as one of the most important. Under the 1987 law, it was not possible to challenge paternity before birth, while recognition, on the other hand, could take place before birth. The 2006 law, without any justification, abolished the possibility that allowed the man to claim consent to recognition before the birth of the child.

Article 478 relates to transitional provisions.

The second part concerned the amendment of the laws of 8 April 1965 and 15 May 2006 on juvenile crime. At the same time, the Minister stated that the proposed amendments are purely legalistic in nature. In view of the application of the Act of 1965 to minors in danger in Brussels, it was necessary to clarify that certain provisions such as those which allow the Youth Court to place a young person in a private institution or in a public institution for youth protection apply to all minors, including minors in danger in Brussels.

The third part concerned the adaptation of the Code of Belgian Citizenship. In fact, the application of the law of 1 March 2000, which provided for a series of major amendments to the Belgian Nationality Code, had shown that some of the provisions were contrary to the intention of the legislator or needed to be improved in order to maintain the overall coherence of the current code.

According to the Minister, the aim of the preliminary draft law was not to jeopardize the large options held in 2000.

The article-by-article explanation is about a definition of legal residence. Article 487 determines the scope of the article in the Code of Belgian Citizenship by granting Belgian citizenship to the foreign child only if at least one parent is allowed to reside in Belgium for an indefinite period.

A further amendment provides that the right of residence can only be acquired by the person concerned if he or she applies for and acquires Belgian nationality. It also concerns the time limit for the inspection by the Prosecutor’s Office, the legal conditions of residence for submitting a valid naturalization application to Parliament, the delay of the naturalization application if there are other cases based on the Code of Belgian Nationality, the abolition of the prohibition in Belgian law on dual nationality and the loss of nationality due to fraud.

Another part concerns the amendment of Article 43quater of the Criminal Code with a view to transposing a Council Framework Decision of 1 April 2005 on the confiscation of proceeds from crimes, as well as of the instruments used and the objects obtained through them. The Framework Decision of 24 February 2005 must be transposed into Belgian law by 15 March 2007. Provisions on terrorism, protection against counterfeit munitions in connection with the introduction of the euro, child pornography and drug trafficking are added, which, according to the Minister, is the purpose of the technical chapter of the draft law containing various provisions.

Added bills on nationality were also discussed and presented by their authors, namely Mrs. Milquet and Mr. Viseur, Mr. Collard and Bellot, Mr. Vandeurzen and Mrs. Lanjri, Mr. Laeremans, Mortelmans, Schoofs, Mrs. Van Steenberge and Mr. Goyvaerts, again Mr. Vandeurzen and again Mr. Vandeurzen, Mrs. Van der Auwera and Mrs. Lanjri. There was a proposal from Mr. De Man, Annemans, Goyvaerts, Laeremans, Mortelmans and Schoofs and there was a proposal from Mr. Borginon and Hove, Mrs. Lahaye-Battheu, Mr. Cortois, Mrs. Vautmans and Mr. Goris, regarding the Belgian nationality.

In the article-by-article discussion, in particular with regard to the first section, which is the amendment of the provisions of the Civil Code with regard to the determination of descent, discussions were held on Article 473. Among other things, Ms. Van der Auwera made observations and drew attention to the consequences that the Government’s proposed amendment of the law of 1 July 2006 would have. She referred to a note from Professor Seynhaeve.

Mr. Laeremans asked the minister whether many cases of disputing motherhood had already been registered. The Minister replied that he did not have any figures on this subject.

Amendment No. 3 of Mrs Van der Auwera concerned a technical correction that denied the approval of the Minister.

On Article 473bis, Ms. Van der Auwera submitted another amendment, in which she referred to a similar amendment submitted by Ms. Lahaye-Battheu during the discussion of an earlier bill in the Committee on Justice. The Minister also voted with the amendment.

On Article 475 a discussion arose following an amendment submitted by Mrs Van der Auwera. The amendment was not stopped by the Minister.

On Article 477 Mrs Van der Auwera submitted amendment no. 6 in, which does not determine the request for contestation of the judgment. However, it stipulates that the request to conduct a paternity examination is rejected in the event of a criminal conviction. The Minister voted with the amendment.

With regard to the second loop, namely the juvenile crime, Mr Van Parys argued that the bill containing various provisions amends a law that had not yet entered into force. Mr Van Parys read the opinion of the State Council. The Minister replied that under Article 17 the text of the Ordinance in its entirety will enter into force only after the approval of the Cooperation Agreement between the Communities, the Community Commission and the French and Flemish Community, which is provided for in Article 13. At that moment, certain provisions of the Youth Protection Act of April 1965 are fully applicable.

The jurisdiction in the preliminary stage of the Youth Court in respect of young people in a problematic educational situation in the Brussels Capital Region is still based on Article 52 of the Act of 1975.

Collega Van Parys pointed out that in procedural matters the federal legislator also remains competent until terminological adjustment needs to be undertaken. He referred to the position on the matter of the College of Prosecutors-General. He gave a lecture about it.

There was an amendment by colleague Wathelet to Article 483bis, which aimed to replace the word présumé with the word soupçonné. The Minister voted for it.

There was another amendment by colleague Wathelet that he withdrew after discussion with the minister.

With regard to the third part, namely the amendments to the Belgian Nationality Code, a very extensive discussion has arisen. This is reflected in the written report. I will highlight the most important points here.

In Article 485, colleague Vandeurzen noted as a general introduction that at the start of the purple-green government a compromise was reached regarding a number of policy topics on the subject. The reform of the nationality legislation, according to him, was on that list and would also be carried out.

Collega Vandeurzen said he could not imagine that the other Member States would have no questions about, what he calls, the smooth policy for sustainable access to the territory, which was established with us by the Fast-Belg Act. According to colleague Vandeurzen, the granting of nationality should be a lever for achieving integration, but it has, according to him, however, become a means to determine the immigration policy. He referred to a recent book, namely "To the Belgian Nationality: A Year of Application of the New Code of the Belgian Nationality".

There is also a debate about the increasing use of consular documents, in particular how the notion of "impossibility to present certain documents" should be interpreted.

With regard to the removal of the requirement to demonstrate the will to integrate, some speakers referred to the journal of the study day in Leuven on the subject. Some speakers complain of interference with the law governing access to the territory. They consider the rapid-Belgic law non-migration neutral.

In Article 485, colleague Laeremans observed that people of any nationality are now able to travel or stay abroad more easily and sometimes for longer periods due to increasing globalization and that the movement of persons is increasing. The speaker said he could not bypass the finding that the same applies to the number of naturalizations.

Ms. Van der Auwera pointed out that the proposed amendments would, in her view, not improve the functioning of the Chamber Committee for Naturalizations. She referred to a number of concrete cases relating to the functioning of that committee, which she considered to have disrupted. In conclusion, she expressed her disappointment with the draft law.

Collega Lahaye-Battheu, who was in the same situation as colleague Van der Auwera in the Committee on Naturalizations, stated that she would not share her opinion at all. However, sufficient attention should be paid to the problem raised by Ms. Van der Auwera. She argued that it would be completely wrong to argue that the committee would not do its work correctly.

She welcomed the fact that the concept of ‘legal residence’ was now clearly defined, that the period of main residence could only be covered by a legal residence, that the prohibition on dual citizenship was lifted and, finally, that it was possible to lose the Belgian citizenship if it was obtained fraudulently.

Collega Vandeurzen submitted an amendment aimed at inserting in the draft law an article 485bis aimed at improving the control of documents delivered by the diplomatic or consular authorities of the country of origin by making obligatory the recognition of the documents by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as he is best aware of the fraud that may occur.

The Minister recalled in this regard that the impossibility of presenting an extract from the birth certificate must now be assessed by an official of civil status. In that case, the person concerned may appear to be able to present an equivalent document provided to him by the consulate of the country of origin, with the civil status officer not being able to challenge that document.

Regarding Article 486, Mr Vandeurzen recalled that Article 10(1) of the Belgian Nationality Code aims to grant Belgian nationality to the child born in Belgium who would be stateless at any time before the age of eighteen years or before the departure of that age if it did not include the nationality. A discussion arose, in which, inter alia, colleague Borginon noted that the proposed provision already included the hypothesis outlined by Mr Vandeurzen, since it also applies in particular when parents do not declare their child to the authorities of their country of origin. Colleague Taelman said he did not understand exactly where the node in the matter was. The Minister, in turn, stressed that the proposed provision does not have disproportionate consequences for the child, but that it is only to combat fraud in which the parents have engendered their child in order to obtain a residence permit.

At this moment, Article 488, according to the Minister, gives foreigners born abroad the possibility to acquire Belgian nationality, insofar as one of the parents has the Belgian nationality at the time of declaration of nationality. In particular, two conditions are provided for the applicant residing abroad. First, the applicant must effectively maintain the ties with his parent or the Belgian adopter. Second, the parent or adopter must have his or her main residence in Belgium.

The Minister stressed that those strict conditions are linked to the fact that, since the person concerned does not have his main place of residence in Belgium, his ties with Belgium cannot be considered as established only because his parent or adopter has Belgian nationality.

Collega Vandeurzen pointed out that the Fast-Belg Act introduced the principle that anyone whose parents have become Belgian and who himself was born abroad, has the right to citizenship by the declaration. Collega Vandeurzen argues that at that time it was not realized that those who could invoke a declaration of nationality could not be denied entry into Belgium.

The Minister responded that the text is replacing the automation, which now provides for a procedure with strict conditions. For example, the application is examined from abroad and the applicant must prove that he has actual ties with the Belgian parent or adoptive.

The Minister emphasized that the applicant has the right to apply for citizenship, but not yet to obtain it.

With regard to Article 489, which constitutes a modification of Article 12bis second of the Code of Belgian Nationality, Mr Vandeurzen wanted to know what the Brussels Prosecutor’s Office is doing in the case of an application from abroad for the acquisition of nationality, in order to verify whether there is an obstacle due to serious facts, inherent to the person, to grant the Belgian nationality. More specifically, colleague Vandeurzen wanted to know whether the minister for that assignment for the Brussels Prosecutor’s Office had obtained the advice of the college of prosecutors-general. He also wanted to know why the federal prosecutor’s office, which is internationally oriented, was not involved. He drew attention to the fact that the procedure will allow the persons concerned access to Europe.

The Minister responded that it does not matter for the Prosecutor’s Office whether the application is submitted in Belgium or abroad and stressed that already, in the current procedure, the Prosecutor’s Office of Brussels and not the Federal Prosecutor’s Office conducts such an investigation, emphasizing that it is not something new, and there was no reason to change that, given the good cooperation, there was no reason to change that. Finally, she argued that the prosecutor’s office could always use international networks such as Eurojust, the federal prosecutor’s office and foreign state security services for the investigation.

Collega Van der Auwera asked whether Article 491, which amends Article 19 of the Code of Belgian Nationality, has the effect that the applicant must no longer have had his main residence in Belgium for three years continuously at the time of the application for naturalization.

The Minister replied that Article 12bis refers to the actual affective bond with the parents, as opposed to Article 19, which refers to the actual bond with Belgium. Although the same means of evidence may be used, these are two distinctly different concepts.

Regarding Article 492, colleague Vandeurzen wanted to know how, in the absence of a central registration, it can be verified in practice whether a simultaneous application was submitted. The Minister replied that the applications will be registered in a national central register, the creation of which will be the subject of a separate bill, under the auspices of Minister Dewael.

Article 494 is intended to amend Article 23 of the Belgian Nationality Code. Collega Vandeurzen noted that in this article the Minister expressly recalls the words "if they seriously fail to meet their obligations as a Belgian citizen" and asked what should be understood, a comment in which he was assisted by colleague Laeremans. The Minister clarified that she did not want, for example, terrorists to be able to retain the acquired Belgian citizenship and was of the opinion that this provision should not be a theory.

Furthermore, a discussion arises regarding the limitation period proposed in this provision, in which several colleagues submitted comments, not regarding the length of the period, but when the starting date of that period should be determined. The Minister retained his position and pointed out that if the Chamber granted citizenship in the light of the naturalization procedure, it could also provide for the procedure for its deprivation, which is therefore its responsibility.

A number of discussions have also arisen regarding the entry into force of the new law.

In the last part, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mrs. Minister, with regard to the amendment of Article 43quater of the Criminal Code with a view to the transposition of the Framework Decision on the confiscation of proceeds from crimes, the Minister emphasized that that conversion should take place before 15 March 2007. Article 2 of the Framework Decision provides that each Member State shall take at least the necessary measures to enable the complete or partial confiscation of devices and proceeds derived from acts subject to imprisonment of more than one year. Article 3 requires Member States to provide for a specific system of confiscation for certain crimes, including the distribution of the burden of proof.

Other crimes than money laundering are punishable with a maximum sentence of imprisonment of at least five to ten years. Crimes related to money laundering are punishable with a maximum sentence of imprisonment of at least four years. In addition, the Minister gave a list of current crimes already included in Article 43quater.

Regarding the votes, Mr. Speaker, I assume that I may, with your consent, refer to the written report.

Thank you, Mr Marinower. I will make a proposal for discussion. Eight colleagues are registered. I make a proposal as soon as I see who can be present and is present. I would like to start with Mr. Vandeurzen, if he agrees with that.

I will then ask Mr. I want to intervene. He is in the Committee on European Affairs and I will ask Mr. Malfoy calls him. Then I would give the word to Mr. Laeremans. Then I will give the floor to Mrs. Deom, who will also speak. Nadien zal mevrouw Lahaye-Battheu interveniëren, as she is present. I will then give the floor to Mr. by Malmendier. If Mr. Ducarme did not arrive, you will be the second speaker, Mr. Malmendier.

For the general discussion of these two bills, Mr Vandeurzen is the first to speak.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I will limit myself to what I find a very strange chapter in this bill containing various provisions, in this case the adjustments to the nationality legislation. Before leaving, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the rapporteur and the staff of the committee for the work that has once again had to take place under great time pressures. The report may be from CD&V, it is a good representation of discussion. All appreciation for this.

Colleagues, I almost fell off my seat this weekend when I read, on the one hand, the prime minister’s crowded statements on the horizon to 2020 and, on the other hand, the articles on the study on follow-up migration and the major challenges facing our country when it comes to efforts to integrate people into our society. What is that for a democracy I thought, where one can afford to hold a great discourse about the future while a very concrete social theme about how people can live together respectfully is put on the agenda by the academic world and all this with the prospect that a few days later in the Chamber we will deal with a bill of more than 1,000 articles some of which articles deal with nationality legislation, a spearhead and a core with regard to how people can actively participate in society and allow people to live together respectfully.

What a schizophrenia, on the one hand, to hang a great story on this and, on the other hand, when it comes to doing the work in Parliament, to have to find that the purple parties do exactly the opposite of what has been proven with the lips.

Colleagues, the nationality law has a logic in the world. The logic is that nationality is used to integrate people into society, give opportunities to actively play with, to have a residence and a home, and to be able to speak politically. That is the essence and meaning of the nationality law. It is an invitation to people who reside here permanently to participate, to become a full member of society and to use the political rights you have as a Belgian to vote and in this respect to be equal to all other Belgians. That is the logic of the nationality law. This logic has always been advocated by Christian Democrats.

There have been times when we, together with colleagues from the socialist family, in a government chose to make the access to nationality a little wider, because it was our conviction that it was the best method to get people to live politically active in our country.

Nationality legislation, of course, has always been based on the principle that the government gives more smooth access to nationality as persons stay longer and more durably in a country and as the indications that people have the will and intention to settle, stay and live together there increase. That is the logic of a nationality law.

A nationality legislation – this is the case all over the world – begins with a broad basis of a right to citizenship for those who meet a number of conditions. If one can demonstrate – everyone agrees – that one meets those conditions, for example a long or very long stay in the country, then one can suspect that one is willing to play an active role here in our society. Nationality legislation – this is also a small lesson about regulation as it exists everywhere in the world – ends up with the possibility at the top, in very exceptional cases, by means of a favour, which is naturalization, to grant nationality to persons who are in very special circumstances that may justify the granting of that favour.

This is the logic: whoever resides here permanently and who can be suspected of wanting to play an active role in society, gets a right to citizenship. Those to whom we would, in exceptional circumstances, wish to grant that right may appeal to favour and, in this case, ask the legislative authority for nationality.

Colleagues, the hunker in 1999 to finally be able to rule once without the Christian Democrats, in nightly meetings led socialists and liberals to a very strange reversal of that nationality pyramid. What almost nowhere in the world – and I mean nowhere in Western Europe – exists, has become true in Belgium with purple. We would normally assume that integration readiness is the key to nationality and that nationality is a lever, an incentive, an encouragement for people to integrate and – let’s talk about it very concretely – to learn a language. In our country it was put to the head with the fast-Belg-law. With the Fast-Belg-Law we have determined in our country that, whoever asks to obtain nationality, only by this proves that he is willing to integrate. Any request to make an effort, for example, to learn a language for someone who has been here for several years, has been deleted from our nationality legislation.

Whoever reads the report of the discussion of that law in 1999-2000, will be able to read everything in it that today is amended by bitter necessity in this law containing various provisions to the rapid-Belg-law. Even then, the Christian Democrats point by point showed what the problem would be with the new nationality law. I will summarize some points of criticism and compare them with what is presented to the House now.

The first point of criticism. The Chairman of the Chamber knows very well what I am talking about because he has immediately had the necessary discussions about it following the incidents and scandals that have come to light in connection with the acquisition of nationality. A first point of criticism, therefore, was, quod novum, that the service must give that advice when someone asks for nationality – that is, in two-thirds of cases procedures outside the Parliament, through the local authorities, and in one-third of cases procedures in the Parliament via Naturalisaties – that advice according to the fast-Belg-Law had to issue within a period of one month. If that advice did not come in, it was considered to be a favourable advice. Who should give advice? The security services, the Prosecutor’s Office, the State Security Service and the Foreign Affairs Service. So there was a month for the opinions about people who had moved, who came from abroad, and for people who still needed some examination to know if there were any indications that they pose a risk to society. In the latter case, of course, it is only a very small percentage of people applying for nationality, but a safety net must, of course, be waterproof. There was a month to give that advice.

I remember very well that I stood on this same tribune and asked if it was feasible in this country that in all those cases a decent and high-quality advice could be given in a month period, with the sanction that if one failed to do so, one was considered to have given a favorable advice. The parquets made it clear that this equipment was not possible. The Foreign Affairs Service also said that this was not possible. The State Security Service said after a few months that it might need thirty additional staff members in order to do it properly. With that science in mind, Paars approved a one-month advisory term here when someone applies for citizenship for the prosecutor’s office, for the Service Security of the State and for the Service Foreign Affairs. What happened then can be read in the newspapers. There are cases that have been leaked through the mazes and people with a significant criminal history have been able to obtain Belgian citizenship through all sorts of procedures.

Schizophrenia rose to its peak when the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, decided to limit those deadlines in the naturalization procedure. Colleagues, the Chamber is the only place where you do not collectively apply the law. For security reasons, we decided together in that committee, shortly after the entry into force of the Fast-Belg Act, that the one-month period would not be respected, not by the prosecutor's office, not by the Service Security of the State and ⁇ not by the service Foreign Affairs which, if my information is correct, now needs months before it can issue a advice about someone who applies for naturalization.

This is the safety policy of the purple. A law was passed in full knowledge that it created risks to give citizenship to persons who would better not get them, while we had to be able to avoid them settling in society because they are a danger to the population. A law was passed, knowing that this risk existed. When she came into her own parliament, that law was not applied. In the meantime, the clock was silently tapped until the eve of the federal elections. Now the water is high. One cannot go to the elections with that on his palmares. Therefore, a legislative amendment must be implemented in all cases.

In all those years, we have repeatedly asked in this Parliament to extend that term of counsel. Again and again it was "head in closet" and this security risk has been very consciously tolerated. In this way, an incredible disorganisation has been created in our country.

The second criticism of the Fast-Belg Act was that this law was no longer a bar for integration. While in all Western European countries nationality is used to encourage people to integrate into society, we have removed that condition from our nationality laws. I would like to invite you to read the report, in which I have cited all the countries of Europe that in recent years have made the completely reverse movement of our country. It has been said: “Please join, choose the nationality, but also make an effort to learn our language.” In our country, we gave the exact opposite signal.

This creates a hallucinating situation, because in Flanders the same Flemish parties have in the meantime approved a citizenship decree. In Flanders, the Greens, who were still in the Flemish Government at the time, liberals and socialists, and now also we, in the new Flemish Government, have told them that people in Flanders should be given opportunities to integrate and to learn a language, but that we can also expect them to take those opportunities. Well, colleagues, in Flanders, that is a full-fledged policy, the citizenship policy. At the Belgian level, the same parties succeed in doing exactly the opposite. That has nothing more to do with putting people in a closet of conservatives or orboli, or against immigrants or anything. In Flanders – I emphasize this because I find it so essential – we agree with all the political parties that have belonged to the youngest governments that a full-fledged citizenship policy must be able to be conducted.

This is a strange paradox. Why is it that what can be done in Flanders cannot be done in Belgium? Why is it that a Belgian legislation cannot align itself with what is widely ⁇ ined in Flemish society, namely the philosophy of giving opportunities and inviting people to take those opportunities, especially when it comes to learning a language?

My third criticism is that it was a dramatic example of poor governance. I have rarely seen in Parliament such a misleading as the way the fast-Belgic law came into being. You should listen to the opinions of the professors, the prosecutors and the officials of the civil stand on the legislation. Thus, certain concepts were not correctly defined, including the concept of place of residence. We have asked hundreds of times about its meaning in the law. They thought that the law was clear, and considered it unnecessary to specify that word, until the Court of Cassation determined that all sorts of matters were added to the law, that the law was unclear, and that it had to be amended.

The use of alternative acts became possible. The State Council had said that it would not allow the production of alternative documents because there is too much chaos in the world. However, it had to come out of it. Officials of the bourgeois state now say that they can no longer follow and know what is true and what is not true, while they must make a judgment about it in all those local governments.

As for the central registration, how many times has it already occurred, in the Commission for Naturalizations, that we received a report from someone who applied for nationality who said: it does not need more, I do not insist anymore because I have already become Belgian along another road? There is simply still no national registration of who is applying for citizenship.

Last but not least, during the discussion of the Fast-Belg Act, we discovered that there was a tremendous migration effect in the law. The majority had not seen, in all honesty, that by determining that when someone here becomes Belgian, we give the right to his adult children, born abroad, also to obtain the nationality, thus creating a great cascade effect. No one had seen it. We expressly pointed out this to the minor and asked him if he knew that, whenever someone in Belgium acquires citizenship, on the basis of his fast-Belg-law, his son or daughter – born abroad, full-time and never in Belgium – is entitled to Belgian citizenship. That person will therefore be able to come to Belgium in application of the existing legislation, claim citizenship here, and his minor children will in turn obtain Belgian citizenship. We have repeatedly asked whether the Minister knew what the effect would be. Although it was always said that it was not important, that it was marginal and that it would only occur very exceptionally, more than 5,000 people have already exercised that right.

Well, that migration effect – in which we, by granting nationality to people abroad who have nothing to do with our country, who do not know the language and who do not reside here, who have nothing to do with it, give right to our nationality, and in case of distraction also their children – has become known in literature over the years as the cascade effect. It is a strange kind of automatic pilot with which we give citizenship, without that citizenship having to or can serve to facilitate or support integration, respectful coexistence here.

Those were the points of criticism at the time of the Fast-Belg Act: a security risk, no longer a lever to respectful coexistence and integration, poor governance, and absolutely not migration neutral.

Colleagues, in the years following the introduction of the Fast-Belg Act, we have heard and seen everything in this Chamber in this regard. It is fascinating! I have heard the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. Duquesne, here say: I agree with you, I am responsible for the migration policy, but actually I must admit that the nationality legislation has become an important factor in the migration policy and that is now out of control, I can do nothing more about it, I lay down.

I have heard the colleagues of the Sp.A. say that this was not good, that it had to be transferred because one had gone too far. I have heard that say by Patrick Janssen, I have heard that say by Dirk Van der Maelen, I have heard that say by Steve Stevaert, I have heard that by almost everyone at the top of the Socialist Party say.

I have heard that from the liberals. I have heard from the VLD summit that we must reflect on this nationality legislation because it is not a good thing; that that legislation must be integrated and adhered to the Flemish citizenship policy. These were literally the words of the electoral program of the VLD. I have also heard people from rather apolitical angles, such as the Centre for Equal Opportunities of Father Leman, say that this legislation must be addressed, that this is not a good evolution.

I have heard that in the academic world. Books have been written about the inconsistencies, the legistically wrong pieces of this nationality legislation. Then I think there will come a time when, ⁇ by an incident such as the conviction in Antwerp of a number of criminals, one still says that there must be remediation. I thought in all naivety – such a broad consensus, both on the left and on the right, about the poor quality of this legislation, so much criticism of the social impact of this legislation and so many questions about the migration effects of this legislation – that the time would come when this law would be fundamentally amended. Per ⁇ there would then be a substantial correction to this nationality legislation, though with years of delay. The truth commands me to say that in terms of deadlines and the declaration of expiration, a number of proposals have indeed been submitted. I still wonder what has prevented this majority from doing it faster. Why have we taken such a security risk with our eyes open all these years?

However, colleagues, it must be done on its purple. It must be done in the way we have been used to it for several years now. This means that it will be hidden in the bill containing various provisions. This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with it, but it must be removed. In French-speaking Belgium, it should not come under the attention of those who think it might have to be even wider. In Flanders it should ⁇ not give rise to a broad debate about nationality legislation because the Flemish colleagues from the majority know very well that there is ⁇ much criticism in Flanders. A debate was not held. I have made extensive arguments and questions in the committee. There were even questions to you, Mrs. Minister, on which you didn’t even get the word yes or no on your lips. I will return to this soon.

It must be quick. Now it must be quick, before the elections, because it must fit in the Slang campaign that will consist of the VLD and the sp.a – in its head like the VLD – with some sort of political virginity to lead the federal elections. There is no need to account for the past. First of all, we need to make sure that this no longer needs to happen. One will say that in all cases something has been done to the legislation so that all criticism of the policy carried out is unfounded. A few months before the election, however, the course has changed. This is a typical construction: squeezed, fast and just before the elections. I think these are the ingredients of a management style that we have known for a while now.

Colleagues, this law extends the cascade effect, the effect of nationality legislation on migration. I still do not understand why this should happen. If you approve this law, we decide that anyone who acquires Belgian citizenship through this Parliament – about one-third of the nationality acquisitions – or through the declaration or choice – that is, through the local governments, on automatic pilot – begins a right to citizenship on the basis of the major children of the persons concerned. Whether they were born here or not is no longer relevant.

They must be able to demonstrate that they have a connection with their parents. According to the explanatory memory, this band must be interpreted "wide". They must submit the application to the consulate or the embassy. They no longer have to move to Belgium.

A strange situation, my colleagues. This weekend we read about the yet difficult situation arising in follow-up migration and a few days later we pass a law that facilitates and supports follow-up migration and keeps away any incentive to link the learning of the language of the country.

Colleagues, I try to clarify what this means. This means that if we grant citizenship here, the adult children of the persons concerned around the world can register at our embassies and, in accordance with Belgian law, claim the right to obtain Belgian citizenship. The person concerned must never be here or come. He/she will be granted a nationality that allows access to the whole of Europe. Once the nationality has been granted, the minor children of the person concerned are automatically also of Belgian nationality.

I asked the Minister how we should imagine this in practice. What needs to be done in practice is the following. They collect postcards, telephone calls and the statement of parents in Belgium that they still have contact with them. The application is submitted to the consulate or embassy that is sent to Belgium. To ask whether the people of the consulates and embassies are aware that they can open a new box for these applications, I received no response. Who will investigate whether one has a connection with the parents? Parquet of Brussels. Some of you – I look at colleague Van Parys who is an expert in the matter – know the state of the court and the prosecutor’s office in Brussels. Applications for citizenship from all over the world are sent to the Brussels Prosecutor’s Office. It is no longer a favour of Parliament but the right to exercise nationality. This parquet has a little more than four months to conduct an investigation into the relationship with the parents, which according to the report needs to be interpreted broadly. A statement from the parents is already an important element in this regard. The prosecutor’s office must investigate whether there is a connection with the parents throughout Belgium. A good governance? Is it wise to include in a law such a broad and unspecified concept that can be interpreted by everyone? I have questions about that. I was not alone. Also the State Council has warned the minister that it is a bad understanding to include in a law because it is so stretchy and no one has a grip on it. "The relationship with the parents" is stated in the law and will be investigated by the Brussels prosecutor's office. Should the parket make a local visit to the parents anywhere in Belgium? This is left to the wisdom of the Parquet of Brussels. Good legislation is! We leave that to the wisdom of the Parquet of Brussels.

Even more striking is that the prosecutor’s office must verify whether the person concerned can pose a security risk to the people in the Belgian society. Is there a risk of insecurity for ordinary Belgians? Does the victim have a criminal past? Is he involved in organized crime? Is it related to drug trafficking? Can his establishment in our country through the acquisition of nationality be a threat to the Belgians?

Ladies and gentlemen, you see it already happening. Applications from all over the world flow into the parquet in Brussels. The parquet has several months, slightly more than four months, to verify that around the world and to issue advice. I repeat it again “to see it all over the world.”

This means that the prosecutor’s office must ask questions to colleagues or police services in South America, Africa or Eastern Europe. There is a time limit. If that time is not respected, the advice is considered to be favourable. I may be mistaken because I have no long experience. However, I make myself quite strong that, when that example was given in the Chamber’s Justice Committee, there was no dog who believed that this was possible. I think everyone in that committee sat looking at his journal and thought: this is complete madness.

How does anyone dare to say that the Brussels prosecutor’s office would be able to ask questions around the world within these mandatory deadlines and thus can check whether or not someone could pose a danger to the Belgian society? I am not a security expert – other colleagues are much more involved – but whoever dares to say that, Mrs. Minister, should really look right in the eyes of the people in this country and say: we are deceiving the people. It is simply not correct. It is not serious that a parquet that is already submerged under a lawine of files gets imposed a compulsory deadline and then must say whether someone in a distant country, who does not come here, who is not seen or known and who also does not speak our language, is absolutely safe and does not pose a risk for the Belgian society.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is unseen. In our society, questions are raised about how we can live together with respect, how we can organize the multicultural society well, how we can invest in people to teach them a language and integrate them so that they have the tools to find a job. I find it truly irresponsible that this government at such a time performs to organize a new cascade in migration and opens up new rights that have nothing to do with staying in our country. Those people should have a home here, but that is not all necessary. These people remain where they are and should never go to our country. This creates a security risk.

Colleagues, this law – I predict it to you – will become the symbol of purple: a total belief that everything will go well by giving a right to people, a total lack of investments in coexistence and integration, a total lack of investments in opportunities to make people coexist respectfully, a complete fiasco in good governance and, in terms of security, the people make a bit of wisdom, against their own better knowledge. I find this ⁇ serious. I cannot reconcile myself with the idea that this – despite the questions that were asked – can be approved by the majority, who three years ago, at the Flemish elections, highly claimed that one would really change that law.

Colleagues in a few days you will be able to prove whether purple is only perception, or can do what one says. I am very curious

It is the turn of Mr. I want to intervene. He was there a moment ago. I suggest that Mr. Malmendier takes the speech before Mr. Laeremans and Mrs. Deom.

Mr. Malmendier, take the place of Mr. Malmendier. Dude, if you want to.

The [...]

Unless I ask Mrs. Deom, but she is not there either! Is this appropriate to you, Mr. Malmendier? What are you looking for? and your speech. Here, I cannot help you!

(Return from Mrs. Deom)

Madame Deom, do you want to intervene now?

Mrs. D’Hondt, I try to keep the balance. Maybe I am wrong.

The [...]

That is correct. I think that is a good approach.

Come on, Madame Deom! I will then give the floor to Mr. Laeremans and Ducarme.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I will speak briefly on behalf of the Socialist Group in this debate concerning the bill containing various provisions.

First, let me be pleased with the provisions that allow to put the last touch to the bill on the establishment of filiation. This law should enter into force no later than 1 July 2007. This legislation is, indeed, very much awaited because it allows the right to be again in conformity with the reality and social evolution of the current families, in particular families recomposed.

The limitation of the scope of the presumption of paternity is for us a real advance, which will avoid many shocking situations, especially for children, but also for biological fathers.

I would also like to emphasize the importance of the provisions concerning the amendments to the Law of 8 April 1965 on the Protection of Youth.

As regards the provisions amending the Code of Citizenship, you will remember that the law of 1 March 2000 had already made a number of significant changes to this code, with the main objective of simplifying and facilitating access to citizenship for foreigners permanently established in Belgium.

During the previous legislature, this legislation was the subject of not only an evaluation, but also some studies from a doctrinal point of view.

It is rare for a law to be subject to such an assessment. Therefore, it is important to emphasize this and to clarify that the bill under consideration takes into account the recommendations made.

Correlatively, the application of this law has highlighted the need to make a number of corrections to the Code of Citizenship, without however putting into question the large options adopted by the legislator in 2000.

Furthermore, I will remind you that this law also finds to apply to parliament through the practice of the Commission of Naturalizations regarding the handling of files. We are therefore doubly interested in this legislation. I repeat it once again, the bill under consideration only corrects and improves certain provisions without questioning the achievements and foundations of this legislation.

In the preamble to this debate, I would like to recall that, for my group, a true democracy can only be built on the basis of the guarantee of respect for all and the recognition of the equal status of everyone, regardless of our origins. Furthermore, we find it primary to encourage the construction of a multicultural society.

Next, I would like to make a few comments not about the text as such, which will be done later, but about the fears expressed during the committee debates.

Some would like to reintroduce the condition of integration of the foreigner in the Belgian society, believing that the proposed changes would ease the conditions required for obtaining citizenship. I would like to cut off these fears and remind that the text under consideration does not affect in any way the foundations of the 2000 law.

Additionally, some arguments developed tend to demonstrate a certain intolerance towards strangers or, at least, could be perceived as such. However, in a rule of law, the law must be the same for all: there is no reason to impose additional conditions on persons who wish to become Belgians. We believe that the approach of a foreigner who lives in Belgium by introducing a naturalization application is an element that presupposes his/her will to integrate and that he/she should be encouraged in this sense. Why should this approach be questioned?

To follow, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make brief considerations on some articles contained in the chapter of the Code of Citizenship.

The period within which the Prosecutor’s Office is required to consider requests increases from one month to four months. This is a measure that is demanded by all. Indeed, the current one-month deadline is insufficient to be able to analyze all applications effectively and correctly. Furthermore, at present, the deadline runs from the issue by the prosecutor’s office of the accused of receiving the request. It is provided in the project that is submitted to us that the deadline takes course to the declaration before the civil status officer. Specifically, these changes will ⁇ enable the competent authorities to handle all cases under normal and optimal conditions. Of course, this reform goes hand in hand with a greater coordination between the parquets. Parquets must play an important role in ensuring that they have an identical attitude from one parquet to another.

Furthermore, I am pleased to note that the notion of legal residence is now clearly defined by specifying that the period of main residence must be covered by a legal stay.

These are important corrections that will avoid giving applicants false hopes about prospects for naturalization.

Another point that should be highlighted is the possibility of deprivation of nationality for fraud. If, in the vast majority of the cases we are examining, we are in the presence of people of good faith who wish to integrate and participate in the construction of the Belgian society – and we know that today the acquisition of the Belgian nationality means belonging to Europe – perfection is not of this world and zero risk does not exist in terms of fraud. It is therefore necessary to take measures against situations of abuse, but always with a view to respecting the principle of equality.

I look forward to the fact that the ban on dual citizenship is finally lifted, by incorporating the principle of multipatriotism into our law. However, it should be clarified that this amendment will not enter into force until the signatory States of the Strasbourg Convention have formally authorized this statement.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, as you can imagine, the Socialist Group is fully satisfied with the proposed provisions that are submitted to us.

Mr. Chairman, colleague’, as we are accustomed to, this bill concerning various provisions is also false, especially when it comes to nationality, about the fast-Belg-law. The most urgent is now put suddenly, while we have been a party for years – and not only us – asking for the law to be discussed in a serious way because of the many nefaste and predicted consequences. The government has driven the amendment in seven hurry by the committee within the framework of a kind of program law, precisely to avoid a serious evaluation and above all to prevent the law from being thoroughly discussed.

However, there were many reasons for a very thorough debate on this issue, such as the elimination of the requirement of integration, the elimination of the requirement of citizenship and the disastrous consequences thereof. Furthermore, there are the community consequences of the fast-Belgium law, especially in Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, where tens of thousands of new Belgians have come to unilaterally strengthen the French-speaking parties in recent years. By the way, an extensive university evaluation report was made on this law, a report that is purely destructive for this spirit child of the Socialist Party, which Verwilghen had to give birth at the end of 1999 on the order of Onkelinx.

However, it was not allowed. After all, a separate bill, with hearings, for example, could result in a loss of sight for the PS. Consequently, we are again getting fast work and some technical freemel in the margin, all with a definite intention. The PS knew that this law with its numerous abuses would inevitably end up on the negotiating table of 2007. In order to prevent a real trend breakout at that time, some of the most flagrant misstatements in the law, such as the already short examination deadlines for the parquets, the uncertainty surrounding illegal stay and the impossibility of reducing nationality in case of fraud, are now cut off in the hope and expectation that the PS can then in 2007 triumphantly communicate to the negotiating table that a new amendment to the rapid Belgian law can no longer be considered because it would give rise to too much legal uncertainty.

Ladies and gentlemen of CD&V, we give you it now on a leaflet, Onkelinx will, after the upcoming federal elections, during the next negotiations, tickle like a devil in a sewage vessel to protect her stray child. Just ask Bert Anciaux, colleagues from CD&V, how Onkelinx can call and stand at the negotiating table. She will do everything to avoid anything fundamental to change this law.

This law is the electoral fund of commerce of the Socialist Party. It is thanks to this law that the Socialist Party can survive and easily withstand the endless series of scandals. Through its extremely lax and benevolent attitude towards foreigners, by promoting itself as the protector of immigrants, this party binds the many tens of thousands – what I say, hundreds of thousands – new Belgians for an unlimited period of time, even though the original PS backbone pays a terribly high price for it.

I would like to explain it, I would like to illustrate it. The Socialist Party of Laurette Onkelinx rose in Schaarbeek, in the beloved Schaarbeek of Mrs. Onkelinx, from 11.8% to 25.2% in the last election. Was it due to the passionaria itself, to its great, good outcome, or was it due to something else?

Let me read the names of the thirteen PS elected members on her list. In addition to Laurette Onkelinx, Eddy Courthéoux and Jean-Pierre Van Gorp, there are: Sfia Bouarfa, Mohamed Lahlali, Emin Ozkara, Deria Alik, Mohamed Romdani, Abobakre Boujar, Abriham Dolmez, Tulaj Nalband, Murat Denizli and list gate Abdelkrim Ayad.

These are the thirteen elected members of the PS in Schaarbeek. This demonstrates once again the consequences of the rapid-Belgic law. Should there be sand? Can it be illustrated even more clearly to whom the PS owes its victory in Brussels, thanks to the fast-Belg Act and the foreign voting right?

I see the minister shaking no, but I can only look at these facts. You cannot deny the light of the sun, Mrs. Minister.

You say unpleasant and disrespectful words.

Miss, I just mention the names of those who were elected along with you.

This is disrespectful to people, who are Belgians and who have been elected. They deserve respect!

of course !

The [...]

Who says we have no respect for these individual voters? They are elected and their councillors. Just as we respect the elected in the House, who are our colleagues, we respect every elected in the country. With these names, I wanted to show where it comes from. Those names speak for themselves. You deny the light of the sun. You deny the fact that now a large majority of the PS-elected in Brussels are of Islamic origin. More than half of the PS elected for the Brussels Region are of Islamic origin.

Mrs. Minister, I am a lot younger than you. I still have young children. I look at the long term. I wonder what it will be in Brussels in twenty or thirty years. How long will it take before there will be a Islamic majority in Brussels in globo, if it continues at this pace? Because of the snowball of follow-up migration, which we talked about this weekend, there is an exponential growth of foreigners. Three-quarters of foreigners find their partner in their country of origin. There is a snowball rolling. At some point that will lead to a majority of immigrants in the country, ⁇ and to start in our own capital. That is a reality that every normal-thinking person should take into account. A politician should have the courage to look at the long term and take responsibility.

For purely electoral reasons, there should therefore be no serious change to the foundations of the rapid-Belg-law. Nationality must remain free of charge and be given free of charge to all who extend their hand. Everyone who extends his hand is supposed to have taught his readiness for integration. That fiction of integration readiness is carried on to the most extreme sense. This law is also being strengthened, as the back door for persons who have absolutely no connection with our country is being opened today.

In the past, it was already possible that the adult children of a foreigner who became Belgian could obtain nationality on a simple request. They should never have stayed in our country and a simple family visit was enough. It was necessary: they had to be here at the time of the application. Over the past few years, more than 5,500 people have become Belgian in this way. This system is also unique in the world. It creates a cascade of new immigrants. But much is apparently not enough. Instead of making this absurdity, this shameful arrangement, impossible, Onkelinx lowers the threshold for this backdoor even more.

The new law will make it even more punitive. In the future, they will not even need to visit our country anymore. It is sufficient to make a simple application at the Belgian Consulate, at the Belgian Embassy. That is sufficient. That is enough. Therefore, they do not even have to move to our country anymore.

In addition, the regulation will be extended to include adopted children. It is sufficient that a foreigner has been adopted before his majority to give the adopted child immediately the inalienable right to our nationality.

I will give a concrete example. A Congolese who lives here and wants to become Belgian, according to Congolese law, can adopt the 17-year-old son of a friend. Parents do not have to die at all. According to Congolese law, he can simply adopt the child. Once he acquires Belgian citizenship, the adopted child must simply enter the embassy in Kinsjasa and fill out a form there. If he can prove that he has been in contact with his adopted family – a few emails and telephone receipts are enough – he has the right to our nationality.

The smallest child has immediately realized that the new law will pave the way for countless new abuses and counterfeits, without any of our authorities having the ability or the tools to seriously counter such counterfeits.

When the minister in the committee is pointed to the danger, she plays the murdered innocence. It has so-called no government mandate to touch the essence of the 1999 law. In reality, the minister only makes things worse. It is very consciously opening the gates for the immigration of people who have no connection with our country. The minister, with her targeted followers of MR, sp.a and VLD, continues to swear by an extremist legislation and a completely irrational legislation, which has completely destroyed our nationality and which now globally, throughout the world, sends the signal that a simple statement at one of our tens of embassies or consulates for many thousands of people will be enough to be embraced and dressed with our nationality in a strike. There is no such system anywhere in the world.

Colleagues, the signal of free citizenship, without real integration readiness, was indeed well understood in the migrant communities and in the countries of origin of the immigrants. This was shown again last weekend in the figures on marriage migration.

Again and again, day by day, the population is shown that our society is going in the right direction, that integration is getting better and better. The last few days proved exactly the opposite. In fact, it turns out that immigrants are increasingly finding their partners in their country of origin, which also makes integration increasingly difficult and that people are increasingly falling into ghettos, in isolated groups, in society and in the cities.

In this context, it was not only hilarious, but also very enlightening that outstanding Queen Paola was proclaimed the migrant of the day last weekend. She is a model for migrants, because they are mainly European migrants. All of them are fables, of course, or even to a large extent. She was proclaimed the migrant of the day, but if there is one import bride in this country symbolizing the failure of integration, then it is still Queen Paola who, after ⁇ fifty years of residence in this country, has not provided any evidence of serious integration, of serious adaptation to this society, let alone of due respect for the majority of this population. This has been shown very clearly.

Indeed, we are extremely grateful to the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Combating Racism, which has declared Paola the Migrant of the Day, because it has thus demonstrated very clearly that immigration in this country has failed and that there is an urgent need for a reversal.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, you allow me to raise statements that have just been held on this project at this same tribune, statements of three orders and which I must challenge. A parliamentary who takes an example of a person from the royal family in order to carry out a political demonstration shows a lack of consideration. I want to emphasize it: everything that is excessive is insignificant. At the limit, your statement, Mr. Laeremans, could have been more comprehensible if we had not raised this point. That’s what makes you fall and shows that your words don’t make sense.

Second, I would like to highlight an essential point that affects European values and are essentially transmitted by the French language. The universal culture of French means that there is an essential value that is the universal sharing of the rights of man and woman. You may not know this, but I tell you because it denotes the necessary openness of mind. You need to know how to leave the shores of the Yser to understand what are the values of humanity. I think everyone should make an effort to do so. I do not like the controversy; so I will not go further.

Thirdly, God knows if I am extremely attentive to the problem of integration. The fact of stigmatizing, by nominating them, some elected by universal suffrage, as you did on the occasion of the last municipal election in Schaerbeek, is indecent. In a public debate, individualities, whatever they are, are not stigmatized, which in the name of these values mediated by the French language does not seem to me to be part of a correct political behavior.

Mr. Duchamp, someone wants to interrupt you. As we are Democrats,

I don’t want to let myself be interrupted. I have not interrupted you, I have listened to you and I tell you what I think!

You take it as you want; it is your problem, but I will not lower myself by arguing with you!

I return to the project and I would like to tell you that in the name of the values I have just cited, the MR group is in favor of the changes that have taken place.

Be convenient, Mr Van den Eynde!

These changes allow to resolve several situations but above all to get out of a number of ambiguities. I will say, in this regard, that we finally have a balanced bill in that the introduction of the abolition of the ban on dual citizenship in the bill allows us to meet, in terms of nationality, the principle of equality.

Mr. Minister, you stressed this when you intervened in the committee; you had responded in this sense to an interpellation that I had developed last October 10th. I believe that we can, for our compatriots, welcome this possibility of dual citizenship, not only for equality but also to enable them to pursue, through expatriation, a full involvement in other countries, without necessarily having to renounce their attachments and their roots. This point seems to me extremely important. In fact, the sharing of values means that the same treatment must be applied to those who, leaving the country, wish to retain the Belgian nationality and to those who take the Belgian nationality. We will, of course, vote in favour of this project, in the context of the values indicated so far.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight one point. It is clear, Madame the Minister, that a person who has lost Belgian citizenship, pursuant to Article 22, § 1, but who wishes to regain that citizenship, benefiting from the legislative amendment introduced today, cannot necessarily do so in an extremely clear manner. In the course of this debate, I would like to have a clarification from you in this regard: Article 24, which covers the cases of persons staying in Belgium during the 12 months preceding the declaration, which may possibly be a means, should not an accelerated procedure be considered in this context? Could we not consider, in the light of Article 12a, a specific procedure?

I consider that the balance brought by the text constitutes a plus. However, it seems to me that the various instructions that could be given by your department, then forwarded by the Ministry of the Interior, and examined by the competent parliamentary committees, would respond to a concern expressed by our compatriots.

These are the different points I wanted to emphasize by reiterating the choice of the MR group to vote on the government project you have presented.

I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Ducarme would rather come here to perorate than to arrange other matters, I would like to put forward a few things for him.

First, he calls France and French culture the mother of human rights. I remind him that precisely at the moment when the human rights were invented in his homeland – for it is clearly his second homeland – the terror arose, with thousands ending on the guillotine in the name of la culture française des droits de l’homme, the Chouans being genocidated and their French friends then with the bajonet have come here to impose their revolution. That is a first thing.

Secondly, if it already happens as a stigma when one names an elected person who has a name of immigrant origin, I propose that Mr. Ducarme let us now, in the form of a motion, approve a proposal in which all our colleagues from immigrant country, North Africa, call origin x. We will no longer be stigmatizing. If he finds naming a name of immigrant origin a stigma, I wonder if racism is not with him.

I would like to speak for a personal fact.

I’d rather talk like that rather than get into the tribune, which is very unpleasant.

Mr. Van den Eynde, as regards your last comment, the stigmatisation, is the fact of systematically quoting, from the same electoral list to the municipal elections, all the elected not having a “Belgium” correct name – excuse me for the term – to your appreciation. In that sense I said it was a good thing.

I am Belgian, not born in France but in Liège. As a native of Liège, I probably have a pretty French perception. You are talking about the terrorist regime. I agree, there was a terror after the French Revolution but the one to which my family was most attentive, with a grandfather named Van Lerberghe and who came from Ghent, is the terror suffered by some during the years 40-45.

Mr. Laeremans, please briefly interrupt because this is out of the debate.

I was talking about my intervention. I would like to replicate this one more time.

Have you gotten such a dick?

I have not limited myself to mentioning the names of immigrants. I have mentioned all the voters from Schaarbeek, including Ms. Onkelinx, Mr. Eddy Courthéoux and Jean-Pierre Van Gorp, possibly someone of Flemish origin.

The [...]

Of course, I know the political situation of Schaarbeek. However, I have mentioned all the names to show what the situation, the reality is. We evolve in Brussels, and Schaarbeek is a precursor of this with 13 immigrants of Islamic origin, to a Islamic majority. It is not stigmatizing to mention these names. I point to reality. For this, the rapid-Belg-Law serves to an important extent, and that is why we fight them.

This is a debate. There have been debates about giving the children the name of the mother. Some wanted to have the double name. I think everyone is usually proud of the name he or she wears. I think that is sufficient.

Mr. Speaker, since everyone is talking about Schaerbeek, there, we have succeeded in making Vlaams Belang have only one elected.

You are completely crushed!

Please do not mention a family name.

Let’s end this and get back to the most important thing!

It is not worth getting angry!

For a number of Brusselsers, Ducarme and Onkelinx have an allochtone consonance! You should not worry.

We are always someone’s alien.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, for my party, I would like to briefly address the adjustments to the Code of Belgian Nationality as provided for in the present draft law.

The adjustments made are aimed at preventing abuses. They are actually corrections to some problematic elements in the 2000 law that the minister had promised to amend. As a member of the VLD, I refer to our bill. We are still asking the party to move forward. We advocate the inclusion of integration readiness as a condition in the law and the priority of five years of uninterrupted legal residence as a criterion.

During this legislature, you, Mrs. Minister of Justice, were questioned several times, both in the committee and in the plenary session, on various aspects of the Belgian Nationality Act. I have examined the questions once and they actually come to the following: that a foreigner can become Belgian through the procedure of declaration of nationality without ever having taken a step on Belgian soil, that the terms for providing advice are too short, that the term "legal residence" is not clearly defined, that a Belgian loses his nationality if he voluntarily acquires a foreign nationality and that the Belgian nationality cannot be deprived of someone who has obtained it in a fraudulent manner. These are the questions that have been asked to you over the past three and a half years in both the committee and the plenary session. In fact, we note that the current bill provides an answer to these questions.

What is being modified by the current draft law? In the first place, South American women who come to birth in Belgium are blocked and refuse to indicate their child, which makes them stateless and according to Article 10 of the Code automatically acquires Belgian citizenship. Article 10 is amended in such a way that the provision does not apply in cases where the child can acquire the nationality of the parents subject to an administrative formality. For foreigners born abroad and seeking to obtain Belgian citizenship from their country of origin, if one of their parents or adopters has Belgian citizenship, proof must be provided that – very importantly – one has ⁇ ined the bond with that parent / adopter and that parent / adopter has its main residence in Belgium.

In the Justice Committee there was criticism of this definition. How can this band be proven? I refer to the explanation which already gives some explanation. However, I also refer to the Rules of Procedure of the Committee on Naturalizations, which provides examples of such a relationship.

The next adjustment concerns the control period available to the Foreign Affairs Service, the Prosecutor’s Office and the State Security Service. That period is extended from one to four months, but in fact – I have already said it in the committee – the committee for naturalizations in practice today already waits until all opinions are in place, before dealing with a dossier. So much will not change this change in practice.

For the VLD, it is very important that the law clarifies that a naturalization application, the famous form that one must complete and sign by hand, can only be submitted if the condition of three years of main residence in Belgium, covered by a legal residence, is met. For us, this is a very important adjustment.

The preliminary last point concerns the modification by the draft law of the provision by which Belgians who voluntarily acquire a foreign nationality automatically lose their Belgian nationality, in other words the abolition of the prohibition on dual nationality. We can only welcome that. We refer, among other things, to the bill of 8 March 2005, which was already submitted by the VLD in that sense.

Last but not least, there is fraud. Currently, it is not possible to deprive a person of the Belgian nationality if he or she obtained it fraudulently, since the fraud occurred before the acquisition of the nationality. The draft also addresses that legal gap by creating the possibility to declare the loss of nationality, if it was obtained fraudulently, for a period of five years from the date of acquisition of nationality.

As a member of the Commission on Naturalizations, I can confirm that both the services and the members of the Commission today very accurately follow the fraud or indications of fraud – I mean the disguise of some elements or hypocritical marriages. However, the current bill offers the possibility – this is an added value – to sanction fraud also by the loss of nationality.

The VLD is pleased that the concept of "legal residence" is now clearly defined, that the period of main residence can only be covered by a legal residence, that the prohibition on dual citizenship is lifted and that it is possible to lose the Belgian citizenship if it was obtained fraudulently.

Let me, as a member of the Committee on Naturalizations, briefly comment on the functioning of our committee.

Since the beginning of the parliamentary period, we have dealt with almost 44,000 files, of which 42% were assessed positively, 20% were postponed due to a problem of residence or because, for example, a pending criminal investigation and 38% of the files were rejected.

The granting of Belgian nationality through naturalization remains a favour. The members of the Commission for Naturalizations spend many hours on the individual handling of the files, on the discussion in a limited chamber and on the discussion in the plenary committee, which, by the way, will meet again this afternoon, at 12:30. We work on the basis of the Code of Belgian Citizenship as well as on the basis of general criteria, which were drawn up by regulations.

I would like to also refer to the aforementioned Rules of Procedure that we updated on 19 January 2004 with the whole committee. I refer, inter alia, to the fact that the Rules of Procedure clearly stipulate that there is a possibility to reject a request for naturalization if the applicant has a criminal record or can only remain on the territory for a limited period of time, if a suspicion of fictional marriage is considered to exist or if the spouses have resided at the same address for less than two years. It is suspected if a judicial investigation against the applicant is underway.

Mr. Speaker, I will decide. Both for the functioning of the Commission for Naturalizations and for all parties involved, the adjustments in the current bill are a step in the right direction. We will fully support them.

Mr. Wathelet, I propose you to intervene now for a few observations which, as you say, will be quite short.

Like the previous speakers, I would like to speak about the Code of Citizenship. I will not go back on whether or not to include it in this law containing various provisions. I have already explained myself on this subject; I was able to lament this situation, fifteen days ago, at this tribune.

On the other hand, Mrs. Minister, the modification of the Code of Citizenship, the possibility that is offered to have dual citizenship makes us enter another international sphere. We have already denounced a first convention. We will now have to comply with the 1997 Convention, which involves quite significant obligations. Again, we will have to make our law evolve within the framework of the obligation of motivation and the obligation of recourse that will be imposed on us due to the non-discrimination between Belgians of origin and those who acquire Belgian citizenship. This has already been discussed in the committee.

I would like to ask a further question on a specific case. This is the example of a child who is born in the Belgian territory and who finds himself stateless because the country of origin of his parents does not allow him to acquire their nationality because he is not in the territory of the country of origin of his parents.

As part of the new provisions, it was intended to ensure that parents cannot abuse the system and automatically give citizenship to the child. I can fully understand this justification. However, it may happen that, in some cases, parents who are in the Belgian territory will not be able to visit the embassy of their home country, for quite well-founded reasons. I think in particular of a family who came to Belgium for political reasons and whose procedure for obtaining the status of political refugee is underway. Members of this family could therefore be recognized as political refugees in the future. For them, carrying out a procedure with the embassy of their country of origin is impossible given the fact that they have introduced "against" their country of origin, with the Belgian state, an asylum procedure by invoking the fact that they are political refugees. I understand the purpose of the new provision, but such cases can occur. The child of these persons will therefore be stateless. He cannot have the nationality of his parents. I remind you that they will not accept to visit their embassy for reasons that may be legitimate in certain circumstances.

I know that such cases will not be legion; at least, I hope. But, I repeat, children can become stateless. This is not the goal pursued by the government. We have also committed ourselves, within the framework of international conventions, to try to eliminate, to the extent possible, “apatridy” – I don’t know if this word exists.

This is, in my opinion, a problem that we are likely to face.

Does the Minister have a response? Does it consider measures that will enable to deal with such situations, quite specific, I admit, but which could prove problematic?

Mr President Mr. Wathelet perfectly posed the problem: a child who is not declared to the embassy by his parents will be stateless. In some cases, we can understand that parents do not want to make this statement. Imagine, for example, people who have recently arrived and want to obtain political refugee status. For such situations, we will not imagine a system that goes against the general arrangement presented by this law. On the other hand, a convention will allow the bodies responsible for examining the admissibility and the substance of a file for the recognition of the status of political refugee to consider this case as a high priority. These files will therefore be treated as a priority and their examination may be carried out in a few weeks, or even a few days. In this context, we are trying to find a solution. The status of the child’s statelessness may be settled by this procedure.

There are international conventions on statelessness, especially since World War I, and we are bound by them. I would not want to get involved in the debate, but this issue is very important.

Mr. President, you are absolutely right. I also think – but we will no longer have time to do so during this legislature – that the status of stateless persons should be revised.

When parents are "recognised" as political refugees, do they not remain in the obligation to make this statement at the embassy? In the meantime, the child could not acquire Belgian citizenship. The only nationality that he can claim will, in my opinion, be that of the country of origin of the parents. The fact that the parents have refugee status has no effect on the possibility for the child to acquire or not acquire said nationality.

Either you respond now, or you respond later. by Verba Manen.

I will check this point before answering it.

It’s better, because in Parliament, “verba manent”.

Mijnheer Mortelmans, can i u maybe ask questions how much time u wenst you speak? And a quarter?

Mr Malmendier, I also ask you the question. Do you intend to speak for a long time? A quarter of an hour?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude the morning session. Mortelmans and Malmendier because I chair the Constitution Revision Commission at 13.45 am. I need to have time to do both.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, colleague Laeremans has demonstrated that the amendment to the Code of the Belgian Nationality does not aim to tighten, but is indeed a serious easing. We already had the most flexible nationality legislation in the entire European Union and now we are going a step further. Nowhere else is it so easy to obtain the citizenship of a Member State of the European Union and the associated citizenship as in this country. During the period 2000-2005, no less than 271,354 persons irrevocably acquired nationality. For comparison, in April 2006, this country, according to the data of the service Foreign Affairs, numbered slightly more than one million foreigners.

The rapid Belgian law has therefore resulted in foreigners, in particular non-European foreigners, disappearing from the statistics at a rapid pace. As the Belgian nationality legislation allows new Belgians to retain their original nationality, double and multiple citizenship grew predominantly.

After a few small improvements that should have been introduced for a long time – I think of the extension of the control period – it is possible to fear that this legislative adjustment will provide a new suction effect. This Code of Nationality still allows a person who has never resided in this country to become Belgian by submitting a declaration of nationality, provided that one of his parents has the Belgian nationality at the time the declaration is made. Multi-year-old children of new Belgians can therefore become Belgian and obtain a right of residence in Belgium, while in the context of family reunification they may only join their parents if they are under 21 years of age or are cared for by the parent residing in Belgium.

It is therefore entirely illogical that those who, in principle, do not have the right to a residence permit can obtain Belgian citizenship with the corresponding right of residence. The residence law is completely undermined. Furthermore, the person concerned does not even have to travel to that country to make the declaration. He can now do so abroad, in front of the head of the diplomatic mission or the Belgian professional consular post. The fact that in case of a stay abroad, he must prove that he has real ties with his parents is a cloth for bleeding. That proof will always be able to be provided by submitting telephone bills, welcome cards, and so on.

Therefore, a more fundamental revision of the Belgian nationality law is urgent. In fact, questions can be raised as regards the fact that the different procedures of acquisition, the acquisition of nationality, the choice of nationality and the naturalization, continue to exist side by side. It is worthy of recommendation to replace the current procedural gaps by a single procedure for foreigners wishing to obtain nationality.

Applications can be submitted through various procedures. For example, it has already happened that a person whose naturalization application was rejected has already acquired nationality through the procedure of declaration of nationality. The unity of the procedure and of the responsible authorities avoids multiple nationality applications and the possibility of abuse.

The Flemish Interest only wishes to maintain the naturalization procedure with the understanding that the role of the Chamber is limited to the formal and solemn confirmation of the granting of citizenship and that the investigation is carried out in substance by an independent naturalization service. As long as there is no uniform procedure, at least a central registration of nationality applications and the establishment of a database that can be accessed by all relevant authorities should be worked out. Although the amended code stipulates that a naturalization application is contested if the applicant submits a different application, it ignores the question of how the Chamber will know about it.

Another problem is that in no EU country the minimum residence requirement for obtaining citizenship is as short as in that country. A foreigner is already eligible for naturalization after a three-year stay. When it comes to a recognised refugee, this is even after a stay of just two years. The recent legislative amendment does not change this, but it shows very clearly that the VLD has taken a backseil in this file. Selling hard language and submitting legislative proposals is a matter. Transposing them into legislation is clearly another matter. In that case, I refer to the VLD bill submitted on 25 June 2004, which aims to increase the required duration of residence to five years, with a right of residence for an unlimited duration since five years.

The absence of any integration criteria in the nationality code is another sad thing. Belgium and Italy are the only two EU Member States where the nationality legislation does not contain any explicit integration test. The integration readiness of the applicant of the nationality is undeniably presumed to be present as soon as the application is submitted. The person concerned must not even be able to speak one of the three national languages. Therefore, it is also perfectly possible that the naturalized cannot read his own identity card. Also for this criterion, the VLD takes a backseil, because in that same VLD bill, for all procurement procedures, it is required that the person concerned be the holder of a proof issued by the competent government or a recognised institution demonstrating the working readiness, the knowledge of the language of the relevant language region and the understanding of democratic rights and freedoms. The amended nationality legislation does not speak of any examination of that integration will. It is therefore true that it is the PS that has taken its battle home, and not the VLD. That one in the election campaign therefore comes to say nothing else, because then one will find the Flemish Interest on its way.

There is also no compromise with the phenomenon of multi-nationality. The hundreds of thousands of new Belgians in recent years retain, in the vast majority of cases, the nationality of the country of origin and can therefore under certain circumstances engage in nationality shopping.

In addition, the preservation of the original nationality leads to a lasting commitment to the country of origin which prevents the effective integration of the new Belgians into our society. The acquisition of the Belgian citizenship implies an unambiguous choice for this citizenship and for this citizenship alone. Indeed, the ties with that country must be stronger than the attachment to the preservation of the nationality of the country of origin.

We must also dare to carry out the debate on the foundations of our nationality law, more specifically on the relationship between ius sanguinis and ius soli. According to Vlaams Belang, the mere fact of being born in Belgium and/or having stayed there for a long time, as a result of mass immigration and in particular of the import marriages, offers less than ever a guarantee that the person concerned is integrated into this society. Both the birth in Belgium and the duration of the stay in that country can never in itself constitute sufficient grounds for a right to citizenship.

It should be clear, Chairman, colleagues, that the VLD has been satisfied with a dead mouse and that the essence of the fast-Belg-law remains firm. Together with the problem of illicitness, the abuse of family reunification, the abuse of asylum and not to forget, the foreign voting right, this creates insurmountable social problems if no urgent action is taken and no urgent work is made. Because Flanders is not an immigration country and should not conduct a policy that attracts immigrants.

Anyone who arrives here as an immigrant and wants to settle here permanently adapts to our language, to our culture and customs, and is first and foremost loyal to Flanders, his new country. The solution is not as the multicultural dogma preaches that all kinds of cultures, the Flemish and others, must exist side by side. The solution is, of course, that the invaders adapt to our culture, not that we adapt to their culture. Therefore, President, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the Flemish Interest advocates for a different foreign policy, which is based on the requirement "adjust or return".

In addition to our own vision of nationality legislation, which I will briefly discuss, we have other proposals that frame our vision of immigration and integration. These proposals are about a waterproof immigration halt that is no longer in question, about our Western values that should remain the foundations of the rule of law, about the drastic tightening of the possibility of family reunification, about a human but corded expulsion of outgoing lucky seekers and illegal persons, about the voting right that should remain reserved to persons with nationality, about the mandatory citizenship for foreigners with citizenship test and loyalty declaration, and, of course, about a strict code on citizenship that does not allow dual citizenship.

We have poured the great principles thereof into a bill, which, by the way, is attached to the discussion, which I would like to briefly explain. Our proposal aims to stop the abolition of the principle of nationality and to restore the ius sanguinis in honor. The granting of nationality on the basis of the descent of a Belgian parent must be the rule, of course in anticipation of the actual independence of Flanders.

The naturalization of foreigners under certain conditions must be sufficient to acquire nationality. However, naturalization should be subject to much stricter conditions than is currently the case, in order to prevent the foreigner from considering nationality merely as an instrument of granting rights.

Currently, a three-year residence period is a condition for naturalization in this country. In our proposal, we want to increase the duration of residence to ten years, as is the case in different countries of the European Union. The age for applying for naturalization is increased from 18 to 25 years. Of course, in our proposal, the advice of the College of Mayor and Credence on good conduct and morals, on the will to integrate and on the financial capacity of the person concerned should also be obtained.

A major change in our proposal is that we want to reverse the current course of affairs. Today, the request for naturalization is addressed to the House of Representatives, possibly by the action of the civil stand official, who sends it for advice to the Foreign Affairs Service and the State Security Service. In our proposal, the request is handed over to the civil status official, who, together with the advice of the college of mayor and creators of the municipality concerned, submits it to the prosecutor’s office. Since the willingness of the person concerned to integrate has already been demonstrated by the successful passing of a citizenship test, the task of the Prosecutor’s Office will primarily be to verify whether there are no serious facts obstructing the acquisition of citizenship. The request will only be transmitted to the Chamber in case of favorable advice.

The [...]

The [...]

Mr. Van den Eynde, if everyone who reads here could not listen at the same time, there would be little reading.

Mr. Speaker, do not apologize, when a minister who represents the government in the Parliament reads the newspaper while a parliamentary addresses her from the speaker, she has very little respect for democracy and for the Parliament.

Mr. Van den Eynde, I will not encourage reading newspapers.

The request is therefore only sent to the Chamber in the event of a favourable opinion. This procedure will put an end to the insignificant laying aside of negative opinions provided by the parquet. It should be avoided at all costs that politicians, for electoral reasons, massally approve naturalizations, without stopping on their impact.

Our bill aims to reduce the number of cases of multiple citizenship as much as possible. For example, the foreigner who wishes to be naturalized is required to give up his foreign citizenship. In cases where multiple citizenship still exists, the best way to resolve conflicts of law is to apply the territoriality principle.

Finally, we have also submitted a bill amending Article 23 of the Code of Citizenship, which was also attached to this discussion, in order to create the possibility of depriving citizenship of those who have obtained it fraudulently and of those who face a serious conviction within a certain period after the acquisition of citizenship. It is an open door to insist that it is not obvious to deprive an instigator who has obtained the nationality in a fraudulent manner. We want to remedy this by explicitly incorporating this possibility into the law. Furthermore, the case of the imprisonment which faces a serious conviction within a certain period after the acquisition of nationality should be explicitly regulated.

After all, the legislative amendments contained in the draft law of various provisions do not change the procedure of the Commission for Naturalizations. The change of the deadlines does not change this at all. This is, by the way, the reason why the Fast-Belg Act is called not so much because of the speed with which one can acquire nationality, but because of the unimaginable ease with which one can acquire nationality.

In fact, the committee has not taken into account the far too short one-month period until today.

However, all the problems that we have addressed here, on this tribune, during the voting on naturalizations remain.

In the first place there is the procedure of the committee itself, which arose from the difficulties that the committee encountered in the fraud case of early 2001. There is the fact that applicants of nationality no longer have to add a birth certificate to the file. An act of awareness is enough. As if that is not enough: if no persons are found willing to testify, even a sworn statement of the person concerned itself is accepted. The commission, by the way, often has no view of the convictions, ⁇ not of the foreign criminal records. Political influence is still possible. The applicants of the nationality who wish to acquire the nationality on the intercession of one or another politician are not countable. Since applicants can respond to a negative decision of the committee, the lawyers are also better informed of the procedures than before. Especially when it comes to the working method.

In summary, the care of identity requires an answer to immigration issues.

The Flemish Interest has an answer to this. The Party stands for the preservation of the cultural identity and for the identity of its own people. In Flanders, foreigners and immigrants should be made clear that they must first respect our laws and then adapt to our culture, to our norms and values, to our habits and to important, traditional principles of the civilization that has developed on European territory, such as, among other things, the separation of church and state, democracy, freedom of expression and the equality of man and woman.

For foreigners and settlers who reject, disregard or contest the aforementioned conditions, a return policy should be developed. The legislation on political asylum, nationality, security and deportation should be adapted to the above principles. Illegal and criminal foreigners must be effectively repatriated. The right to vote is naturally reserved for citizens.

These are the guarantees for securing our Flemish society. The Vlaams Belang thus undoubtedly shares the opinion of the vast majority of the Flamings.

The Flemish Belang will inform the Flemish voter of the VLD’s kneefall, in particular with regard to this file.

It is now Mr. Malmendier to intervene; then I will close the morning session. For this afternoon are registered Mrs. Van der Auwera, Marghem and Genot; then we will hear the minister’s response. I will see if mr. Malmendier can help us, so that we finish in a good ten minutes.

In order not to force Mr. Wathelet to stay, I can answer him now.

In this case, you have the word, Mr. President.

If these people are recognized as political refugees, then they have a valid reason not to go to the embassy. Their child may become Belgian, or rather becomes Belgian.

I would like this to be clear in our “acta”.

Mr Malmendier, you have the word. You are the last speaker this morning.

As part of my brief speech in the Justice Committee, I have already had the opportunity to emphasize that a number of advances in the situation of the victim in the criminal process have been achieved, and to my great satisfaction.

The laws establishing sentencing courts, defining the external status of detainees and determining the rights recognized to the victim in the framework of the terms of execution of sentences are ⁇ one of them.

This fundamental reform is about to be implemented. In fact, from February 2007, the courts of enforcement of penalties will have to be operational. This justified the vote on the articles of the bill containing various provisions and providing technical but important corrections to the laws of 2006.

The draft law with various provisions further strengthens the victim’s position in the context of the execution of sentences, as she will be informed not only of the granting of a prison leave, but also of the conditions that have been imposed in her interest.

Therefore an indispensable large-scale reform has been carried out and we welcome the Minister of Justice’s commitment to make these courts a reality from February 2007. However, it will be a matter of paying attention to the warnings issued by the magistrates called to make these courts function. The tasks entrusted to TAPs constitute a ⁇ heavy workload. Those judges are therefore afraid of being outdated.

This concern is legitimate in so far as there would be only one judge assisted by two counselors and a member of the public prosecution by appeal court. This concern will likely be reinforced when the magistrates learn that the TAPs will, in the medium term, also be responsible for monitoring the internment as well as making the government available.

It should also be welcomed that the Minister of Justice is committed to ensuring that the rights recognized to victims under the external legal status of detainees are also recognized to the victim whose aggressor has been interned. The MR group hopes that this reform will be carried out before the end of this legislature.

I would also like to welcome the Minister of Justice’s willingness to improve the treatment of road victims and their relatives. Effectively, it is essential to improve the organization of hearings in police courts. It is unacceptable and ⁇ traumatic for relatives that cases involving the death of a road user are intertwined between minimum rolling affairs. It is with great interest that we will get acquainted with the study to be carried out by the end of 2007 by the Criminal Policy Department.

We find it essential to take all appropriate measures to improve the judicial handling of these cases, whether in terms of penalties against perpetrators, deadlines, expert advice, victim reception or awareness-raising of judicial actors.

I also wanted, as part of my speech, to address the articles of the bill containing various provisions aimed at clarifying the conditions for the exit of a minor placed in a closed section of an IPPJ. These changes were indispensable and are very welcomed by my group. It was about reacting to the unfortunate decision to allow one of Joe Van Holsbeeck’s murderers to attend a football match. It was necessary to determine the type of exits for which the express authorization of the judge of youth is indispensable. It was also appropriate to ensure that the youth judge and the public prosecutor are aware of the IPPJ’s educational project. Finally, it was appropriate to give the prosecutor’s office the possibility to effectively oppose an authorisation of exit by providing that this opposition is suspensive.

As the MR Group Chairman recalled during the discussion of the General Policy Declaration, we remain hungry over the commitments made by the Minister of Justice in the fight against sexual crime. We expected a set of innovative reforms following the responses given by the Minister of Justice to the questions and interpellations addressed to her the day after the tragic disappearance of Stacy and Nathalie.

Of course, the imperative of public security requires that the Social Protection Act be reformed. Of course, the public safety imperative requires that imprisoned sexual offenders receive treatment from the beginning of imprisonment. Of course, the public safety imperative requires that sexual offenders released in advance are subject to enhanced monitoring.

But the imperative of public safety also requires greater severity against perpetrators of ⁇ serious sexual offences.

My group has submitted a number of legislative proposals in this direction.

In order to strengthen the control of sexual offenders, we propose to provide for the official provision of making these offenders available to the government. We also propose to extend the period during which a recidivist must be made available to the government.

We propose the creation of an opinion committee on the follow-up of perpetrators of certain sexual offences; it would be tasked with delivering opinions at the request of the social protection committee which considers release for trial, the courts competent in probation, the conditional release committee and the Minister of Justice, in the context of making a sexual offender available to the government after his conviction.

We also propose to establish an electronic surveillance system during the period of provision to the government and during the period of conditional release; to also provide, as part of the conditional release, the possibility of prescribing a drug treatment aimed at the hormonal suppression of the secretion of testosterone.

Since the sexual offences committed against a minor victim under the age of 16 are of extreme gravity and reveal the danger the perpetrator poses to society, we propose that the courts and courts that impose a suspended imprisonment sentence for these acts systematically order immediate arrest and this without requiring the public prosecutor to do so.

We propose that rules for aggravating penalties in case of recurrence be mandatory. In other words, if a sexual offender recurs, the penalties that will be pronounced will necessarily be aggravated.

We propose again to subject the early release of a sexual offender to the obligation to follow guidance or treatment in a service specialized in the guidance or treatment of sexual offenders.

For ⁇ serious sexual offences, we propose that the limitation period be extended to 30 years if they were committed against the person of a child under the age of 16. This period would begin to run from the day the victim reached the age of 18.

We propose to give the Court of Assises the possibility, when it pronounces a life imprisonment, to assemble this sentence with the fixation of a security sentence of 14 to 20 years or 20 to 25 years in case of legal recurrence, before the expiration of which no conditional release could intervene. When life imprisonment is issued against a person convicted for the murder or murder of a minor under the age of 16 accomplished, preceded or accompanied by a rape, torture or acts of barbarism, the Court of Assises shall be able to combine this sentence with the fixation of a period of perpetual security.

However, after a period of 30 years, a conditional release could take place on the unanimous opinion of three medical experts, ruling on the non-dangerousness of the convicted.

This bill should give Parliament the opportunity to conduct an in-depth debate before leading to significant reforms because it is in Parliament that the debate must be conducted. The particularity of this problem requires the leaders of the Nation to discuss it more broadly and contribute, with the government, to carry out meaningful reforms.

Dear colleagues, I thank you for your attention.

Before I close the morning meeting, I received the following request from the VB group.

by MM. Koen Bultinck, Guy D'haeseleer, Hagen Goyvaerts, Staf Neel and Francis Van den Eynde request to be disjoined from their proposal amending Article 10 of the Act of 11 April 1995 on the establishment of the Charter of the Social Insurer with a view to reducing the duration of processing of applications for certain social benefits (no. 873/1) of the draft law on various provisions (I) (no. 2760/1 to 37).

Mr. Koen Bultinck, Mr. Guy D'haeseleer, Mr. Hagen Goyvaerts, Mr. Staf Neel and Mr. Francis Van den Eynde request their bill amending Article 10 of the Act of 11 April 1995 introducing the Charter of the Social Insured in order to reduce the treatment time for applications for certain social benefits (No. 1). 873/1) to be disconnected from the bill containing various provisions (I) (nrs 2760/1 to 37).

I take records of it.

by MM. Koen Bultinck, Guy D'haeseleer and Hagen Goyvaerts request to disjoin their bill harmonising the amounts of birth allowance granted to self-employed and self-employed, regardless of the child's rank (no. 2468/1) from the draft program law (I) (no. 2773/1 to 28).

Mr. Koen Bultinck, Mr. Guy D'haeseleer and Mr. Hagen Goyvaerts request their bill for the equalization of the amount of maternity allowance in favor of employees and self-employed persons regardless of the child's rank (No. 2468/1) to be disconnected from the draft program law (I) (nrs 2773/1 to 28).

The discussion of it is currently underway. You probably want to keep your bill cool for another discussion? That is the reason for your request. I give you a record of that.

I will close the session this morning. I will begin this afternoon at 14.15, as soon as the meeting of the Constitution Revision Committee will be completed. Ms. Marghem, Genot and Van der Auwera are the last speakers I register for the “Justice” section, before the Minister’s response. We will then move on to the “Economy”, “Social Affairs”, “Infrastructure” and “Finance”.