Proposition 53K0288

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers, en vue de l'octroi d'une autorisation de séjour temporaire au mineur étranger non accompagné.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Leen Dierick, Nahima Lanjri
LE Catherine Fonck
PS | SP Rachid Madrane
Vooruit Karin Temmerman

Submission date

Oct. 5, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

foreign national illegal migration child residence permit

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

June 23, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am pleased to refer to the written report.

Mr. rapporteur, thank you for the brief report, which was almost complete, I will say. What you did not say is that it is a bill that has been submitted by many colleagues.

Colleagues, with the bill that is on the table today, we provide for a legal anchoring for the granting of a residence status to the unaccompanied minor, which actually before – and he will still know – was included in the circulation letter that Mr Dewael had drawn up when he was responsible for asylum and migration policy.

Let me describe the situation. Every year, approximately 2,500 young people are found to declare themselves as unaccompanied minors. That is, they are either found by the police, or listed by all kinds of welfare services, the school or the like more. Approximately half of them don’t actually want to know of any form of guidance or reception and disappear very quickly, once he or she is identified, which is already problematic in itself.

Often these are young people who are following their parents while traveling abroad, looking for their parents or living in groups on the street and do not want to be caught up by the services. Of the other young people, two-thirds apply for recognition as an asylum seeker or apply for subsidiary protection. A third requests the status of unaccompanied minor.

Very often it is claimed – this has also become clear from a question I have asked the minister – that it is about young people who appear to be young, but they are not, and that there is doubt about age. I will not bored you with the figures I gave in the committee. This is especially true for those young people who are definitely determined to be minors.

In case of doubt, a bot scan is performed to determine the age. Currently, 325 young people are waiting for a boat scan. Once they are definitively identified, they are entitled to a guardian.

Of the 400 young people ultimately eligible for protection – which is central – it is important to know that 30 to 40 % of them are eligible for family reunification. Hundreds of young people are eligible for a residence permit each year. This is not a very large group.

There are also other opportunities for them, such as working and further studying.

The proposal clearly concerns young people who are not seeking asylum, but protection. For these young people, first and foremost, a sustainable solution is sought.

A family reunification with the parents is sought, usually in the country of origin. Sometimes the parents are found back in another country, for example in a refugee camp, or sometimes the parents have applied for asylum somewhere in Europe.

A second option is the return to the country of origin with guarantees of care by other adults who are not the parents, such as family members or government organizations and NGOs.

The third solution that can be submitted is the residence permit in Belgium if the younger’s project is located in Belgium.

When determining a sustainable solution, the interests of the child are always considered. The highest interest of the child is always at the center.

There is always an important period in which the search for parents is central. If they are not found and if the younger’s future lies in Belgium, a residence permit in Belgium is granted to the unaccompanied minor.

This is also the essence of the bill. At that time, the temporary residence permits are converted into a residence permit, three years after a declaration of arrival has been filed. There are, of course, a number of conditions linked to it, including going to school regularly. This also requires knowledge of the language.

At a time when we in Parliament are working almost daily on issues related to foreign policy – yesterday it was about nationality and before it was about family reunification – it is important to point out abuse. However, we are pleased that this bill can count on a broad support in Parliament. There must also be room in our society for those who need additional protection. This is a group that needs additional protection, namely unaccompanied minors. These are children who are here alone without guardian, without parents. It seems to me enough to be separated from his parents. We therefore find it important to protect those young people and to anchor the protection status in the law so that those children are given a perspective and they know that they have legal certainty.

I would also like to thank everyone for supporting the bill. I am talking about the PS, sp.a, Open Vld, the MR and the CDH, who have signed the bill. I would like to thank them for the positive contribution they have made in the committee. We hope it will have a good impact on the ground.

I can tell you a small anecdote. When I was visiting Minor-Ndako last week, a non-accompanied minor reception center, there was a small 11-year-old boy. He played in the local football team. However, the football federation is very strict and so he must always show his papers to prove that he is legally in the country.

Every time, there must be tricks to get the little one of eleven to play football. This has resolved this problem. These young people and many others will be able to play football without problems from now on because they will at least have papers, although for some it will be a temporary residence permit. For others, this will eventually result in a final license. At least they are okay with their papers. That is important, because a child remains a child, which needs to be protected. This is why we are here to give people the legal protection they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the subjects of this bill, because there is a need for a legal arrangement. Currently, there is a circulation letter that regulates this. Mrs. Lanjri describes here the situation of a boy who cannot play football. Well, there is currently indeed a scheme that has been converted entirely into a transmission letter. What is presented here is, in fact, the conversion of that circulation letter into a law. They wanted to go quickly. I noticed this in the committee. When I came up with reasonable arguments and wanted to engage in dialogue with the applicants, this was not possible. The difficulties in the present law were not discussable, because they wanted this law to be passed soon, before the summer break. I know that it may be a storm in a glass of water, but I would like to submit some of those troubles here through amendments to Parliament. This gives us the opportunity to make a good law that can then be properly applied. Thus, this law is in the spirit of what the transaction letter meant.

Three amendments will be submitted. The first concerns Article 61/21. It transitions from a temporary residence to an unlimited residence and outlines the conditions associated with that conversion. We are talking about children, minors who have a life project here in our country. During that three-year period, it has been assumed that there are no parents or that those parents cannot be found. It is then clear that those children will stay here, go to school here and build their lives here. When one says that one must present a proof of regular school attendance, which is actually very obvious, since everyone is compulsory school until 18 years of age, then actually the language requirement from a previous article must also be linked to this. Therefore, we have submitted an amendment in which we demand that one not only prove that one has been to school, but also that one has knowledge of the language of the educational institution where one has taught.

A second amendment that we are submitting concerns Article 61/16, which provides that the minor may be heard. In accordance with the Youth Protection Law, children under 12 years of age may not be required to be heard. What a child under the age of 12 says cannot be used against him or for him. The Minister must have the opportunity to hear children under 12 years of age. It can, but it is not mandatory. That nuance is not in the law; hence this amendment to introduce that nuance still.

The third amendment concerns Article 61/24. I think the article goes too far. The applicants wish that when a minor is about to become a major, the Foreign Affairs Service informs him of the conditions for renewal after the age of eighteen one month before his eighteenth birthday. If that information obligation is registered in the law, it also creates rights, which are not mentioned anywhere in the Foreigners Act. They are also not available for other foreigners with temporary residence. The information obligation of the government can be perfectly arranged through round-send letters. It does not have to be registered in the law. Article 61/24 should be repealed.

Fast is not good. I think unaccompanied minors deserve a good law. I hope that our three amendments will be supported. If this is not the case, my group, as in the committee, will abstain from this bill.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in the preamble, allow me to welcome the work of the colleagues who have been involved in the preparation of this bill, among them, first of all, my colleague Nahima Lanjri who has given much of his time for this text.

The law of 15 September 2006 amending the law on foreigners did not provide for a new status for unaccompanied foreign minors. This status has so far been settled only by a simple circular. It was therefore important to introduce a law on the status of unaccompanied foreign minors in our country. With this proposal, it is finally done. We can all rejoice!

In a few lines, here is what the text contains, although some elements have already been mentioned earlier.

In summary, the text provides, in particular, that the MENA, through its tutor, may be issued, after an individual review and on the basis of a set of elements, firstly, an order for reconduct if the sustainable solution for the MENA consists in a return to another country or family reunification in another country. In this case, we will ensure that the reception is guaranteed according to age, degree of autonomy, by parents, adults, public bodies or NGOs.

Mr. Madrane, your colleague Francken wishes to question you.

And already ?

Yes already! He is very fast!

Thank you for giving me the word. It’s not about the exhibition, but there needs to be something from the heart.

A small moment.

I will be silent.

Dear colleague, I understand Dutch, but you speak too fast and with an accent difficult for me to grasp. To be honest, I was taught Dutch, but not with your accent.

Can you resume?

Mr. President, Mr. Madrane, I need something from my heart. It has nothing to do with your presentation and I will try to express myself beautifully, without accent.

My group deeply regrets the fact that the State Secretary responsible for Asylum and Migration is not present at the discussion of a very important dossier, a dossier concerning hundreds of unaccompanied minor foreigners – last year more than 650 – and that Ms. Fonck, co-presentative of this bill, is just entering. They will all have very busy agendas.

I am still very new to this Parliament, but it is the first time I have experienced that the competent minister is absent during a discussion of a bill, even if it is only a proposal and not a draft. I deeply regret that.

I would like to point out to the Honourable Member that we remind Mr. Wathelet to be present during the debates. He will arrive in a few minutes.

I do not know the agenda of the Secretary of State. I do not have to manage the agenda of our secretaries of state or our ministers. Even though he is not present, I can say that he has been very involved in this matter and very actively.

by Mr. Francken interrupted me. This is absolutely legitimate, of course. I said that there was either the issuance of a resettlement order if the solution for the MENA was to return to another country, or the issuance of a renewable six-month residence document if a lasting solution outside our country could not be found in the first place.

As my colleague Nahima Lanjri correctly recalled, if the life project and therefore the sustainable solution of MENA are located in Belgium, the unaccompanied foreign minor, through his tutor, is issued a temporary residence permit of one year renewable and this, upon presentation of the national passport of the unaccompanied foreign minor.

However, it is important to point out, Mr. Speaker, that if the tutor is unable to produce a national passport of the unaccompanied foreign minor, he may nevertheless transmit in writing to the administration the documents attesting to all the steps taken in order to be able to justify and prove above all the identity of the MENA.

At the end of the three years of stay under the cover of the one-year temporary residence permit, the unaccompanied foreign minor will be allowed to stay in the territory for an unlimited period, provided that no other lasting solution could be found in our country.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, this bill aims to give a legal anchor to the granting of a temporary residence permit to a minor without, however, imposing on the minor and his guardian the intermediate formalities quarterly or monthly.

For the temporary extension of the arrival declaration or the order for the renewal, a national passport will also be required. In any case, it will no longer constitute an exclusion criterion for obtaining a more stable temporary and human residence status.

Let us be clear, the objective is to grant in fine an unlimited right of residence to the minor for whom no lasting solution has been found outside our country. We are talking about unaccompanied minors. Numerous images broadcast in television newspapers show us how pressing and important this issue is in the different Regions of this country.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the objective is to grant an unlimited stay to the minor. Indeed, it was important for us – and I say it on behalf of my group – to insert, in the law, the status of the MENA, especially since the bill guarantees them more rights, facilitates their administrative steps and allows them to have de facto a more stable, more just and more human situation, taking into account their personal situation and their respective life paths.

Furthermore, this proposal aims to give them, finally, a long-term life project in our country if no other solution could be found outside our country, namely family reunification with their parents or family members, or an adequate and respectful care of their rights in another country.

It is for all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, that the Socialist Group welcomes the completion of this text.

Before concluding, I would like to thank all the colleagues who worked on this text with a particular attention to Ms. Lanjri and Ms. Temmerman, who were very involved. This project is the result of collective work. We are proud of it. A modern democracy that prevails on human rights and is a signatory to international conventions can only congratulate and rejoice in being attentive to the fate of unaccompanied foreign minors. It honors this noble assembly.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, my group also welcomes the present bill. In fact, this bill aims to translate into a legal framework the circular letter of 15 September 2005 of colleague Dewael in his then capacity as Minister of Interior. The aim is to capture one of the most vulnerable groups in our society, the minors who reside in our country, a country foreign to them, in humane conditions and give them a status and thus also the beginning of a future. That bill, which came up from a humanitarian point of view and in response to the question of how to deal with globalization and migration, fits perfectly into a set of measures that a country must take in order to jump in a humane, humanitarian way with those who arrive on its territory.

I will not repeat what colleague Madrane and other colleagues have already detailed. I just want to point out one point that somewhat annoyed me during the discussions we held in the committee, and that made me sound an alarm clock again. It has to do with the numerical material we have received and its evaluation in the committee.

What we do here is to create a special status, a protection status, for a relatively limited group of minors. In fact, we find, in honour and conscience, that we cannot put those people on a plane to a country where there are no contacts and no points of connection. So we will give that relatively limited group – we were told that it is about an average of 150 young people a year – a safe and solid status until they become adult. I think that is a very defensive position.

However, Kafka came to look around the corner as we placed that group of 150 in a slightly broader framework and began to examine how many unaccompanied minor youths are found in our society every year today. This yielded no spectacular, but yet relevant figures. Their number was estimated at 2,500 per year.

If one follows what happens to that group, one comes to a staggering result. Here are the figures. It is about 2,500 young people, of whom one-third had offered to the Foreign Affairs Service to apply for asylum, or about 850. The others were illegal youths, found by for example police services.

The 1, 650 illegally found young people who did not appeal to the DVZ and who did not appeal to this statute, disappeared in the maquis. None of these young people went back to their country of origin. There is no effective deportation policy.

Of the 850 young people who presented themselves to the DVZ, one hundred were found to be adult after examination; it was young people of 18 or 19 years of age. They could not invoke this statute. What happened to them? Almost none of them were effectively expelled from our country.

Seven hundred and fifty minors therefore appealed to the asylum procedure. Approximately two-thirds of them obtained asylum. That is, about 500 young people who received here a protected status as recognized political refugees. Those young people were taken care of; that was organized.

Of those 250 others, 100 were not eligible for this status. None of these young people were escorted to their country of origin. In the end, these are the 150 young people we are talking about.

Our Parliament made an excellent, solid and necessary law to protect approximately 150 minors annually, to give a statute and a permit to reside on our territory under dignified conditions. For my part, it can be 250 or 300 a year, depending on the need. With all other minors found, however, nothing happens. There is no closing system for them. They stay here.

Of those 2,500 young people, there are 650 who can stay here legally, with papers, of whom 500 were granted asylum and 150 the status; 1 850 other young people for whom the government should make efforts to bring them back in a human way to their country of origin, to their surroundings, their families, their acquaintances, are still around here, often in the illegality.

I make use of this occasion at this address to congratulate Mrs. Lanjri and all others, and colleague Dewael in the past, and to thank for this statute. We have done good legislative work. At the same time, I again call for an effective, humanitarian return policy. A few months ago we requested the re-establishment of a task force that existed before. This would be examined and further investigated. If we do not want to end up in a kafkaian situation with this reality, if we do not want to make paper regulations that exist only in this hemisphere and on the website of the Belgian Staatsblad, but that also effectively means something on the ground, then we will have to do more that this. Then we will also have to dynamize that other facet. A government in ongoing affairs is handicapped for this and therefore also needs a government with full powers. Nevertheless, the current government must take responsibility in this regard.

One cannot say A and remain blind to B. My family and I say A. However, we also absolutely want to see the other loop come into operation.

With the above, I would like to conclude my speech. After all, what does it mean to “young people in illegality” and “young people who are not accompanied back to their country of origin”? It often concerns young people with great difficulties, who in our cities live in the greatest misery, are left to their fate and are not helped. What future do these young people have?

We must not only be glad that today we give 150 to 160 young people a future and a status. However, we cannot be blind to the hundreds of other young people for whom we do nothing. We cannot make paper laws.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the humanitarian content of a society can be examined, among other things, by the way it deals with vulnerable groups.

There is no need to argue that unaccompanied minor refugees are absolutely a vulnerable group.

It is therefore the duty of us, society and Parliament, to prepare all children and young people for their later lives. This also applies to the minor refugee who arrives here without parents or guardians in our country.

We must try in every possible way to provide a future for those involved.

Mr. President, Mrs. Temmerman, are you talking about refugees?

I am talking about foreigners. Apologize to me.

In this case, you are talking about another letter.

You are absolutely right. I am talking about foreigners. Thank you for the correction. You knew who I was talking about. Nevertheless, it is always good to be very clear. I also like clear statements.

We must try in every possible way to provide these people with a future, preferably in their country of origin with their parents. However, if it cannot be otherwise, we must try to provide them with a future in our country.

With this legislative proposal, we are taking a big step in the right direction.

The proposal aims primarily to seek a sustainable solution, giving preference to family reunification in the country of origin. If such reunification is not possible, the proposal also aims to create the possibility to capture the young people concerned.

We must be absolutely careful that we do not send the youth back to, as colleague Somers expressed in the debates, impossible living conditions in the country of origin without a future perspective. What we hope to approve here offers a solution for some people. My colleagues have explained enough about what it is. I will not repeat it.

For us, creating legal certainty for those young people is important, that one knows what is going on. They have three years to find a sustainable solution. Thro ⁇ the course, young people are encouraged to go to school.

As colleague Somers also said, this bill is a step in the right direction, but it remains only a step. It is clear that this does not reach a very large group of unaccompanied minor foreigners from the EU countries, such as Roma Children. A very striking example of this is the abused Romanian children that we recently sent back to their country. The many young people who do not reach the reception centers and who wander along our streets are at great risk of falling into the hands of ill-fated human traffickers. For these young people, too, we must seek a human-worthy solution, preferably in the country of origin and if it cannot be otherwise in our country. Let us not forget that there is a mission for Europe, for a full-fledged government and for us as Parliament.

I hear all sorts of arguments here to approve this law. I hear Mr. Madrane even say that democracy will benefit. I hear Mrs. Lanjri say with some emotion that the little footballer in Antwerp needs to be helped.

The [...]

Antwerp or Anderlecht, it doesn’t matter. You advocate giving that poor footballer in Anderlecht his chances here.

Colleagues, do you know how many of those football girls actually exist in the world? Let me take the example of Africa. In 1900 there were 120 million people living in Africa. There are currently 1 billion people living in Africa and by 2050 there will be 2 billion people living in Africa. I do not say that, but the United Nations. There are a lot of football players.

Regarding the bill that may be approved here today, I can say that under certain conditions a residence permit will indeed be granted to the so-called unaccompanied minor foreigners, i.e. illegal persons.

Initially, they receive a temporary residence permit. After three years of residence – a period during which one will allegedly seek a solution, but I do not believe that anyone believes anything about it – the Foreign Affairs Service will in principle issue a residence permit for an indefinite duration.

Currently, there is an arrangement that is roughly the same under a ministerial notice of 15 September 2005. So one can ask what is actually changing today. In practice, this will not change much, but one should not underestimate the symbolic effect of a legal anchorage.

By entering into the law that residence scheme for unaccompanied minors, foreign illegal persons, an effective right of residence is created. This is different from a advice in a letter.

Therefore, an immigration possibility is incorporated into the law and one can therefore expect that this legislative change will lead to a suction effect and an increase in the number of procedures established by the so-called NBMVs. In fact, this amendment to the Foreigners Act opens a new official immigration channel.

I can understand that other parties – the regime parties – do so, given their history of an increasingly loose immigration policy. Colleagues of N-VA, it is strange that you have not resisted this legislation that is being made a little more hand-and-tand.

We agree with your three amendments, which are small steps in the right direction, but fundamentally, of course, we can still not agree to anchor such a right in the foreigners law.

The possibility is left open to renew the residence permit of a former NBMV after it has reached the age of 18. In that case, it must ⁇ be intended to send him back to his country of origin, unless he otherwise fulfils the conditions for a lawful continuation of his stay in that country.

The proposed scheme actually consists of a regularization in a postponed relay. The regularization of unaccompanied minors will eventually continue, in most cases, and they will receive a definitive residence permit. This new form of regularization comes on top of the mechanism already existing through Article 9bis, and on top of medical regularization – which is becoming more and more compelling – through Article 9ter of the Foreigners Act.

I would like to remind you of the broader context. Last year there were 37 000 applications from illegal foreigners to obtain residence documents. Among those 37 000 are 42 000 so-called family reunificators and 27 000 asylum seekers. I hope you finally realize what you are doing. We are becoming strangers in our own country.

I was delighted, Mr. Francken, that you just got a taste of it. You received from a representative of immigrant origin the recommendation to speak less quickly. He understands a little English, but you spoke a little too quickly. You were actually accused that your “patois,” as they say in French, was incomprehensible to Rachid Madrane. That is a taste of what will happen if that hyper-lax immigration policy continues year after year. We are becoming strangers in this country. We will not approve this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. De Man, I must honestly say that I have heard what you whispered into my right ear when Mr. Madrane in all kindness asked to speak a little slower and wait until he could set up his headphone. I have to say that I have absolutely no message about it. I know Mr Madrane as a very valuable colleague, someone who comes from Brussels and makes a lot of effort to understand and know Dutch. He is now, like me, a year in the Chamber and he is learning this extremely quickly. I am confident that at the end of this legislature he will understand Dutch very well and that he will no longer need his headphone.

I distanced myself very much from your statements as if he had said that we little flamingos speak a dialect. This has absolutely nothing to do with this. I know I speak quickly. There are also a lot of flamingos who say this to me when I talk about migration in all possible parish halls, but especially in the province of Limburg. I am absolutely not insulting that. I think this is a completely unfair intervention from you.

I would like to have heard once what the Flemish Interest will do with an unaccompanied minor newcomer of 8, 9 or 10 years whose parents are no longer traceable, if they are still alive. There are such cases. I would like to know what the Flemish Interest does with this. You say we are opening up a new migratory channel. That is undeniably true, but this channel of migration has always been there, because they have always been able to obtain a residence permit through the 9bis procedure. I wish I had heard of the Flemish Importance what you are proposing? Unfortunately, it is not so easy to say that they just need to call the IOM and return to their own country.

Mr. Wathelet, I can well imagine that you confirm this. I understand very well that you welcome all this, because you have been working on a ⁇ lax immigration policy for years.

( ... )

Are you in a hurry? If Mr. Wathelet says something, can I replicate it?

Mr. De Man, you answer the questions and then you finish!

I will try to do it!

Leave the M. A man to speak. by Mr. Francken asked questions to Mr. Who will answer it or not. He will then conclude his speech.

In this room, there are moments when I hear no answer!

Mr. Wathelet, I would like to refer again to the fact that you had set up an arrangement for mass regularization, that the Council of State has flooded you back, and that you nevertheless continue to carry out tens of thousands of regularizations. I would like to say that.

Mr Francken, it was not so much about the time and speed of your intervention. I can understand that Mr. Madrane, who does not understand Dutch very well, has more difficulty when you speak faster. What most disturbed me...

We are not here to judge each other’s language skills! I ask you to stop talking about mr. The Madrane! I invite you to continue your speech and come to the fact!

If you do not like the content of my intervention, you must say it with so many words.

Just do it.

What especially disturbed me, Mr. Francken, was that you were accused that your Dutch had a dialect sound. You may be just a little too young to know how the Flamings were dealt with in Brussels. They are told to speak a patois. That is the same mentality that ⁇ still exists in Brussels.

Third, you say that minor foreigners arrive here and you ask what we are going to do with it. First and foremost, Mr. Madrane, if we could conduct a policy, we would ensure that thousands and thousands of minor foreigners do not enter. We would also ensure that tens of thousands of adult foreigners do not enter. That is an answer.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will not speak to you about patois; I would like to return to the bottom of what concerns us today.

By giving a legal anchor to a provision otherwise contained in the circulary of September 2005, the provision on the residence permit of unaccompanied foreign minors has the merit of providing greater legal certainty. But let’s be clear: it’s not about making a law that transposes a royal decree for pleasure! In particular, it is necessary to provide greater protection for unaccompanied foreign minors.

Different elements of different legislation can be discussed in our country regarding MENA, as well as other subjects affecting minors. However, it is important to remember here that we are also within the framework of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is important to work primarily in the best interests of the child. This interest, for a MENA, is not necessarily to stay in Belgium, but can clearly be to return, preferably and when the conditions allow, for example in the absence of direct problems with the parents, and in the case where they were able to find them.

It is interesting to note that the International Convention on the Rights of the Child specifically provides that if the child has family abroad, the primary objective will be to bring the child and his parents together, if this can be done in good conditions.

I will allow myself a personal reflection. In this Parliament, in a plenary session or in a committee, various issues regarding migration policy are regularly discussed. It is important to note that some reduce the entire migration policy to a counting bull.

I am neither angelic nor naive and I consider it essential to provide numerical goals and to take into account these objective numerical data in the field of migration policy. Nevertheless, this is not enough: Beyond the numbers, in order to reach a just, responsible and human policy, it is necessary to consider each situation. Indeed, behind the counting bull, it is necessary to see, quite singularly, that a number of MENAs endure quite special situations; I think in particular of human trafficking or prostitution networks. As human beings, we cannot ignore such cases.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, before I begin, I would like to share with you a small disappointment: this discussion does not seem to fascinate the French-speaking parliamentarians given the number of empty seats in our hall. This is unfortunate and I would like to emphasize it.

In March of this year, the Morgen revealed that the number of MENA seeking asylum in Belgium had increased exponentially. Mr. Secretary of State, you said it, in February 2011, 149 of these MENAs arrived on our territory, alone, without father or mother, often without a legal guardian.

A report from the European Migration Network points to the fact that on average, about 1,800 MENA are registered each year in Belgium by the guardianship service; 60 to 70 percent of them do not apply for asylum and are most often intercepted by police forces.

This is no secret to anyone: Fedasil literally suffocates under asylum applications, in all kinds. Today, Fedasil is no longer able to provide a tolerable solution and humane and decent accommodation for migrants.

It should be known that, normally, the law provides for accommodation for all minors, whether or not they are asylum seekers. In reality, Fedasil does not provide adequate accommodation to MENA. This is of course not acceptable. In my opinion, minors should be able to benefit from an appropriate and specialized reception.

Unfortunately, if these young people do not receive accommodation, they find themselves delivered to themselves and end up wandering in our streets, day and night. They are, for the most part, unemployed and then sink into crime, drugs, violence or, more seriously, prostitution.

I was surprised to hear Mr. Madrane said just recently that voting this bill was to worry about the interests of unaccompanied minors. Excuse me, Mr. Madrane, but you seem stronger in terms of words than in terms of deeds! Indeed, the PS, of which you are an eminent member, is responsible for the current situation. And it is you who make sure that these miners find themselves on the street and that they do not benefit from any accommodation. Let me explain this anomaly. It is not my role to throw you flowers in view of the policy that you have been conducting and which has been catastrophic for many years.

This week, I was ⁇ interested in the testimony of a paid tutor delivered in a report from the RTBF television newspaper. He acknowledged that he had to take care of 27 MENA, of which six lived on the street. Five of them disappeared into the wild. They have therefore come to inflate the ever-increasing number of illegal traffickers circulating in our territory.

You don’t have to draw a picture. You will easily understand the danger it poses to society, but also to those minors themselves, the decision to abandon these MENAs to their sad fate. Of course, not everyone is on the street. Others are more lucky, as they sometimes find themselves at the hotel. This is currently the case for 200 minors. Excuse me for telling you this, at the risk of disappointing you again, but this hotel accommodation seems to me critical. This is primarily due to the costs involved. Moreover, it is inappropriate to consider it for minors. The hotel is, in my opinion, not a mode of accommodation suitable for unaccompanied minors who, in fact, are unfortunately getting younger and younger.

The problem that arises in the case of accommodation of minors at the hotel is the framework. It is inexistent! This is not the six euros per day of meal checks – imagine what you do with six euros! Who will solve these problems?

I believe that isolated minors require special protection and follow-up. For this reason, I believe that when they arrive in the territory, these children must be identified and registered. Their family should be sought, a guardian should be appointed as soon as possible and a special reception structure should be established. It is of course appropriate that these minors receive papers from us only if they know the language of the region in which they wish to settle and integrate but also that they attend school and that they have the will to participate in the economic life of our country. That is the least of things.

As I said in previous interventions, immigration cannot be done indefinitely on the back of the taxpayers. However, we are far from witnessing such an attitude today. The existing law is not already applied and this proposal, if it has the merit of opening the debate and I congratulate the authors for this, does not guarantee that a solution at the bottom of the problem will be found. It is good to make laws, but they must still be practicable and effective.

According to the Custody Service, there is today a serious problem of slowness in the granting of a tutor, as its services experience a significant shortage of staff and the number of tutors is low.

Our country is currently experiencing a deep crisis in the reception of migrants. I do not remind you. This sensitive dossier concerning the most fragile of us highlights a real crisis of guidance and accompaniment.

This problem does not exist today. As early as 2004, Child Focus and the King Baudouin Foundation sounded the alarm, stating that not taking care of these children inevitably led to the creation of human trafficking networks and, in particular, to the exploitation of young girls. Indeed, a look at the case allows to note that many MENA who are hosted in reception centers, at the hotel or who are delivered to themselves on the street, suddenly disappear without leaving any trace, regardless of our status in Belgium, whether they are asylum seekers or not.

Child Focus, at the time, sounded the alarm, as 255 disappearance files of foreign minors had been opened since its creation three years earlier. For Child Focus, a quarter of these missing minors – imagine! They became victims of human trafficking. It is therefore inconceivable for each of us to abandon these minors to their fate.

A solution must be found regarding the MENA.

In parallel, the problem arises of the instrumentalization of these minors arriving in Belgium. In fact, it is highly likely that the offer of social assistance will exert a strong attraction on minors of foreign origin, as fraud in this area is numerous. My colleague Dedecker also emphasized this in the committee. In my opinion, a system must be put in place that prevents the birth of trafficking in minors because if Belgium must honour its humanitarian commitments, it cannot fall into angelicism and naivety. Therefore, controls should be increased in order to effectively verify the age of these minors or alleged minors and strict conditions are required from the outset.

We talk about young footballers eight or nine years old but this remains very marginal and it is not them who know the most problematic situations. On the other hand, it is important to remain vigilant with minors over the age of sixteen because some young adults prefer to be pretended to be minors in order to obtain a much more flexible regularization. I would simply ask you not to fall into the panel under the cover of overflowing humanism or organized or, for some, deliberate naivety.

Finally, I would like to talk about sanctions. The proposal addresses this problem by saying that the sanction, in the case of fraud or false documents used in order to pretend to be a minor, would be the issue of an order to leave the territory. This is a very good idea, but this punishment must still be applied in the facts! Again, there is a huge gap between texts and practice. In recent years, I have had the regret of finding that the government has drastically reduced the execution of these orders to leave the territory by preferring more flexible routes of naturalization or mass regularization, some of which are very loving. So let me be cautious and make a few reservations on this proposal.

It is true that the current situation is vague. There is a shortage of guardians and I think it would be helpful to hold them accountable. This proposal, which clarifies certain terms and gives true status to unaccompanied minors, may seem positive at first glance, but it will not change anything in practice if the sources of the problem are not attacked, with force and determination. This proposal is really too vague. Nothing will change unless we change the image of our country with the candidates for exile. They see our country and its many social benefits as an easily accessible eldorado.

I am pleased that this debate could take place in this Parliament. He is pleased that it is finally possible to address here the urgent problems that have plagued our country for many years.

However, let me think that this issue should be the subject of a much broader debate allowing concrete actions. In fact, I do not see how the proposal under consideration will accomplish this goal. That is why I will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I have not heard the applicants and Mr. Somers comment on the amendments I have submitted. It is about improving a law. I’ve heard everyone talk about the need to transform the circulation letter.

I will stop you immediately. The procedure has been planned for centuries: there is a general discussion; if there are no more speakers, the general discussion is closed. You have asked to intervene on the amendments. [...] is not? So you are the victim of the presidential change for a while. This will teach me to get out for a few minutes. Therefore, I must give the floor to Ms. Genot, always in the general discussion. After Mrs. Genot, I no longer have any inscriptions. There are distractions today, it’s incredible! After Mrs. Genot and Mr. I will close the general discussion. We will then move on to the amendments and the discussion can take place on this subject.

In the general discussion, I would like to answer a few points that have been raised.

Before the President or after?

I do not respond to the words of the Minister, but to those of my colleagues.

Well well ! I would like to give the floor to Mrs. Genot for her speech.

Thank you Mr. President. It is good that we have a legal framework. Previously, we worked with a circular. This time, there is a legal framework on which we can rely and that is why we supported the text. However, we somewhat regret not being able to take advantage of the construction of this legal framework to make small advances that could have improved the living conditions of the MENA.

For example, adults have the right to see a lawyer when they are audited. I do not understand why this right to see a lawyer that we had filed by amendment was not accepted for the MENA. Having a guardian is not the same thing. A tutor, this is not a lawyer, it can be very different people of various professions, who often know well the law of foreigners but who are not law graduates and who are not lawyers. It is important that, like an adult, the minor has the opportunity to be accompanied by a lawyer. I don’t understand why someone younger should be disadvantaged compared to someone older. I am sorry that this amendment has not been accepted, which I consider to be of common sense.

The other big challenge will be to turn the machine.

I suggest that I respond immediately to this point, Mrs. Genot. You have actually submitted the amendment in the committee and I also appreciate your contribution in the committee. In the committee we emphasized that according to the bill, the King determines the modalities of the interrogation. That is one thing.

The fact that a guardian is assisted by a lawyer can be perfect with the legislation that we will adopt today. In addition, the legislation governing the duties of the guardian also states that the guardian can be assisted by a lawyer. Your concerns are therefore addressed. This has also been confirmed by the Foreign Affairs Service. The possibility can also be expressly mentioned in the KB. If you stand on it, because you think it would not happen in practice, then the provision will be included in the KB.

It is of course the intention and it can also be that there is the assistance of a lawyer, if the guardian considers it necessary. Some guardians are volunteers, who prefer the assistance of a lawyer. So it is not the six- or seven-year-old who can decide whether to take a lawyer or not. It is the guardian, who decides to be assisted by a lawyer.

Your concerns have ⁇ been taken into account.

The ideal would have been to include it in the law. But if the Secretary of State can support your statements by stating that from now on, when the guardians ask for it, they can be supported by a lawyer, that would already be an appreciable progress on the ground.

Other difficulties lie in the practical application or are mainly due to system overload. Normally, we should clarify very quickly if the person is actually a minor and, in this case, assign him a guardian. In fact, the department of custody of the Department of Justice is completely overloaded. It currently takes several months to determine whether the person is actually a minor and appoint a guardian if necessary. During those months, access to health care is very difficult and it is impossible to enroll the young in a school. We often waste several precious months that would have been useful for this young man by leaving him in hotels or in structures unsuitable for the management of young people.

The other major problem that arises on the ground is the following. Given the overflow of Fedasil, young MENA non-asylum seekers are on the streets. Those are therefore deprived of framework, deprived of financial resources and private of schooling. The guardians are unable to monitor young people whom they do not know where they are.

It is said that school follow-up and knowledge of the language are important. But when the essential needs of a young person, i.e. having a roof and being fed, are not satisfied, it is impossible to ask him to be educated on a regular basis. These two points, unfortunately, need to be improved very quickly: a strengthening of the judicial tutelage service to accelerate appointments, and a strengthening of Fedasil to organize an effective reception of the MENA so that the law is applied correctly and constructively are both indispensable. As long as these two prerequisites are not met, we can make laws and discuss a lot: in fact, the rights of children will not be respected in Belgium.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on a few points mentioned by the colleagues.

Then we talked about the children we cannot reach. I said at the beginning of my explanation that it is very unfortunate that approximately half of the children we meet annually do not have a guardian continuously and that those children also disappear. It is very important that we do something about it. However, this is not an initiative that can be regulated by law. I have submitted a resolution on this in the past. That resolution was also supported in the Senate – Mrs. Vanlerberghe will still know – by all factions.

It is important that one works around sensitization, reception and a certain form of protected reception, as Child Focus had recommended. Recommendations of the task force for unaccompanied minors should also be followed. Therefore, a whole range of things must be done so that we can reach more young people than we do today. It remains a problem. We reach a part, but what about the others? Are they not victims of human traffickers? I share that concern.

There was also a question about European unaccompanied minors. Our legislation assumes that there is a certain form of protection in the rest of Europe, but also on this, Mrs. Temmerman, I have submitted a bill. It is aimed at ensuring that we can also provide protection for European children, who come mainly from Bulgaria and Romania. I also invite the other groups to support this bill and to discuss it.

Mr. Louis has said that there are problems with the reception. That is correct. I deeply regret that. This is a matter that we need to settle further. It is positive that now, for example, initiatives have already been taken by the government to recruit additional people for identification, through bot scans. Additional staff has been recruited for the service Voogdij, but an additional contract has also been concluded with the University of Antwerp to make identification happen faster. It will be an en-en-story. It will be necessary to ensure both a good reception and a faster identification of young people about whom one doubts.

What I do not understand is that you say that young people should also participate economically. That is of course shameless.

About whom are we talking? In 2010, it involved 94 children between 0 and 9 years of age. I see them not working yet. We are talking about 89 children between 10 and 12 years of age, about 812 children between 13 and 15 years of age and about 1,499 children between 16 and 18 years of age. It might be possible to provide this latter group with a vacation job from time to time, if they already have at least a form of residence permit. Otherwise, we are putting them into black work, Mr. Louis, and I don’t think that’s your intention. You may have promised, but I assume that you are not advocating child labour.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Lanjri, let there be no doubt, we are co-contributors, so we will absolutely support the bill.

I have only said that we should not rest on our laurels and say that this is the end of the shirt. We all know that there are still minors that we should definitely be able to accommodate.

It was a call to us, but at the same time to the government and to Europe. Europe should take a look at this as well, when one thinks about all the young people who are wandering around Europe.

I think we should think of a more social Europe, which is now completely neglected. It is not only the countries to solve this problem. I just used the forum to refer to Europe.

We will, of course, read the bill concerning European minors with full attention and, if possible, support it.

First of all, I would like to point out, like Mr. Somers, that we solve only a small part of the problem. I call on the government, which is in progress, to examine what we can do about those other matters.

Madame Lanjri, when I speak of integration into the economic life, I think of the 1,499 MENA from sixteen to eighteen, which constitute the vast majority of unaccompanied youth.

In my speech, I said that they must have the will. Everyone knows that our country attracts a huge number of people who seek asylum because the living conditions are very pleasant there. Of course, this is quite another thing, but do you know that a Belgian homeless has fewer rights than a foreign homeless? This is not normal.

It is still that given the way we enforce our laws, a lot of people want to come to us. In this context, we must ask ourselves the question of the real will of the youth from sixteen to eighteen years of age to integrate themselves into the working and economic life and not to remain permanently in charge of our State. We can question!

I don’t know if you have children, but those sixteen to eighteen years old are also normally in school. Until then, they may still be able to do a vacation job. They will love to do so if they are naturally allowed to do so. They also need these papers. Absolutely absolutely .

(Diverse disputes between Mrs. Lanjri and Mr. Francken)

Yes, we have understood! In both languages.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Lanjri had asked two questions; I answered the first, but Mrs. Lanjri obviously does not want to understand what I am saying. I never said that they should work at the age of 16, but that at the age of 18, they should have the intention of either studying or working to integrate into the economic and social life in Belgium. This is not an exaggerated demand.

Mrs Lanjri’s second question concerned what exists in terms of reception. It is true that there are laws in matters of reception, but they are not applied; likewise, there are laws in matters of order to leave the territory, but they are also not applied.

So why should I now trust your proposal more than existing laws? That is all!

The Secretary of State would like to intervene now.

First of all, a first comment. We need to know what we are talking about: we are talking about minors, recognized as MENA, for whom we are looking for a solution as sustainable as possible, in their interests: it is not and it will not necessarily be Belgium.

In the context of this discussion, Mr. Louis does not even conceive that, for them, they need protection, a tutor and an accompaniment, so, indeed, we are not talking about the same thing. Simply put, they are minors who are not necessarily asylum seekers and they are unaccompanied minors recognized as such.

In one sentence, you just talked about asylum, integration, order to leave the territory. The temptation is strong to mix concepts: all of these concepts will not apply to the people discussed here. If, in such an important debate, since it is about MENA, therefore basic obligations in terms of protection, you take advantage of it to talk about other topics, such as those you are referring to, it does not seem to me worth answering you.

On the other hand, I return to what Ms. Temmerman said.

Of course, this does not solve everything. The question of the guardian remains. The question of age identification remains. During the Belgian Presidency, we organized several colloquies and conferences to share the good practices across all European countries with unaccompanied minors. It is true. In the Schengen area there is, in a bad word, competition between countries over the concept and understanding of unaccompanied minors. Therefore, we need to harmonize the procedure.

The first procedure that we need to harmonise at European level is the determination of age, because that is crucial. It is crucial, in order to be protected as an unaccompanied minor, that one must be a minor.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentarians for this proposal which, in fact, is written into a law and provides legal certainty to what is done in practice.

I think a number of improvements are important. In particular, I think of the minor’s hearing. I insist here on the fact that it is not a question of youth protection; it is a question of minors who have a guardian. The question of the discernment of the minor is therefore not raised in the same way as for a minor who would come to testify in the context of a divorce or a case covered by the protection of youth. The minor concerned will always be accompanied by a guardian who has the task of defending his interests. The situation is therefore different, which is why, regardless of the age of the minor, the latter must be heard.

In response to Mrs Dumery, who submitted an amendment on this subject, the obligation contained in the text is important in order to best handle the cases and find the best long-term solution for these minors.

Is the sustainable solution for the minor in Belgium or abroad? Is it in the country of origin or in another European country? In order to decide on this, it is more than necessary to know at least the opinion of the minor who is protected and represented by his guardian. Therefore, the hearing with that minor is crucial in this type of files. I think that introduction into the law is good.

A last point, Mr President. I use this to insist on the fact that what is in the text is already put into practice. As soon as the minor becomes full-time, the Foreign Office warns him that his MENA status will end. I find it healthy to warn him that he will have to introduce a procedure or find another status, at the risk of no longer having one. None of us has an interest in recreating a legal vacuum as soon as the minor reaches the age of 18. That is why it is important to include in the law what is already being done. Legal uncertainty and vacuum are not desirable for anyone, whether the state or the minor.

Finally, I must specify that a royal decree must confirm this law and cover in particular the issue of the presence of the lawyer at the hearings, if the guardian so requests.

In summary, we can say that an important signal is given. Everything is far from resolved. But if there are many people for whom legal security should be provided, it is precisely these minors. And I thank the Parliament for securing the work done by the administration in this area. I sincerely hope that the text can be voted as by Parliament.

Mr. Secretary of State, you have responded to the amendment concerning minors under twelve who need to be heard. You argue that the 12-year-old is accompanied by a guardian. Well, that guardian is indeed there, but still the under-two-year-old is heard. That is just the essential difference. In juvenile law there is also someone, possibly a lawyer or a appointed guardian, but the difference lies in having to hear it or being able to hear it. An under-two-year-old can be heard, but that is not stated in the present law.

There is another point that I have not heard. I regret that colleague Somers is not present at the moment, because he had quoted an interesting point. He spoke about the minors who do not comply with this legislation; the minors who must therefore return.

Mr. Secretary of State, Mr. Somers actually asked the government what you, in your human return policy, do for those minors.

Mr. Secretary of State, you speak to me of protection but you yourself do not ensure this protection by leaving these minors to their sad fate, without a framework, without resources and sometimes even without a roof. Minors at the hotel receive six euros per day to feed themselves. I would like to sincerely encourage you to live with six euros a day to feed you; then you will tell me after a week if you feel protected and perfectly balanced!

I say that by this method you encourage crime. This is not acceptable! I think you are in the wrong position to teach me lessons!

I would like to reply briefly to the amendments.

I have to formally close the general discussion first. I ask you to be patient for a moment.