Proposition 53K0326

Projet de loi insérant un article 74/9 dans la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers, en ce qui concerne l'interdiction de détention d'enfants en centres fermés.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Leen Dierick, Nahima Lanjri
LE Myriam Delacroix-Rolin, Catherine Fonck

Submission date

Oct. 8, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

illegal migration children's rights

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo PS | SP VB

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

July 19, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, in the past, at regular times, the detention of minors in closed centres was discussed. There were also all sorts of actions such as petitions and protests. Several experts, including the Commissioner for the Rights of the Child, have commented on the disastrous consequences of detention on minors. Experts agree that the consequences of detention for children in the medical and psychological fields are catastrophic. Child psychiatrist Peter Adriaenssens repeatedly pointed out the negative psychological consequences of child imprisonment. Many organizations also spoke out against further detention, Refugee Work in Flanders, CIRÉ in Wallonia, Amnesty International, Caritas International, the League for Human Rights and also the Ombudsman. Over the years, there has also been a broad public support for the notion that keeping children in closed centers is no longer possible. Therefore, a legislation on this subject is presented today.

The bill is intended to establish the principle prohibition of keeping families with minor children in a closed centre. Its application can consist of different situations. After all, it can be about families who try to enter our country without having the necessary documents, the so-called border cases. However, they may also be persons who have applied for asylum and have eventually become illegal here or persons who have entered the territory illegally but have stayed here for years and have been ordered to leave the territory. It is important for each of them that there is also an effective return policy, but that the minor children are also taken into account. Return to the home country or to a third country should take place in the best possible conditions for the minor children. After all, all studies on this subject fully agree that the environment of imprisonment is not a suitable environment for children. This should be combated as much as possible.

The goal should be not to shut up any child. Priority should be given to voluntary and independent return. Mr. Minister, I am actually calling for more funds to be invested in this.

In addition, we must also work on alternatives, which I also develop in my bill that is presented today. Only in cases of manifest or repeated unwillingness, when one fails to comply with the alternative one is trying to offer to avoid having to go to detention, or when there is a real risk of hiding, a very short-term stay in a specific reception center suitable for families with underage children can be used as a last resort.

The less one uses such a measure, the better. Therefore, everything needs to be done to make alternatives to imprisonment succeed.

Central to the present bill is the agreement between the family and the Foreign Affairs Service with agreements on the moment of return, which for one family may be a number of weeks, for the other family a longer period; agreements on the place of residence in the own home, in a residential unit or something else, and agreements on the reporting obligation. Also important is the assignment of a coach, who will accompany the families in the preparation of their return. In the bill, I highlight a principle, for which I have won the mustard in Sweden and Australia, a system which, among others, Grant Mitchell is a great supporter and which in those countries has delivered a lot of positive results. They see that it succeeds.

Furthermore, we must not be blind to reality or naive: there will always be families who will do everything they can to escape an order of expulsion. In those cases, detention in closed centres is not excluded as a last resort. Therefore, we must provide a number of exceptions in the law. The law therefore assumes a principle ban on the imprisonment of families with children, but not a general prohibition. In certain cases, exceptions are possible.

As I said, imprisonment is the last remedy. There is a cascade system, which implies that one tries to work first on the independent and voluntary return, then on the accompanied return – through an open reception center, a residential unit or the own home, with appointments – and only in the event of manifest unwillingness or withdrawal from the appointments in the last instance with deprivation of liberty of the parents. The latter must always be done without harming the children, in conditions adapted to their world of life.

In recent years, new initiatives have been created, the so-called housing units. There are residential units in Zulte, Sint-Gillis-Waas, Tubize and Tielt. Since October 2008, 195 families, with a total of 384 children, have been incorporated into residential units. In addition to this possibility, we want to provide the government with the possibility to take other reception initiatives through our bill. Return models should always be adapted for families with minor children.

According to our bill, families who are detained at the border because they are not in order with their documents can be detained for the shortest possible period for the purpose of return. For all clarity, holding means in legislation also that they can end up in so-called open residential units. Initially, the families are placed in an open center. Only in certain cases is another solution available.

We want each family to be assigned a support officer as a coach, to guide them, to inform and advise them about their stay and the possible opportunities for the children to complete their education and to prepare them for the return. The coach must, of course, also monitor compliance with the agreement with DVZ.

With families who are found illegally on the territory, but who have their own home because they have been living here for several years, for example, in some cases it can be arranged that they can stay in that home. Why would the government charge additional costs? It only has a limited number of residential units. It is up to the government to check whether these families can stay in their homes, under very strict conditions. Thus, there is the duty to regularly report to DVZ and other agreements must be complied with.

It is only if one does not comply with the agreements that another solution must be sought.

The discussions in the committee clearly showed that a strict minimum period of detention or even a total ban is not feasible in practice. I must admit that in my bill I had initially also included a period of 7 days, extended by another 7 days. From the conversations with, among others, the various experts, it has been shown that this cannot be realized, because in 7 days it is impossible to get the necessary travel documents in order. If a family, for example, must travel through Turkey to their home country, then Turkey requests to make that application at least 14 days in advance. Many requests for documents in the countries of origin are also sent to the capital and the embassies. This takes a certain period of time. If an escort accompaniment is required, a visa application must also be submitted for that accompaniment. This also takes an average of 10 days.

As much as I would like that no child would be locked in a closed centre one day, in practice this is impossible. A certain period of time must be provided in order to properly and properly prepare those families for their return. Currently, this takes an average of 23 days. I have honestly preferred that families in good conditions be prepared for their return. This may take 2 or 3 weeks. For some, this can be a week or 3 days. However, if they are forced, this can end up wrong. If one uses a seven-day term, one knows that a number of families will target those seven days. Once the seven days have passed, they must be released, allowing them to walk around here freely.

This would be totally useless and would even mean that we could simply stop the return policy. We must not do that.

Let us say that there is a principled prohibition on the imprisonment of children. Indeed, there are exceptions that we need to clearly define, such as in the case of manifest unwillingness and so on. In those cases, families with children should be able to be held for the shortest possible period, but always in an adapted living environment. This is what I advocate in my bill.

I think this legislation is taking an important step forward. After all, we are finally trying to anchor the principled prohibition into the law. This is an important step forward.

I sincerely thank all colleagues who have contributed to the fact that we will come to a decision tomorrow to incorporate this principle prohibition into the law. I thank the Ladies Fonck and Delacroix-Rolin, and of course also my group friend, Mrs Dierick, for submitting the bill. I also thank the other groups that have supported and submitted the amendment, including Mr Francken of the N-VA, Mrs Temmerman and Mr Somers. I also thank Mrs. Galant for the support.

I would like to thank everyone once again for the support and cooperation, because by putting together our shoulders under this proposal and being able to approve tomorrow, the principle is inscribed once and for all in the law.

Last but not least, Mr. Minister, I thank the staff of your cabinet, the Foreign Affairs Service and our group staff, who have contributed with their expertise to the proper implementation of this bill.

I look forward to the discussion with great interest.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, are children closed up? The present bill is about one of the biggest moral discussions that the House has had to bow over the past year. The debate rightly arouses a lot of strong emotions.

Many NGOs in the field talk about deportation and imprisonment and are radically opposed.

However, after a long discussion, reflection and debate, the presenters of the present proposal have opted not for a ban on detention, but for a limitation and for a better frameworking of detention.

No matter how obvious a legal prohibition may be for some from a moral point of view, from a practical point of view, a complete prohibition is absolutely inoperable. In fact, a ban on detention leads to the fact that the government can no longer guarantee that illegal families will also effectively return to their country of origin. Geert De Vulder of the Foreign Affairs Service, a man with knowledge of affairs, acknowledged in De Morgen of 27 April that only 35% of the families in the open return homes effectively return. For comparison, of the people who have to wait in a closed centre for their expulsion, 60% are effectively expelled from the country.

The possibility to detain families for a short period of time is a prerequisite for providing the necessary closure to the family return policy, which is an effective repatriation if the family does not wish to contribute to the return. This need is confirmed by both the European Return Directive and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Strasbourg once condemned Belgium for the conditions in the closed centers. Everybody knows that in the last four years we have actually imprisoned no one. For four years, no children have been imprisoned in this country. The present bill is therefore a step in the right direction, in the sense that it becomes possible back, under very strict conditions.

Strasbourg condemned us four or five years ago for the deplorable conditions in the reception center 127bis, where families with children were locked. However, Strasbourg never opposed the detention of families with children.

Carmen Dupont of Amnesty International, who, in my opinion, is a fairly unsuspecting source, stated on May 5 of this year: “For families who refrain from accompanying in the open return homes, imprisonment in residential units on the domain of 127bis in Steenokkerzeel should be possible.”

Colleagues, State Secretary Wathelet wants to finish 34 closed residential units in the domain of the closed center 127bis in Steenokkerzeel by the end of this year. Whether it will be successful this year is the big question. Mr. Secretary of State, that’s all you said to me in the committee.

Colleagues, today the debate is no longer about whether we can take families in custody, but about the question of when, in what way and for how long we can do it. This is the challenge the legislator faces.

The government should be given the resources to enable a real return policy for families as well. At the same time and ⁇ equally important, the government must ensure that it seeks the most humane solution in all cases. A storage in a closed center is undoubtedly not the most humane solution. A stay between walls and incentive wire, if poorly framed, can be a traumatic experience.

It is precisely that precarious balance, the balance between guaranteeing the departure, on the one hand, and humanizing the departure, on the other, that forms the philosophical basis of the current bill. In order to ⁇ that balance, the following package of measures was established, which is fully supported by the N-VA.

First, families are in principle not locked, unless the centres concerned have been adapted to the needs of families with children. At the moment, this is not the case. Hopefully, with the closed centers and the residential units that Minister Wathelet plans by the end of 2011, this should be the case. After all, it is about separate living spaces per family and recreational and educational facilities for the children.

Secondly, it is only in the last instance that detention is passed. Families will be given the opportunity to stay in an open exile or in their own home and prepare for their departure to their country of origin. Such can only be done if they comply with the conditions to which they have committed themselves. This is done by concluding a protocol between the Foreign Affairs Service and the family concerned.

Thirdly, colleagues, if the families do not comply with these conditions, can be transferred to detention for the purpose of effective repatriation.

Fourth, the guidance becomes individual and more intensive.

Fifth and last, the retention of illegal families at the border shall be kept as short as possible.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Secretary of State, I would like you to listen to the debate. We have been working on this issue in the committee for weeks. You have never been present, as you have never been present at the discussion of bills. You are not listening, but I am waiting.

Colleagues, Mr. Secretary of State, Mr. Mayeur, I am almost finished with my presentation.

The proposed legislation provides for better legal protection for illegal families. It resolutely draws the map of the voluntary return.

It consists entirely of individual and intensive guidance to prepare families mentally and practically better for return. At the same time, it retains the possibility of ensuring the effective return of the family through detention and forced repatriation.

I would like to thank these colleagues for the good cooperation. I would like to thank in particular the great stimulator and drawer of this proposal, Mrs. Lanjri. Mrs. Lanjri, with great enthusiasm, commitment and humanity, you have led this difficult, humane, moral debate into good ways. I wish to thank you for this.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, I will begin my speech by reminding that our country ratified, in November 1992, the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 37 of the Convention stipulates that States Parties shall ensure that "no child shall be deprived of liberty in an unlawful or arbitrary manner."

In this regard, the Ombudsman reminded us of the urgency to include in the law the principle of prohibition of detention of children in closed centres. At first glance, if one held only the title of the proposal, it would seem to meet this prohibition and even be a good proposal of law, just, human, that respects our international commitments.

But in reality, this proposal is like Canada Dry; it has a taste and appearance but it is not! Indeed, looking a little closer, the proposal contains a major problem, in contrast to the original objective pursued. In reality, it consists in the detention of a family with children if the family did not cooperate in its return or if the family attempted to illegally enter the territory. In fact, the proposal provides for the possibility of keeping a family with children locked up for as short as possible or for an unlimited period of time.

Currently, an appeal is organized on average in three weeks. This means that, de facto, this proposal will allow children to be held for this average of three weeks. It is long, three weeks, very long, too long!

Certainly, I will be replied that it is impossible to do faster, because we need to organize the return, we need airplane tickets, an escort, but we are well aware of this. So why not organize the return with a closure of last resort, which should be very short. In this case, why arrange the return from the beginning of the imprisonment? This has no sense. Inclusion will always be a traumatic event for a child.

Mr. Madrane, I know you know this, but in order to make it clear to everyone, I will allow myself to ask you a question. Do people who are in a closed center, in the sense of Mrs Lanjri’s text, have children who can go out every day, for example to go to school or play outdoors? Today, during these 21 days of legal detention, as you point out, can children get out?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Madrane, I am always a very attentive listener when it comes to knowing what the largest party on the French-speaking side says about migration policy. Mr. Madrane, I do not understand your logic. You are your own ship in Etterbeek, an urban municipality, one of the 19 municipalities in the Brussels Capital Region, right in the heart of this country, where a lot of migration, both immigration and emigration, takes place daily. So you are better placed than me, little resident of the small rural Lubbeek.

Mr. Madrane, I wonder how your police services will act if they find an illegal family, which, for example, has been ordered two or three times from the local police to leave the territory. That works tremendously irritating and frustrating for the local police; you will know it better than I do.

Mr. Madrane, eventually they will have to be removed somehow. How will the PS, how will you solve that in this particular case in your municipality? You say that it cannot be organized, that it can only be organized if the ticket has already been booked. But I tell you, then they are gone, then they are back into nature and you can’t find them anymore.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that too. Today, no family is locked. It happens in the legal sense of the word, because legally a residential unit is a form of detention, but everyone knows that these are open centres, that these are open homes.

I have looked at the figures, in approximately 40 % of cases it is border cases, people who are not in order with their documents at the border and who do not have their own home. Are you therefore in favor of putting them out on the streets, instead of catching them in such an open residential unit, simply telling them that they should draw their plan, that they are not going to get them?

No, it’s good to say that they’re going to get them. Some still have an asylum application.

You must also take this into account. If you’re talking about seven days or three days, you’re going to make all this impossible. For all clarity, it is about open residential units, open centres.

I will answer you in several points. First, the difficulty lies in welcoming those who are framed by a procedure. by Mr. Francken talked to me about the problems he knew as a "small citizen of a small municipality." I just repeat what you said. In Etterbeek, we just welcomed 42 Romanians, with children. We’ve all welcomed them, know it!

The problem is, therefore, to welcome those who are in the framework of a procedure. For the rest, I’m asked, “What do you do with others?” I’ll tell you. To welcome them in adapted centers... You know, a golden cage remains a cage. And I disapprove that children are locked in golden cages, even if it seems reasonable to you.

They are out!

Can I finish? Wait, I’ll be clear: I’ve been here since 10:00; it’s almost 22:00. I've been waiting for 12 hours for the Arlesienne, which is now there. I am very happy to welcome him, because I have a lot of respect for the Arlesienne. But it should not be either...

I will let you finish. But, as for the order of work, we were clear from the beginning of the session.

I remove the "Arlesienne", with all the respect I have for you, Mr. President.

From early in the morning, I specified, in order not to let people stay here without doing anything, that the project would be discussed when the Secretary of State arrived, at his request. He warned me last week. The services did not necessarily adjust the agenda.

To prevent people from wasting their time, I warned them immediately at the beginning of the session. It was agreed that as soon as he was there, we would start. That is what we did. We have done everything we can to make it happen in time. We have demanded enough the presence of other ministers in these places to not start complaining that we have been waiting for it! He is there. We followed what was announced at the beginning of the session. I now ask you to hold on to the debate, to answer the questions that have been asked to you, and to go to the essential.

So I continue. The imprisonment will always constitute, whatever is said of it and whatever some say of it in this assembly, a traumatic event for a child. That is why, as the ultimate measure, this must remain an extremely short remedy: 24 hours, 48 hours maximum.

Mr. Secretary of State, that day in the committee, you were not present either. You have appointed one of your colleagues. We had pointed out to him that we were even willing, in order to reach a consensus, to go so far as to accept a seven-day detention period, in order to take into account the remarks of the Foreign Office and allow it to adapt. At least this is what the amendment we submitted meant. I would like to point out here that this amendment received the support of our colleagues of the sp.a. However, no majority was able to vote.

The [...]

Mr Wathelet, let Mr. Speak. and Madrane. You will have the opportunity to express yourself later.

I invite you to continue, Mr. Madrane.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to point my finger to the consequences of detaining migrant children in closed centres.

In the committee, I was rather in agreement with the title of the bill and with the refusal of closure. However, it turns out that, in reality, it is possible to lock up.

But I return to the possible consequences of detaining migrant children in closed centers. And I would like to refer to a UNICEF note that clearly explains that imprisoning children can have serious consequences for them. This element has already been mentioned by my colleague, Mrs. Lanjri.

If the average is three weeks, this means that detention may be shorter, but also longer. In doing so, children will truly be exposed to a number of risks.

Mr President...

You will have the opportunity to react later.

It’s not Rachid Madrane or the PS who says it, it’s UNICEF!

Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Madrane had answered the question I asked just recently, I should not have intervened again.

So I am back on the question I have asked before. When you say that today, there is an average imprisonment of minors of 21 days...

I did not say that.

Mr Madrane, can the miners who are now locked out of the house where they are staying and enter it at any time? and yes.

I repeat what I said.

Let the person who intervenes finish. My comment applies to both!

The answer is yes, they can get out! To say today that they are locked up is false!

Mr. Secretary of State, I will repeat the sentence.

The proposal provides for the possibility of detaining a family with children, for as short as possible or for a limited period of time. Currently, a return is organized on average in three weeks. Isn’t that the case today? If a return is arranged on average in three weeks, you will agree when I say that a child and his family will be locked on average for three weeks.

This is where you are mistaken.

I refer to the text we are discussing today!

Let us be clear! I absolutely wanted to be present tonight. I was awaited because the JAI Council, the European Council for Justice and Home Affairs, ended today late in the morning in Sopot, Poland. Mr Madrane, I know that your timetable is extremely important, but that of the European Council JAI does not necessarily take into account that of Rachid Madrane. I came as soon as possible!

I realized that there was a misunderstanding in the commission. The text refers to the houses that are included in Article 74/8, § 2, of the law, that is, all places where children and families can be locked. Today, these are only woonunits, in Tubize or Sint-Gillis-Waas, that is, places where people are considered to be locked, even though, because they are families, they can enter and leave at any time. Why is it ⁇ ined in the law that they are locked there, as in a closed center, which means that the procedural deadlines apply to them as if they were in a closed center? To be able to return them in accordance with the Chicago Convention, especially when it comes to border families.

For those people, seven days is too little? Yes, of course, it is too little. You said it just before, we need more time, it takes 21 days. Under this vocabulary will also fall the houses that will be in the Steenokkerzeel area. For families who, if necessary, will be in those places, seven days is too much.

This is not in the text!

Why is this not included? Because as I have just explained, we need to consider in the text of the law all the places where families will be considered as being "closed", even though in most cases they can enter and leave. Why Why ? So that border families can be returned directly on the basis of the Chicago Convention, so that we can also, a few days before the removal, place them in those houses.

I will make a very clear proposal, Mr. President. I do not believe that we can amend the text because we must be able to target everything. We must be able to consider the woonunits that are located in Tubize or Sint-Gillis-Waas as closed centres. Otherwise, I can no longer apply the Chicago Convention or then, in order to be able to apply it, I must leave them in an INAD center in Zaventem. I hope you will all agree with me in saying that keeping families in INAD centers in Zaventem before being able to push them back on the basis of the Chicago Convention is what you should ⁇ not do.

I agree to say that for the Steenokkerzeel houses, when they are there, I guarantee full transparency regarding the number of days of possible detention of families in Operation Cascade, as the collaborator explained, which means in the last resort. I can even commit to that it is less than seven days. We must succeed.

The [...]

Madame Genot, I explained it to you. I must be able to consider the houses, the household units as what would come to Steenokkerzeel, as closed centers in order to be able to apply all the rules provided there, in particular in terms of appeal, in terms of procedure. If I consider, for example, that the house in Tubize is not a closed center, the time limits for recourse of closed centres no longer apply to it.

Mr. Mayeur, Mr. Madrane, Mrs. Genot, I propose that you let the Secretary of State finish his explanation. You will have the freedom to intervene subsequently and what he says will in any case be found in the preparatory work of our law and may serve for subsequent interpretations.

Mr. Speaker, a last element: this does not apply to all closed centers because, for the advancement of the bill, I want it to apply only to centers 74/8, § 2. This means that at least there is an infrastructure suitable for children, i.e. families.

This means that it could only be the woonunits and what should happen to Steenokkerzeel. Why Why ? Because one can never have what the law will finally prohibit, that is, families can always be locked in places where there is no specific framework for them. The law provides for this: today, families could only be locked in places where everything is planned for them. Indeed, in Steenokkerzeel, for me, seven days is too much; for all woonunits, in my opinion, seven days is too little.

What I can do is commit to total transparency on differentiated duration; statistics indicate locations. Legally, both must, according to the law, be considered as closed centres, both in terms of procedure and deadlines and measurement of last resort before removal. That is why the system was conceived like this, not by chance. And that is why we cannot impose a seven-day deadline that applies to everyone in the same way.

I find that in reality, there will no longer be a differentiated treatment between those who arrive at the airport fulfilling the conditions of which you speak and those present here in the conditions of which you speak. The result is that they will all find themselves in the same place: that doesn’t satisfy me.

I continue after I have heard you.

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question for Secretary of State Wathelet. Does the text presented there allow a minister tomorrow to lock children for two months in the current center of Steenokkerzeel? and yes. This is the problem. A malicious minister, tomorrow, with this law, could lock children quite legally: he will add three games and claim that it is suitable.

I hear the speeches with which I could work without problems, but this is not what is written in this law. According to the law that you propose us to vote, it is still possible to lock families for two months in the current center of Steenokkerzeel.

Madame Genot, therefore saying that two months is the shortest possible period, before any court, this detention would be broken. I invite any lawyer, who would defend this family who would be held for two months in a closed center, to use the preparatory work and the statements that I will make here. It is clear that any minister who places someone for two months in a center in Steenokkerzeel does not comply with the prescribed law by saying that it is the shortest possible time. It is very clear!

Please follow your reasoning, Madame Genot. Sans cette loi, aujourd'hui, une famille pourrait-elle être mise six mois, conformément à la loi, non pas dans les maisons à Steenokkerzeel mais à Vottem? Yes !

The [...]

This could be renewed! I hope at least after the four months, it would not have extended. But, if he’s really in bad faith, as you seem to want to say, he might even do it!

If I am your reasoning, the court should be able to prevent it, but it is not the case. Some people stayed for a year, while normally it is two months renewable twice.

With me ?

Yes with you! In the Merksplas.

With me, never with me.

It is a lie!

Why was this never possible with me, not even with Mrs. Turtelboom? Because this famous royal decree was made that, today, finally has the force of law. That is where it is an advance. You must not be mistaken!

Let me finish!

Madame Genot, even if you indicated seven days, you would not prevent someone of bad faith from going beyond. If you go against the law, it’s not okay! Only the courts can condemn the behavior that is yours. It is very clear!

Why not put the reference to the royal decree in the law?

What was in the royal decree is now incorporated into the law. To take back a principle applied today in a royal decree to indicate it in a law is, in my opinion, a much clearer and much stronger signal. Remember that a royal decree can be amended without the vote of a parliament! A law, not yet. For me, putting this principle into a law is all the more important.

Let us also not forget all the work that has been done. In the framework of parliamentary work, analysis or possible judicial proceedings that would come, any abuse could be pointed out and condemned.

Today, it will be stronger because it is written in the law. It will also be stronger because in particular some members of a government, even resigning, have insisted on the fact that it is impossible to admit that two months is the fastest deadline. Therefore, it is important to have this discussion.

I would like to respond very briefly to the statements of Mrs. Genot. I also went to Merksplas to see how it goes. I also went to see Tubize and other residential units. It is true that with today’s legislation it would still be possible for families to be imprisoned for months in a closed centre such as in Merksplas. Fortunately, it is not done anymore. That is why I submitted a bill, in the meantime, a few years ago. Today we are taking an important step forward.

Why am I not referring to residential units? Mr. Mayeur, I will do that. In the law, that residential unit falls under Article 74/8, § 2. This is considered in the legislation as the royal decree of those residential units. I have explicitly referred to that article. In the memorandum of explanation, I have also explicitly referred to those residential units. I said clearly that this is a cascade system. It is about housing units, but not just about that.

Mrs. Getty, you are the rapporteur. You followed it all. You have seen the amendments and you have heard the explanation. The housing units are clearly mentioned. I cannot speak in the law about the housing units established by a royal decree. I therefore refer to the law in which those residential units are included. These are included in a royal decree. I refer to the article, to which the Royal Decree also refers. This is technical, but I have said this here and in the committee.

There is a cascade system. I also want no child to be taken care of in a closed centre. Although they are defined by law as closed centers, including residential units, we go for open centers.

The figures from the residential units show that a quarter of cases are families who have made repeated escape attempts. In such cases, we cannot bear in mind that one day we will have to go to a form of closed shelter for those families. Then I’m not talking about Merksplas, but about houses that are adapted to the needs of families with children. This is about the deprivation of liberty of the parents, but not of the children.

This is different from the residential units. I say that this should be possible next to the residential units.

Mr Wathelet understood the bill very clearly. In residential units, seven days may be too short. For me, they prefer to stay there for a month with a good accompaniment. In the other centers, hopefully, they should not sit a day, but it could also be three or four days. These are adapted centers. I want to be very clear that these possibilities must be there and must be stipulated in the law. A total, general ban is simply to say that one will never be able to realize the return.

These are the points that I wanted to put on the I, as I have already done in the committee and which I wanted to clarify here.

I am convinced, and I hope, that we can move forward in the way we have been working in recent years, which established that no families were locked.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Madrane, before you fall asleep, I would like to talk about the core of the matter, the PS position.

You are here to defend the PS position. The PS has an amendment aimed at allowing the detention to last a maximum of seven days. The sp.a, Mrs. Temmerman, has indeed signed this. You did not get into it because you are completely unlogical.

I consulted my sources once and I found that your party, four days before the committee meeting on Tuesday, the previous Friday – Ms. Onkelinx, Mr. Magnette, Mr. Courard, all PS colleagues – in the government approved the transposition of the Return Directive.

I have studied that conversion once well, Mr. Madrane. I cite Article 75/14: “The accompanied minors may, in the last instance and for the shortest possible duration” – thus not a maximum of seven days – “be held with their families in places...”

What is in our bill? I quote: “A family with minor children who have entered the Kingdom may, for the purpose of transitioning to removal, proceed for as short a period as possible...”. It is literally the same! Now you say that the PS is against and that we are too strict, inhuman and inhuman. The PS, the same PS I think – maybe there are two, that I don’t know – approves three or four days ago with Mrs. Onkelinx, Mr. Magnette and, let me mention, the proposal of colleague Wathelet in the federal government. It does not state “maximum seven days”, but literally the same thing we now propose, namely “for the shortest possible period.”

Mr. Madrane, I apologize, but this breaks my bump, I don’t understand it anymore. I understand nothing of it. I think the PS in this is completely inconsistent. Per ⁇ you can give some clarity about it, because I absolutely do not understand it.

Mr. Madrane, I find it very regrettable that your group in the committee did not support the proposal, especially because Mr. Moureaux, your party fellow in the Senate, submitted this bill. I asked him at the beginning of the legislature if he wanted to sign it with him and he did. In my bill, indeed, there was a week, extended by another week. In another paragraph it was stated “for as short a period as possible”. Mr. Moureaux has signed this bill with me in the Senate.

Let us not look too much back in the past, for that is two years ago. Recently, the Government approved the Return Directive and it is clearly agreed: for the shortest possible period. In the amendment, I take that text word by word, because I assume that we can follow what has been agreed in the government. and no. The PS says no and thinks what the government is doing is not good. You must urgently consult with your ministers.

Some would like to know the position of the PS. I understand them, because the debate is made for that. I have noticed that mr. Madrane has not yet had the opportunity to speak for five minutes in a row. I propose that the colleagues – the debate is right in this assembly – allow Mr. Madrane to align a few phrases. At that time, the position of the PS will be known.

Go on, Mr Madrane!

I comply with your authority, Mr. President!

I would like to thank my group leader. I would also like to remind that Ms. Lanjri, who was a Senate rapporteur for a series of asylum laws, was...

You will be interrupted again and in five minutes, Mr. Giet will say you didn’t have the opportunity to align five sentences. Please align your phrases, please!

I will answer one and the other at a time, then I will develop my argumentation, because I have a well-prepared text.

I would just like to remind you that the Senate voted on the deadlines (one week plus one week). But that is not what matters!

Madonna, did you see the time? Now I ask you not to argue with one another. Keep up with your speech! Then members will react if they want to, and you will respond if necessary. But you won’t start playing until midnight, an hour!

You are right, it is my fault.

Let me therefore highlight the possible consequences of detention of migrant children in a closed centre. I will refer to a note from UNICEF, which clearly explains that the imprisonment of children can have serious consequences for them, which is the case with this proposal because, in our opinion, it opens the door to the possibility of imprisoning children for a relatively long period.

If the average detention period is three weeks, as proposed by law, this means that this detention may also be shorter as well as longer. In doing so, children will truly be exposed to a real number of risks to their physical and mental health. Indeed, children can suffer from all sorts of diseases caused by the trauma of detention. Let us mention the deprivation of liberty, which limits families in the confined space, where they have no freedom to go and come, especially when it comes to children who can no longer continue their schooling. However, the education of children in detention is all the more important as it helps to live by bringing structure and stability in times of crisis.

Risks to children’s mental health are also highlighted in a series of reports. UNICEF notes that the experience of imprisonment can lead to behavioral disorders, psychosomatic disorders, such as enuresis, the development of psychological disorders, such as depression and anxiety. As Ms. Lanjri said, the pediatric psychiatrist M. Adriaenssens, on the other hand, recalls studies showing that a foreign child detained in a closed center is ten times more likely to develop psychopathological disorders than another child.

I think of the risk of “deparentalization”, of disresponsibility, of the lack of recreational activities. These are as many reasons to prevent, in our opinion, at the maximum maximum maximum, the imprisonment of children, in order to preserve their physical and mental health, their development, as well as the possible opportunities that will present themselves to them when they become adults, and simply their well-being.

From another angle, Mr. Speaker, I will quote you from the SumResearch study in 2007, produced at the request of the Foreign Office: “Policy must be oriented in such a way as to prevent families with children from being detained. Closing children, whatever the circumstances, is hardly justifiable. After all, children have no responsibility in the illegal status of their parents and are held in a closed center only because of the latter." This is not only a moral duty but also a fundamental conviction. The imprisonment of a child because of the illicit residence of his parents is disproportionate and detrimental to his or her development.

This study, which focused on alternatives to the detention of families with children in closed centres, then specifies: “The maintenance of families with children can only constitute a measure applied at the last end. It is only when the procedure has been carried out until its completion and no other of the proposed alternatives has been able to produce a lasting solution that families with children can be ⁇ ined, prior to their return, and this as an exceptional measure and applied for the shortest duration possible."

You will have understood, for my group, the detention of families with children can only take place when all the conditions of return are met, so as to avoid at any cost a confinement which, if necessary, must be very short. Similarly, when a family arrives on the Belgian territory, it can be kept in a closed centre only for a very short time, in anticipation of the granting of a possible place in an open host house.

Here are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, for which the PS group will vote against this proposal that, in the end, will incorporate in the law the possibility of locking children for a relatively long period, instead of prohibiting it purely and simply.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the plenary session closing the parliamentary year that we have just lived allows me, on the occasion of the debate on the bill proposal under consideration, to recall once again, the fundamental principles that animate the MR in its will to reform in the field of asylum and immigration: mastery for humanization.

The meaning of our program is perfectly reflected in the bill proposal being discussed today. Since 1 October 2008, families with minor children in an illegal situation and waiting for their removal are no longer kept in closed centers. An alternative has been studied to place these families in housing managed by the Office of Foreigners and made available by the Régie des Bâtiments.

Families benefit from an infrastructure adapted to their needs. Each family is free to leave the place of accommodation as long as an adult member remains permanently present. The right to privacy and family life is guaranteed and children can be educated. Support agents follow the families and assist them in preparing for their return.

The text we must adopt today concrete this practice into law and I welcome this.

The proposal sets out the principle that families with minor children waiting for their removal will no longer, except in exceptional circumstances and in a limited manner, be kept in closed centres. The alternative of personal residences under the supervision of a support agent and under the conditions specified specifically, in each case by the Foreign Office, will retain the preference.

The will consists in using the maintenance in a closed centre only in the last place and for a very limited period when no other solution better suited to the family structure is possible, the time for the Office to find a solution of removal, if possible voluntary.

We welcome this initiative. For the MR, we need a comprehensive and balanced approach to migration policy. It is by fighting the excesses, abuses and abuses of the system that one can better protect those who need it.

The progress of globalization causes an increase in international migration that affects all states of the world, especially those of Europe. Managing this migration represents a major challenge and concerns us all. This finding must lead us to propose new policies aiming to permanently reconcile the necessary management of migration flows with respect for the fundamental rights of every human being.

The MR intends to respond to this challenge with a responsible and humane asylum and migration policy. A responsible migration policy carried out within the framework of the migration policy that falls under the sovereignty of the state and which is articulated around two major types of migration: economic migration and family reunification.

Our responsibilities, we took them a few months ago, when we adopted an ambitious text of reform of the 1980 Family Reunification Act! This reform is ⁇ not perfect, but it is part of our desire to intensify the fight against illegal immigration, trafficking and trafficking in human beings: to fight against the abuses of some leading to an organized illegal immigration which throws the reproach on persons who, legitimately and in compliance with the legal conditions, wish to access the Belgian territory. A human, fundamental rights-respecting policy is the objective of the text we are discussing: to incorporate in the law the principle of non-placement of minors in closed centres when other solutions that are less compelling and more respectful of family life and the rights of the child exist. This also involves structures arranged taking into account a family cell with minor children where personal residences with the desired framework will have to develop in the future.

These solutions, however careful they may be, can only be temporary. These families are no longer in a regular situation on Belgian territory and their removal must be practiced promptly. Therefore, it is important to implement in parallel an effective, sustainable human removal policy focused on voluntary return and, where appropriate, forced return. Strict strictness in the fight against abuse goes hand in hand with the absolute guarantee of respect for international rights such as the right to asylum or human rights. It is by fighting the galvanization of rights for some that we can concentrate the necessary human and material resources for others.

As I have already pointed out, the MR pledges for a comprehensive and balanced approach to migration policy. Therefore, I would like to emphasize that the reforms carried out so far must be accompanied by other changes in order to be fully effective.

There are still many construction sites. In particular, it is necessary to ensure a comprehensive and consistent management of the asylum and migration policy, including the reception of asylum seekers by gathering all these skills in the hands of a single minister; to designate, as is the case in many Member States of the Union, safe countries of origin whose nationals see their asylum application declared unfounded, except to demonstrate that due to their personal situation they have real reasons to fear for their lives in their country of origin; to prioritize a discretionary legalization competence, exercised reasonably on a case-by-case basis and in a transparent manner by the Minister responsible, rather than a massive legalization policy carried out on a point-of-time basis when the situation becomes critical from a humanitarian point of view; to reflect on the opening of a legal channel against the need for migration and illicit labour, in order to combat our economic labour market, and to combat the need for legal migration.

It is time to put an end to this obligation of hypocrisy in the head of the emigrants who wish to join our country. The vast majority of migrants arriving in our country are not fleeing persecution but poverty. However, as our country does not recognize economic immigration, migrants must present themselves as political refugees in order to have legal access to the territory during the examination of their application. It would be healthier, clearer to recognize real economic immigration insofar as it could meet the specific needs of our labour market.

It also involves strengthening the fight against marriages and complacent cohabitation, in particular by registering in the National Register the simulated history of marriage or legal cohabitation; to strengthen the conditions for obtaining citizenship so that it can effectively crown the migrant’s personal path of positive integration and to give naturalization its exceptional character of favour. Finally, more emphasis should be placed on synergies between migration and development cooperation.

In conclusion, the MR will therefore support this text because it goes in the right direction while ensuring that the tasks that remain to be accomplished are effectively accomplished, with or without government.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, children do not belong at home in prison. I think we all agree on this after our discussion. We must therefore make every effort to provide families with minor children who are applying for asylum as soon as possible with clarity about their situation and to guide them as best as possible. Either we take them into our society and do everything we can to integrate them, or we try to prepare them as well as possible for a voluntary departure from our country.

We agree with the three principles of the bill. First, a family with minor children illegally staying here is in principle not locked up. Second, families with children are assigned a support official, who will guide them and prepare them for the voluntary return. Third, if parents with minor children are forced to be placed in a closed institution because they do not comply with the arrangements, those places must be adapted to the needs of families with children.

However, this period should be kept as short as possible. Mr. Secretary of State, it is a pity that you were not present in the committee. I understand that you have to do other tasks, but the discussion here tonight, we would have done much better in the committee. Maybe there would have been more clarity about something.

Colleagues, as I said before, we will vote in favour of the bill, because it fulfils three principles. However, we will monitor the application of the exceptions very carefully. Mr. Secretary of State, we will very surely check the commitments you have put forward tonight.

I have heard a lot of things that I agree with. But there is still a big problem: it is necessary to avoid locking a child in prison. The imprisonment has very serious consequences for children. The smaller they are, the harder the closure, the more significant these consequences are; multiple reports prove this. Now, I think you are proposing us to vote on a law that does not encompass this element.

You tell us that this is the current situation. No to No! The current situation does not involve children in a closed center. Children can only be found in border homes from which they can get out.

What exactly does the proposed law say? The first part states the principle: these people are not placed in places such as 74/8, § 2. What is this 74/8, § 2?

"The King may establish the regime and rules of operation applicable to the places where the foreigner is detained, made available to the Government or ⁇ ined in accordance with the aforementioned provisions."

In other words, this 74/8, § 2, is as much the center of Bruges as the center of Merksplas, as Zulte or Tubize... Currently, in the trials, the same element is taken for a person imprisoned. Furthermore, it is said that families in contravention, who do not obey the convention, are also placed in this 74/8, § 2.

It is problematic to lock in the same place people who have done nothing, who have just arrived and who would like their asylum application to be examined, and others who have not complied with the Convention. This is stated in the bill.

I would like to do the same for mr. Madrane: Mrs. Genot goes to the end, and you will react afterwards. Otherwise, we left to fully engage in a discussion that should have taken place in a committee. So, Mrs. Genot, you continue, and then I will give the word to Mrs. Lanjri, to Mr. Lanjri. Francken and who else will ask for it.

This is the principle: a family with minor children shall not be placed in a place as referred to in Article 74/8, § 2, unless it is adapted to the needs of families with minor children. In the law, nothing proves it. I often discussed with ministers who explained to me that the Steenokkerzeel center was suitable for children. So even the basic principle does not reassure me.

Then, the second paragraph considers “the family with minor children, who tries to enter the Kingdom.” In other words, these are people who arrive at the airport and submit an asylum application. These families "can be kept in a specified place, adapted to the needs of families with minors and located at the borders for as short as possible." The whole question is what we mean by “as short as possible”. I heard your collaborator explain that it was a duration of 21 days, which sounds extreme. Now you tell us that this is not just the time of keeping them in a closed center. It is not written!

The third situation is that of the people who are out of the procedure, those who have completed the procedure. It stipulates that "these will have the possibility to reside in a personal home, unless they are in cases posing problems of public order. If the family is unable to reside in a personal dwelling, it will be assigned, under the same conditions, a place of residence in a place as referred to in Article 74/8, § 2." Thus, the persons who have just arrived, as well as the persons who have been displaced, are subject to the application of this famous article.

Then, it is said to establish a convention with these persons and that the King will decide the consequences to be reserved in case of non-compliance with this convention. It is specified: "The family may not be placed in a place as referred to in Article 74/8, § 2 for a limited period ...". We are no longer talking about a short duration, but a limited duration. This can increase to six months as well as a week or three days! What is a limited period? The family may be placed in a place as referred to in Article 74/8, § 2 for a limited period only if it does not meet the conditions.

The same fate is reserved for him (it is listed in Article 74/8, § 2) as for those who have just arrived, as for those who are defeated, as for those who observe a convention, as for those who do not observe it! So, you will apologize, but there is a problem in the drafting of this law! Mr. Secretary of State, you are not responsible for this, but the proposal that is submitted to us is not clear at all!

Further, it can be read: "The family is assigned a support agent, who accompanies it, informs it and advises it." In fact, I find it reasonable that good-quality agents accompany a family from the moment she arrives, establish a relationship of trust with her, support her and constitute with her a well-fledged dossier, to advance the application for asylum while explaining, from the beginning, that this procedure may not be successful and that she will have to return to the country.

Information and accompaniment of the person or family throughout the procedure seems to me highly indicated. But the text you submit to us does not guarantee this in any way. This is the work that the coaches are doing at the moment. Unfortunately, these people are often judged only by the numbers of returns.

This leads to horrible cases, such as that of the Afghan Hindu family who has been expelled. The only motivation of the coaches is clearly to return these children. Binding a five-year-old girl to the adhesive paper is not serious! At least she left and was sent back. The text on the table today is really a problem.

It does not correspond to the logic that you explain to us, that is, to place these people in houses as they are planned at the moment and to continue the procedure in conditions that are not prison type and according to which children can get out. Children are not behind bars. With all this, we can live. However, we cannot live with the return of children behind bars!

One of our communications congratulated Mr. Wathelet because, upon his arrival, the Dublin families finally got out of the closed center. Ms. Turtelboom had announced the end of the detention of the children, but whenever I returned to Steenokkerzeel, I met those families. When I’m told now that it’s the same thing as the royal order of Mrs. Turtelboom, ...

The [...]

Let your royal arrest! This is not the same as what has been said before. At that time, there were children in closed centres!

We want the current situation, which has existed for more than a year, to be transcribed into the texts. This is really our will, but it is not what is being proposed today. Many consequences have been cited. These are important. When a pediatric psychiatrist, like Peter Adriaenssens, says that a child in a closed center is ten times more likely to develop serious mental and cognitive disorders, I think it’s really problematic.

Reports explain why detention is not suitable for children, why seeing his parents handcuffed can be terribly traumatic for children. It explains that, in environments such as closed centers, parents are irresponsible since it is not they who decide when their child can go out, meet someone, when he should do this or that. It’s a collective life and that worries us.

You say that things will no longer happen this way since open housing will be made available to these families. But the text you propose us to vote does not give any assurance that it will be small open houses with a coach, as they currently exist.

In my opinion, the topic deserved something else than a discussion that was unleashed a few weeks ago in the commission.

The amendment was submitted at the last hour.

Experts have been heard. It is not accurate! We heard your collaborator who said it took at least 21 days. For my part, the work was not done with experts.

If the text as it is submitted to us falls into the hands of a bad minister, the latter will be able to place children for six months in centres like that of Steenokkerzeel. Nothing in the text prevents this.

You say that’s not what you wanted, but that’s what this text allows. Therefore, a great deal of clarity in this matter is necessary.

The [...]

This is what is in the text. According to us, there is a serious problem. That is why we have proposed to provide in the text that a child cannot be detained. That is the minimum. In this way, we respect the European Convention on the Rights of the Child, the decisions that have condemned Belgium and especially children. In fact, seeing children behind bars is, for me, an unsustainable vision.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond briefly to what Ms. Genot said.

You have recovered, but in the beginning you read only the first part of the sentence of the bill and not the second part, which is very important: “unless the houses are adapted to the needs of families with minor children”. That is an important part.

Secondly, you say that the coaches are only focused on those who make people return and on the returning figures.

In principle, those coaches are actually hired to accompany those people when they return. They are not coaches to welcome people.

In all objectivity, those coaches do their job well. In fact, they take into account all possible rights of those people. I can give you those numbers.

Now it turns out that some of the families that have accompanied these coaches, even at the last moment, even if they are detained at the border, still move to a demand for regularization, subsidiary protection or asylum.

These coaches accompany those people as well. Twenty percent of the families living in those residential units eventually obtained a residence permit.

I think the coaches do their job well. Indeed, they are recruited to guide those people to return, but they will not deny them any right. Such persons have the right to appeal or to apply for subsidiary protection.

As you can see, the figures show that 22 families – 11.5% of families – have been recognized as refugees, 6 families have been granted subsidiary protection and 2 families have been granted regularization. You can’t blame those coaches.

Mrs. Genot, you should visit those coaches and talk to them. I did that, I can’t complain about the work of those coaches, they do it well. I hope and want to have more. We will need a lot of coaches. In my view, it is even preferable from the beginning, from the moment people arrive on the territory, to accompany them from the beginning, from their asylum application to the moment they stay here or return.

Unfortunately, for now, they are only used in this final phase. However, they work correctly, because they give people all rights, including those who appeal, for example, even those who apply for asylum.

Ten second, mijnheer Madrane, het is right that i also rapporteur was, but thereover had i het niet. U kunt in de toelichting lezen dat ik ditzelfde wetsvoorstel wel degelijk ook had ingediend in the Senate. The [...]

Madam, you said this before! by Mr. Madonna has heard you.

I think this is not correct and would like to correct it.

Mrs. Genot, I know the position of Ecolo. Your party is for the total abolition of the closed centers. It does not matter whether they are minors or adults, centuries or two years old, Ecolo is for the complete abolition of closed centers. This is literally stated in your electoral program on page 220:

“These centers do not have their place in a democracy worthy of that name. Ecolo therefore pleads for their total abolition.”

In that sense, I find it absolutely nothing new. You should not come here to make such great problems and say that it is giganticly scandalous that we are going to imprison children. It is also enormously scandalous that there are adults, adults, who were imprisoned yesterday and yesterday, who are imprisoned today and who will be imprisoned tomorrow and after tomorrow.

I need the next thing from my heart. I never know if you are the party program of Ecolo or the point of view of the Ecolo-Green group! and defending. I know that as community examples of this country, it is difficult to try to defend a position. As far as migration is concerned, I have noticed that the spread has been huge in the last few months. The views of Ecolo are indefensible and unsold in Gent, in Antwerp, in short in Flanders. I give a few examples. Open Borders, Ecolo’s 2010 election program on page 220: “There can be only one reason for refusing visa applications, namely a danger to public order...”

Mr. Francken, do not read the Ecolo program! You are advertising it!

Mr. Speaker, I will limit myself to the essence, the position on the closed institutions.

If I understand it correctly, say Ecolo and Green! Children should never be locked in closed centers. Colleagues from Ecolo-Groen!, you are very upset about these children here, but you just don’t want closed centres. You do not want a return policy; you only want voluntary return and open borders. and green! It is much more nuanced in it. In the electoral program of the Greens! Closed centers are only ultimately possible, not for minors but for adults.

It is extremely regrettable that you are so angry here about something that has been known for years, namely that you want an open border policy and no closed centers and above all no return. Your point of view is: let everyone here just look for a future and those who do not get papers must be regulated, otherwise they will argue together in this Parliament. As we saw a few months ago, Mrs. Genot!

I feel like this has already been said many times! Sometimes I wonder if there have been discussions in the committee!

Mr. Speaker, that is not the only thing. However, I would like to ask Mr Francken to reflect upon the finality of his presentation. We are in the process of discussing a bill and then I do not consider that it is between 23 and 00. Today it is not intended to examine the differences between the programmes of Green! and Ecolo. Let’s stay a little serious.

Ladies and gentlemen, I listened with great attention. I may have a point of criticism for the Secretary of State. He should have been present more often in the committee. I assume there are misunderstandings. A number of technical discussions could have taken place in the committee. Thus, the discussions would not have taken place today.

Colleagues, it was disheartening to have to determine how colleague Francken gave his interpretation of the bill, while Mrs Lanjri gave a different interpretation.

Mr. Francken, in the title there is a ban on the imprisonment of children in closed centres. You say “ceci n’est pas une pipe”, but there is a prohibition here.

The title is not correct.

Then you need to change the title, Mr. Francken. But then you might fall through the basket.

With regard to the present proposal, I would like to point out to my colleagues the axiom used, namely the current state of affairs, in which no one is imprisoned.

It is, of course, easy to go here looking for a majority for a proposal that suits everyone a bit. Everyone recognizes themselves in one of the solutions. However, the texts set a lot of conditions. For example, I quote Article 2: “Only if the family does not comply with the conditions, the family can be placed in a closed center if there are no other options available.”

In the explanation, a number of matters are forwarded to the government or to the King to settle by royal decree. “Thus, a system can be set up in which non-compliance is sanctioned.” By the word “can” there is therefore no guarantee that an effective detention will be effective. Mr. Francken is pretty sure in his speech that it will happen. I think that Secretary of State Wathelet should stick a tooth if he wants to work on the closed reception.

I note that, both in the PS and in the Open Vld, the attention to the problem is very large, isn’t it?

Thinking of the axiom that no one is locked up, it is not difficult to believe that Ecolo and PS are the only ones that are opposed to the so-called ban. Mr Francken, you referred to the open border policy. It would be pretty bad if Ecolo and PS were not against. For the Flemish Interest, it is not far enough. We have always defended that position. We have been advocating for closed reception, although socially framed and therefore without all the conditions that are incorporated in the proposal. We want a closed reception from day one.

Mr Francken, the day when the Flemish Interest will be responsible for asylum and migration, it will not be about average months or weeks. It will be done in a quick and efficient way. Everyone has benefited from it. It refers to the problems in terms of the health of children. Yes, that is very, rightly, but the responsibility also lies with the parents who involve their children in this problem. Therefore, we are in favor of a short procedure, which ensures that the return from a closed centre can take place quickly and efficiently.

What you present here today is insufficient. The crane leaks. She leaks quite a lot. What does the current bill do? It puts a seed under the leaking crane. However, it is still intended that the crane will be closed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the floor.

Mr Veys, I have two comments.

First, I want to talk about the closed centers. If I have understood it correctly, I have seen an amendment by Mrs. De Bont. That is the first time.

I am delighted to hear your position. In the committee, no one of the Flemish Interest has ever taken the word in the debate. In that sense, it is very remarkable that you think Mr. Wathelet has to write the law that he has not clarified his position in the committee and that he must be present in the committee.

Look first in your own belly. Members of the Flemish Interest were present in the committee. They never asked for the word. So I heard for the first time what the position of the Flemish Interest would be.

I think I have understood from your point of view that you are from day 1 before the detention of asylum seekers, until the end of the procedure, regardless of whether it concerns children, minors or adults. This is the content of the amendment submitted by Ms. De Bont.

Mr. Veys, I ask the following question. If you have to flee your country because of your political beliefs, such as nationalism – I just say something – you don’t want to be treated as a criminal. You fly, for example, to South Africa or the Netherlands. It is a purely fictional example. You do not wish, where appropriate, to be imprisoned as a criminal together with your family and your children from day 1 to sixteen months later, when you may receive a judgment on your asylum procedure?

In this sense, I find the Flemish Importance completely inhumane. I would therefore take as far as possible away from that viewpoint. In fact, it means that all political refugees, including those who should be recognised very conscientiously, as they effectively flee their country and not migrate on socio-economic grounds, should be imprisoned from day one. Is that the position of the Flemish Interest? I think I understood it well.

Second, Mr. Veys, I have a folder here with me, which I got like every Flaming in the bus. It is titled: “Return satisfied.” I naturally read the folder with a lot of interest. There are only lies in the box.

Mr. Veys, you are lying in your folder. Mr. Veys, please read with me. I can see that you also have the package with you. “Full is full.” It is again nice nuanced, as usual with the Vlaams Belang. “Because Flanders is currently a ratio of more than 130 000 new arrivals per year being flooded by new migrants...”

The folder speaks about 130 000 newcomers per year. Since when have 130,000 newcomers arrived in Flanders each year? You can show me how you put the numbers together to get to the number of 130,000 newcomers.

These are pure, crazy lies. It is not even populism. They are just lies.

I would like to ask for some clarification on the folder. You apparently did not just get mistaken in the IOM phone number. You also made a mistake or probably wanted to blow up the matter, by warning that we are being flooded in Flanders and in this country. It’s not 50 000 or 70 000 but 130 000 newcomers per year, ladies and gentlemen.

Please stop these lies and propaganda.

I would like to thank Mr Francken for his speech. Apparently we hit a sensitive thread in the N-VA. This has been clarified by his speech. We will send him our calculations, and then we may have a useful discussion with him.

In any case, the main problem with regard to migration and ⁇ with regard to asylum, for everyone who looks at the dossier – I assume that Mr. Francken does so regularly – is the fact that illegality arises because one disappears in nature. Yes, I am actually clarifying it. We are of the opinion, as in many countries around us, that closed centers can be, even for families with children, in adapted conditions. I repeat that we will pursue a very efficient expulsion and asylum policy that will comply with all international standards on detention.

It is not because we come into this unlawful situation, in which the N-VA and all other parties except the PS will cooperate, in a situation where no one is still imprisoned – while we believe that everyone should be imprisoned until the end of the procedure – that this is not a ban on detention or, at least, in the worst case with the exceptions provided, a detention against which only Mrs. Genot and consortia are opposed.

So it is not for that reason, that this is not a ban on closing, that this is not a too slow measure for us. If the N-VA wants to cooperate with it and then again want to swing with Vlaams Belangfolders, not left for me. The more they swing with it, the better. That is what we have to say, that is what we will be. It should not annoy the N-VA that they should miss the cooperation of the Flemish Interest here; they should not find that more than normal, because we will always be much more punitive than what you think could ever become a migration policy in this country.

You seek and you try with the PS, without the PS, with the MR, by giving to Mr. Maingain in nationality, in family reunification. You are looking for compromises. You are always going flater and flater on your stomach.

I don’t mind that you approve what you approve, but you should be able to counter criticism, if we say that this is a ban on detention, that this is a – only criticized by Ms. Genot – easing of the migration legislation compared to what must be done in the asylum files and in the asylum file, which goes to the bottom of the fact that people are disappearing in nature. Something must happen to that. It will not be this bill that will change anything.

Mr. Speaker, as politicians are used to be long when they say they will be short, I will not say I will be short, but I will try to be long in the facts!

First of all, I would like to thank the authors of the present bill. It is really important for me that these principles, which are already applicable in fact, are poured into a law that clearly states that there is a ban on the imprisonment of children.

Why is this important? If one wants to assume that it can only be the last measure to close families, then the principle must also be clearly defined in a law. It is known that that law will have to be interpreted and applied, but the interpretation must always be done in a certain way. The principle now incorporated in a law is clear, in particular that the minor and his family should no longer be imprisoned. That is a principle. Everything that has to be interpreted must be interpreted on the basis of that law. All other possibilities of imprisonment of minors and their families may be used only in exceptional cases. This is now clearly stipulated in the law.

Second element: Madame Genot, when you tell the tribune that no family is now in a closed centre, it is a mistake. Yes, legal, some are in a closed center! But when you refer to this article 74/8, § 2, which provides for closed centers, the royal decree defining closed centers also provides that, for families, the centers must be adapted. And only in these adapted centers, families can be in a closed center.

These adapted centres now allow that, for families in closed centers, people can go and come inside these living units, these houses, these closed centers adapted to children since the European Court of Human Rights has condemned Belgium to no longer lock children in a place that is not suitable for them.

This is what we must understand for what we are voting for: the closed centers concern a series of realities.

In the head of the Socialist Party, there is an agreement that, under certain circumstances, it remains possible to place families in closed centres; he even wanted to introduce a seven-day deadline. Therefore, as I said earlier, seven days in the case of closed centers adapted as they are known today for families, it is much too short. Indeed, as my collaborator explained to you, seven days to get a permit-pass for Turkey is too short, for example.

Seven days to process an asylum application from persons who have been intercepted at the airport border and who could be returned on the basis of the Chicago Convention or from families who return under a Dublin procedure is far too short. Your amendment dedicated the possibility of locking a family for seven days, and it is much too short in those cases.

On the other hand, when it comes to adapted centers installed in closed centers, like at Steenokkerzeel, seven days, it seems to me long. Therefore, it should be said that it should be as short as possible. And the text of the law that stipulates it will have to be interpreted according to the type of imprisonment that the families will have experienced. So, yes, the enclosure in the enclosure of a closed center must be much shorter than a enclosure that, according to the law, would take place in a house in Tubize, for example. This is the intelligence of the text. Why Why ? Because it consecrates the principle and leaves a latitude. Seven days, in some cases, is too short; in others, it is too long. When we speak of the shortest possible duration, this allows us to appreciate situations in view of the very specificity of family detention, whether inside a closed centre or outside.

Better than this as a text, it seems to me impossible. That said, we will have to make sure to define well, in the royal decrees we will still have to take, what can be a confinement suitable for a family, mainly for minors.

The issue is all the more important! It will be necessary to take into account the issue in relation to this law, which provides for this principle of non-enclosure of minors.

Ms. Genot said that there will be a judicial analysis.

I understand that a term of 7 days is in one case too short and in the other case too long. Why can’t one in the law or in a KB then list all specific cases and determine the deadline for them? At that point, we get rid of the stretchable concept of “as short as possible”. Why can’t it be solved if there are different cases?

If we have the new places in Steenokkerzeel, it is almost as important to determine in the following KBs what an adapted detention of minors could be. Those places do not exist yet. We are discussing a possible imprisonment in closed centers that do not yet exist.

If we had opted for a term of 7 days, then this would ⁇ not have been possible in practice. If I can only place families in Tubeke for 7 days, then I’m sure that all those families will disappear. If I have to release those families after 7 days, what should I do with those families? What do I do with families who were arrested at the border? I need to have a place for them. For the public opinion, it must be a closed center. Whether this is a good thing or not is another debate. However, I do not want to place families in normal closed centers.

For this reason, the residential units in Tubeke and Sint-Gillis-Waas are also closed centers. That way I can put those families there. In a seven-day period, I cannot deal with a Dublin procedure or an asylum procedure at the border. I can do this not only for internal reasons, but also because I need information from some countries, and this is not only up to us.

That is why I said it later. I agree that when the places in Steenokkerzeel are provided, I can be fully transparent how long a family will stay there – I want it to be no longer than seven days –, how we will deal with it there and under what circumstances it is provided. Therefore, it is important to stipulate in a law that this should be as short as possible, to make sure that every KB that needs to be executed on the basis of the law also respects the law.

I said “as short as possible” and Mrs. Genot then spoke about two months, but that can not, that is not the shortest possible term, that can be shorter.

That is why this law is essential. That’s what the government has introduced under the “return” directive. This is not exactly the same thing, it is not necessarily people who come out of asylum procedures. It is even wider! It is also a matter of men.

For MENA with families, if a removal should take place, we have planned that this can only be done in the shortest possible time. Read what is written in the text of a law. We are not here as part of a royal decree, we are in what will define all the execution decrees that will be taken later. This will be the shortest possible time, suitable for the imprisonment and the place where people are.

The shortest possible time in New York will be close to 21 days, that is, the current average.

I will be very clear! It doesn’t bother me that families are in a closed center in Tubize for an average duration of 21 days! This does not bother me! It would obviously be better if the deadline was shorter and if we went faster. In Turkey, it takes 14 days to get a visa to get away from them. We can’t do less or it doesn’t depend on us. However, a period of 14 days when they are in a closed center is too long, in my opinion.

That is why, as part of legislative work, this law sets out a principle that is good. This principle imposes that all subsequent work must be done in this spirit, that every interpretation, of any jurisdiction whatsoever, must be done in this spirit, according to the debates we have had today. But this allows sufficient flexibility so that things remain feasible and that we try to ⁇ a goal we all seek that is to avoid at any cost the imprisonment of minors.

It really needs to be avoided at all costs to those children who have not asked for anything because this is a situation that can cause a number of disorders in them. It can’t be good for them, we know it!

This is our responsibility: when we say “as short as possible”, when we make commitments in texts like this one, we must have the dignity to respect them. Everyone knows that confinement should remain the last measure because it is a bad measure for the child. We must be able to limit it to the maximum.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Secretary of State for his presentation and for his clarificative answers to the many questions that were asked.

I repeat that this legislative proposal is a highly feasible solution, focused on a humane approach to the return policy, where families with minor children are always sought to receive accommodation in the most appropriate and humane conditions.

I hope that this proposal will be approved tomorrow. Per ⁇ that happens, after the statement of the minister, still with the support of the PS. We will see.