Proposition 53K0813

Projet de loi modifiant la législation concernant l'accueil des demandeurs d'asile.

General information ¶

Authors

Open Vld Sabien Lahaye-Battheu, Gwendolyn Rutten, Bart Somers, Ine Somers, Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

Dec. 14, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

foreign national civil procedure illegal migration migration policy political asylum political refugee welfare admission of aliens residence permit removal refugee

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo

Abstained from voting

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 ¶

Oct. 27, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, it was a real happiness to have been able to participate in this debate that helped to overcome differences. I like to remind you that the difference is complementary to our humanity. I am very pleased to share this task with my colleague Annick Van Den Ende.

The Committee on Public Health and Social Inclusion has devoted seven meetings to the study of the bill amending the legislation in order to resolve the asylum crisis.

During the introductory presentation, Mr. Bart Somers insisted on his willingness to reserve the right to asylum to those who truly have the right to asylum and to ensure that more standing asylum seekers are returned to their country. According to the author, the influx of asylum seekers continues to grow as departure is expected, causing the saturation of reception centers. To address this crisis situation, he proposed the following six measures:

- the abolition of financial aid;

- the transposition of the European Directive on reception;

limitation of reception to the first application for asylum;

- the exclusion of European citizens from the reception;

- the centralization of asylum and reception competences in the hands of a single minister;

- the transfer of the competences related to the law on the reception of the labour court to the Council of the Foreign Dispute (CCE).

In response to this statement, Mr. Theo Francken emphasized that the proposal presented was going in the right direction and corresponded to the changes desired by the N-VA. However, he considered it necessary to go even further and discuss the regularization and the establishment of a task force on expulsion, hence his amendments 2 to 10.

For Ms. Galant, Ms. Lanjri and Ms. Van Den Ende, the saturation of centers is a painful reality that needs to be solved. Evaluating the law on reception and adapting it is a necessity.

The PS recalled that if asylum seekers stay in the centres for more than a year, it is due to the length of processing of their application. Therefore, sufficient financial and human resources must be put in place to shorten this procedure. This position was supported by Ms. Genot.

Ms. De Bont stated that this proposal would not solve anything and that the Geneva Convention should first be revised.

According to M. Somers, the bill does not intentionally touch the essence of asylum legislation. This asylum policy must ensure that anyone who has reasons to apply for asylum must have the opportunity to take refuge in Belgium and be welcomed there.

In this regard, I am referring to the maintenance of financial assistance in law. Mrs. Van Den Ende, Mrs. Genot and Mr. Madrane advocated for and recalled that it was more appropriate to activate this distribution plan in exceptional situations than to be condemned to pay penalties. They also recalled the delicate situation of the Brussels CPAS and called for more solidarity in this regard.

Ms. Lanjri recalled that the 2007 law had been adopted to counter the negative effects of financial aid. Not only did it have an aspiration effect, but it disadvantaged major cities. by Mr. Somers reaffirmed his willingness to abolish financial aid, which would be an attraction factor for migrants at the expense of proper and honorable material assistance.

With regard to reception, during the procedure of only first application, the N-VA could agree to see reception extended if the asylum seeker undertakes to return voluntarily. Return, whether voluntary or forced, must be a priority for him. Lanjri believed that during the period during which the Foreign Office examines the admissibility of the second application, the asylum seeker should not be expelled from the centre.

Together with Ms. Van Den Ende, we recalled that the "accommodation" directive does allow to limit the right to accommodation, but stipulates that this kind of decision must be made on a case-by-case basis.

My colleague Mr. Madrane insisted on the importance, for his group, of guaranteeing reception during the entire second application. Genot regretted that the proposal does not provide for the obligation, for all cities and municipalities, to create ILAs.

by Mr. Somers considered that it was possible to reach an agreement to ensure the reception, in principle, only during the first application, unless the second application is declared admissible. by Mr. Somers recalled that a balance must be found between, on the one hand, giving new opportunities to the persons concerned, and, on the other hand, fighting procedural abuse.

Regarding the reception of European citizens, the N-VA considered that they could not benefit from it. Ms Lanjri noted that this exclusion ⁇ did not reduce the pressure on the reception network and ⁇ insisted on respecting the deadline within which the procedure must be handled for Europeans.

She stressed that reception centers cannot become transit centers for European citizens seeking employment. Van Den Ende noted that the refusal to receive EU citizens affects only Romanian and Bulgarian asylum seekers. As they do not yet benefit from the free movement of workers, they are not able to provide for their needs.

My colleague Rachid Madrane drew the attention of the committee on the particular problem of Roma.

Ms. Genot insisted that certain categories of people are unfortunately still in danger within the European Union and should therefore be welcomed in dignity.

by Mr. Somers replied that Belgium was the only EU country to have subscribed to the exemption clause provided for by the Treaty of Amsterdam.

Regarding the transfer of competence – one minister responsible for reception and asylum – all members agreed on the principle. Lanjri, however, clarified that Fedasil should continue to be covered by the SPP Social Inclusion.

Finally, as regards the transfer of competence from the labour court to the Council of the Foreign Dispute Council, the members of the committee unanimously rejected this provision. In view of this consensus, Mr. Somers announced that he would give up on this point.

In view of the comments made, Mr. Somers and Ms Lanjri, Smeyers, Temmerman and Galant submitted comprehensive amendment No. 15, after consultation with the Foreign Office, Fedasil, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Union of Cities and Municipalities of Wallonia, jointly with Vereniging van Vlaamse Steden in Gemeenten, as well as CIRÉ and Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, they submitted again comprehensive amendment No. 18.

I would like to remind you that the rapporteur has no obligation to read a report; he is allowed to refer to a written report.

I would like to briefly interrupt the debate to announce the composition of the Dexia special committee.

Special Commission to examine the circumstances that compelled the dismantling of Dexia SA

Special committee charged with investigating the circumstances that led to the dismantling of NV Dexia

I propose you to appoint the members who will be part of the special committee responsible for examining the circumstances that compelled the dismantling of Dexia SA.

I propose you to appoint the members who will be part of the special committee tasked with examining the circumstances that led to the dismantling of NV Dexia.

It consists of 15 members and 15 supplementary members.

There are 15 permanent members and 15 deputy members.

It will be so.

Thus is decided.

In accordance with Article 158 of the Rules of Procedure, the distribution is as follows:

I remind you that, in accordance with Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure, the distribution is as follows:

- N-VA: 3

The PS: 3

Mr: 2

- CD&V: 2

- sp.a: 1

- Ecolo-Green!: 1

Open field: 1

VB: 1

- CDH: 1

The presidents of the political groups have sent me the candidatures of the members of their group who will be members of this committee.

The presidents of the political groups have submitted to me the candidatures of the members of their group who will be part of this committee.

and N-VA:

Effective and permanent members: Peter Dedecker, Jan Jambon, Veerle Wouters;

suppléants/substitute members: Siegfried Bracke, Steven Vandeput, Bert Wollants;

and PS:

Effective and permanent members: Laurent Devin, Yvan Mayeur, Christiane Vienne;

suppléants/substitutes: Guy Coëme, Thierry Giet, Alain Mathot;

and MR:

Effective and large members: Philippe Goffin, Marie-Christine Marghem;

suppléants/substitutes: David Clarinval, Kattrin Jadin;

The CD&V:

Effective and permanent members: Hendrik Bogaert, Raf Terwingen;

suppléants/substitutes: Jef Van den Bergh, Servais Verherstraeten;

and sp.a :

Effective and permanent member: Dirk Van der Maelen;

Supplier / Deputy: Bruno Tuybens;

The Ecolo-Green!

Effective and permanent member: Georges Gilkinet;

Deputy/Deputy Deputy: Meyrem Almaci;

The Open World:

Effective / permanent member: Gwendolyn Rutten;

Supplier / Deputy: Patrick Dewael

and VB:

Effective and permanent member: Bruno Valkeniers;

Supplementary / Deputy: Hagen Goyvaerts;

and CDH:

Actual and permanent member: Joseph George;

Supplier / Deputy: Annick Van Den Ende.

Since the number of eligible candidates corresponds to the number of seats to be granted to the political groups that have submitted candidates, no voting is held in accordance with Rule 157.6.

Since the number of eligible candidates corresponds to the number of seats to be awarded to the political groups that have nominated candidates, no voting is required in accordance with Article 157.6 of the Rules of Procedure.

As a result, I proclaim elected the candidates presented.

Therefore, I declare elected the candidates that were proposed.

I propose the elected members to join the European Chamber so that the special committee can be set up.

Let us now continue the discussion of Bill No. 813.

We have held many meetings. As the report is divided into two, I conclude my speech at the level of the latter.

Following the comments, concerns, suggestions, written opinions were made, among other things, by the Foreign Office, the CGRA, Fedasil, UNHCR, the CPAS Federation, NGOs on Amendment No. 15.

Several of these opinions were concerned about the postponement of the reception burden to the CPAS. Some provisions risked turning material aid into financial aid, although this was by no means the objective pursued. This amendment was replaced by amendment no. 18. Mr Somers, you were accompanied in the signing of this amendment by the N-VA, the CD&V, the sp.a and the MR.

This new amendment includes several legislative changes that I will summarize in seven points.

1 of 1. Nationals of the Member States of the European Union no longer fall within the scope of the Acceptance Law, with the exception of nationals of the States which do not benefit from the free movement of workers on the Belgian territory.

2 of 2. To group, under the competence of a single minister, migration, asylum and reception of asylum applications.

3 of 3. Restricting the right to reception to the first asylum application. However, if the second application for reception is considered admissible, the right to reception would be ⁇ ined. This article also extends from five to ten days, from the order to leave the territory, the end of material assistance in order to make the date of the decision on admissibility coincide with the possible end date of the right to reception, the institutions consulted indicating that a period of ten days should be sufficient to decide on the admissibility of an asylum application.

4 of 4. Add a new article related to the return journey. This means offering the possibility to arrange a voluntary return trip when the refusal decision is final. In this case, the right to reception shall be retained for a period of at least 30 days. If an order to leave the territory is sent, this journey should be managed jointly by the Foreign Office and Fedasil. In case of insufficient cooperation of the interested party, the file would then be taken back by the Office of Foreigners for forced return.

5 of 5. Insert a new article providing for a solution to the situation where the asylum seeker has sufficient resources, i.e. at least equal to the integration income, with the aim of preventing that person from falling under the burden of the community.

6 of 6. Exclude from the right to social assistance, on the one hand, asylum seekers called No show and, on the other hand, nationals of a Member State of the Union and their family members. This exclusion refers to Article 24 of the European Directive on the subject.

7 of 7. Insert two transitional provisions that, on the one hand, provide for ministerial reorganization to a next government and, on the other hand, temporarily allow Fedasil to refuse extended reception in case of saturation of the reception network.

These are the seven points that were included in amendment no. 18.

The N-VA introduced two new sub-amendments, sub-amendments 19 and 20, which relate to the right to reception during the procedure before the Council of State. The committee unanimously requested the opinion of the Council of State on amendment no. 18 and sub-amendments no. 19 and 20 for the benefit of the urgency.

The State Council opinion was delivered on 11 July 2011. Two observations are made, in particular as regards the constitutionality and compliance with European law of certain proposed limitations. In the light of this opinion, the depositaries of amendment no. 18 introduced a new amendment no. 24, which aims to replace the amendments no. 1 to 23 which have thus become obsolete.

The new amendment no. 24 takes the whole of amendment no. 18, while taking into account the comments made on nationals of the Member States of the European Union and on the coherence of the proposed test with the Return Directive. This amendment, co-signed by the CDH, is the result of a very broad consultation supported by the Secretary of State for Asylum and Immigration Policy who has managed to unite views towards a balanced compromise integrating human solutions in return.

I refer to the written report for further clarification.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I now give you the word for your speech.

Since 2008, Fedasil has been plagued by a serious crisis in the reception of asylum seekers. In September alone, between 800 and 1,000 decisions not to designate the host structures were still taken. This crisis creates difficult human situations. Given the persistence of this problem, and as winter approaches, we must take the necessary steps to immediately guarantee a place for all beneficiaries of the Accommodation Act. They must be clearly identified.

As the Federal Ombudsman correctly reminds, the arrangements must be in accordance with the fundamental rights and human dignity of the hosted persons. The government has continued to take initiatives, such as opening 2,500 emergency reception places, strengthening asylum authorities so that the processing of files is faster in order to release reception places for new arrivals, or encouraging municipalities to create 2,000 places in local reception initiatives managed by the CPAS. Nevertheless, other solutions still need to be found to decompose the host network. It is from this perspective that the draft law under consideration came into being.

Our group, for its part, is satisfied with the work carried out at the initiative of our colleague Bart Somers, who took into account some of our remarks and who was able to federate the different opinions. Indeed, the CDH can be pleased to have seen provisions that will allow, in accordance with the opinion of the State Council, European asylum seekers to continue to enjoy the right to reception.

The provision concerning the distribution plan is ⁇ ined. In fact, there is thus a valve in case of chronic lack of accommodation places. The Labour Court remains competent for appeals, given its extensive expertise. Under certain conditions, the asylum seeker may continue to receive material assistance if he submits a second admissible application.

The voluntary return journey mechanism now enjoys a legal basis. Thanks to the new provisions, a person who is debout will be offered a personalized accompanying journey by Fedasil. The order to leave the territory which is used as the departure symbol for work on the voluntary return route is applicable. As soon as a person has received a negative review, he knows that he has thirty days, in principle, to decide on his voluntary return and implement it. Otherwise, the Foreign Office will now be responsible for organizing his return.

The provision on voluntary return thus corresponds the legal texts with the Return Directive of the European Union which will very soon be transposed into Belgian law.

I would also like to mention the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 27 July 2011. The legislator pursues a legitimate goal if he intends to break the carousel mechanism of successive asylum applications submitted with the sole purpose of prolonging the stay in the reception center. Such a mechanism does not only result in a procedural overload for asylum authorities but also a saturation of reception centres with limited capacity, thus preventing the reception of persons entitled to it.

It is in this perspective that my group will support this bill, since it believes that it aims to establish different tags that should enable our country to maintain a policy of human reception while discouraging abuses.

The report has been submitted. The situation was described. After ⁇ one-and-a-half years of work, we have been able to realize a minimum part of the fight against the asylum crisis. I also look at the Secretary of State for a moment and I am glad that he is listening to what the Parliament has achieved in the meantime, more about it later. After one and a half years of work, a minimum achievement was achieved in the fight against the asylum crisis, in particular the key to that reception law, the key to the provisions which asylum seekers are entitled to reception and under what conditions.

I look back at the constructive attitude of all employees. I also thank Mr. Somers for always engaging everyone in a constructive way, even though this was not so evident in the political context. I also think that the N-VA was needed in the debate and that we were able to put our mark on this well.

I also want to nuance. Mr. Secretary of State, I have said from the very beginning that the problem is so broad and includes so many matters that with this legislative change we will not blame the asylum crisis alone. Now it is October. We are facing a third asylum crisis next winter and that will not be solved by this legislative change alone.

I would like to use this nuance. Mr. Somers, you also know that from the beginning we have pledged to deal with the Acceptance Act and the asylum procedures together, because they must be addressed together. If not, we will not get there. The asylum procedure is still under discussion, though in another committee, and that has not made it easier. I hope that we can work on it quickly, otherwise this dead letter will remain.

First, the approved proposal states that from now on we will have one Minister for Asylum and Migration. That is also the right thing: one policy, one competent minister that has all the different agencies under its competence, such as the Foreign Affairs Service and Fedasil. This is a very good principle that is finally entered into the law. I hope that the future Prime Minister Di Rupo will also have ears to this and will carry it through. It will be a very tough minister post.

There must be a policy. It is not enough to have a single minister, it must also have a clear vision. This is the minimum requirement for this to be successful. I hope the attendees listened well.

Mr. Somers, you have hinted that the reception is limited to the first application for asylum, though with a nuance that was not well represented in the press, namely that the reception is reopened if the second application for asylum is admissible. N-VA did not want that. We said from the beginning that the reception should be limited to the first full asylum application, then no more.

A compromise has been reached. We are suitable for that. This is one more reason to quickly reconsider the asylum procedure. A second asylum application is only admissible when there are new facts. The definition of “new facts” is set out in the other law. This nuance must be taken into account.

We are very pleased with the principle of voluntary return. My colleague Francken, who is very actively working on this, may later say something more about it. This principle is now incorporated into the law. It is not a dead letter.

We have always been in favour of voluntary return. In a human society, this is much better than a forced return. It is logical that a person who returns voluntarily to his country of origin is a more sustainable solution than a person who returns forcibly. Everyone knows that.

The return route is now registered in the amended Acceptance Act. For a maximum of 30 days, a person may be granted an extended right of reception, provided that he/she enrolls in the voluntary return route.

We are, of course, in favor of voluntary return, but we should not be naive. Of course, every out-processed asylum seeker will initially subscribe to the voluntary return route, but there will have to be a good follow-up of the willingness to return. At regular times, readiness should be checked by the Foreign Relations Service or by Fedasil. The operational cooperation between these two agencies must therefore be good. Otherwise, there will be little voluntary return.

I would like to repeat our principle regarding the reception of EU citizens. The State Council has disagreed with our initial intention not to host EU citizens. The State Council based this on the logic that asylum and reception must be constantly linked. Asylum is a European obligation and we also support it. EU citizens should be able to get asylum. In our opinion, it is only the question of whether they should enjoy reception at all times. EU citizens live in the Schengen area, enjoy the free movement of goods, workers and persons and are therefore fully empowered to go there with or without a work permit to provide for their own maintenance. I regret that we have blindly followed the view of the State Council. I would like to make a few reservations on this. It is about a small group of people. So this will not make the difference, but they are all small signals that I have questions about.

Finally, Mr. Secretary of State, I want to address you. You are now listening to something that Parliament has been working on for one and a half years, while you have been in charge of this policy for more than two years. Everyone who has actively contributed to this bill has asked you week after week about the initiatives you would take to tackle the asylum crisis in the winter. You were asked what you would do to prevent people from having to sleep on the streets and that asylum centres would be populated by people who are actually determined in advance that they are not asylum seekers or that there is a very high chance that they will get a negative decision. Week after week you did nothing and said that this matter does not belong to your sole competence, that it is about different domains and that you depend on many other ministers. Implicitly, you indicated that this issue must be decided at government level in order to be able to conduct a good policy.

Now the Parliament has done that. I hope that soon, if you replicate, you will say that this is a first small step in the right direction. I would like to apply that nuance to somewhat temper the euphoria that Mr. Somers will subsequently reveal.

I hope you do not rest on your laurels now, Mr. Secretary of State. The ongoing matters should not prevent you from taking action on other points relating to the asylum procedure and you should not lie. In this regard, I dare to refer to the famous communication by Mr. De Crem in response to a question from Mr. Francken whether casernes will be closed. It turned out that next month there will be a thousand people on the streets, which is ⁇ inhumane. If that decision was taken on 20 June, it should not be announced now without taking parallel measures to avoid such conditions. At the same time, you announced that three hundred additional shelters are being sought, while there would be nothing at all. Another example is that the current government is not conducting a consensus policy.

Colleagues, hopefully we have been able to prevent or avoid such a fragmented policy being carried out in the future with the introduction of that one minister.

Mr. Speaker, it has been almost a year that we analyze, that we decode this text, the proposals of one and the other, the law of 12 January 2007, the directives Welcome and Return. Some of you, Mr. They know more than others, they know. We have really worked on each other’s proposals to try to find a structural solution to the Fedasil center clogging.

Mrs. Smeyers, it would be dishonest to say that nothing has been done. It should be remembered that Secretary of State Courard has achieved the creation of a little less than 8,400 seats since March 2009. It is true that this has not been enough. We are all aware: the asylum crisis is very real, and we regret it.

I would like to point out that this is not Mr. Courard who has the competence to return asylum seekers, but the Office of Foreigners; you know it very well.

A few weeks ago, the state once again failed to fulfill its obligations by not being able to grant, following an asylum application, the place of reception, the social and legal support to which the asylum seeker was entitled.

Mr. President, Mr. Madrane, (...) numbers. You now indicate that there is constant reference to the competence of another minister. Now you do it yourself. Therefore, it is a reason too much that such an attitude should be eliminated.

However, I would like to remind you that Mr. Courard is competent for the voluntary return. He could have done a voluntary return.

I am continuing. These repeated non-designations raise, before any other consideration, the question of respect for the dignity of asylum seekers and their families, who find themselves on the street, completely deprived. But they also refer to our legal obligations, whether they are national, European or international in matters of reception. This non-compliance with humanitarian law legitimately exposes us to legal sanction. This is how the State is regularly condemned; one will remember those compulsory punishments of which many have been discussed in commission. This non-compliance with humanitarian law is therefore a problem for the state and creates coercive penalties.

Resorption of network saturation is a priority. That is why we have all invested, months through, so that the text put to vote today brings a true answer to the problems encountered on the ground and so that these answers are no longer sparadraps applied to the most visible but ⁇ not the most profound evils.

The original text had many problems. The main and most scandalous, according to the socialist group, was to weigh the entire weight of the proposed reform on the CPAS. They would inherit all the burden: for example, when proposing to remove the right to the reception of asylum seekers whose procedure was still ongoing, the authors exposed the Belgian state to legal convictions, but, in addition, they only referred the problem to the CPAS.

For us, these measures were only a transfer of burden from the federal to the municipalities: removing the material aid to an asylum seeker still in procedure, whatever the reasons, would have liberated seats in reception centers, but above all transferred all the weight on the CPAS.

The original text also provided for the removal of the distribution plan. We could not accept to give up such a provision. In essence, when the federal state fails to fulfill its obligations, this allows to guarantee a minimum of respect, a minimum of dignity to asylum seekers. The maintenance in law of this provision, to which the federal state may resort in exceptional circumstances, is, for us, a great satisfaction.

In this regard, solidarity between all the cities and between all the municipalities of our country is an element to which we attach very great importance. Dear colleagues, after long and rough discussions, after having requested the various instances and heard their opinions, including the CPAS Federation, I can affirm that the text proposed today contains good provisions. The proposed changes are part of an interest in efficiency, in the exchange of information between Fedasil and the Office of Foreigners and there is above all a willingness to hold the asylum seeker accountable.

Furthermore, the choice that was made in this text – and I return to what Ms. Smeyers said – to have a single minister who is competent for both reception and asylum reflects our willingness to rationalize this policy. Attention, Mrs. Smeyers and dear colleagues, rationalization and improvement of the exchange of information are obviously objectives to be achieved but they cannot be done at the expense of the protection of the personal data of asylum seekers. Respect for the privacy of everyone, even for an asylum seeker, is for us a fundamental element that cannot be questioned.

Particular emphasis has also been placed on the return route. We talked about it. This provision – one can even speak of a new concept – aims to give the concerned the possibility to be accompanied in the elaboration of a journey that will result, either on a voluntary departure – for the Socialist Party, it must always be preferred the voluntary departure –, or a forced departure, if necessary. This element is part of a coherent return policy with a much broader framework than that of reception, as has already been said.

While some elements seem positive to us, some provisions obviously satisfy us less. I said it in the committee. I doubt, for example, the relevance of the withdrawal of aid between the time when the procedure relating to the first application of the asylum seeker ends and the time when the second application of the asylum seeker will be deemed admissible by the Foreign Office. In any case, what is important, and it is also the pledge of this text, is that the processing of the admissibility of the files is done as quickly as possible. The whole issue is here!

I will conclude my speech with a call to the next government. Our country will only be able to guarantee a worthy and unconditional reception if, and only if, the processing of applications takes place promptly. The solution to the current crisis is a coherent and homogeneous asylum and migration policy at the European level.

That is why my group and myself are pleased that the bill, which we will support, is part of the transposition of the Directives for Acceptance and Return.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Madrane and also Mr. Courard, I am very happy to hear you say. The PS calls this a step in the right direction. We have been very constructive from the beginning. I am convinced that Mr Di Rupo really meant this in his note. A different approach to migration policy is absolutely necessary. That lives very strongly in Flanders, but I am convinced that it also lives very strongly with many of the PS voters in Brussels and Wallonia.

What really disturbs me is what is coming to us now. Everyone knows that we have 30 % more asylum seekers than last year, and at that time we already had 30 % more asylum seekers than the year before. So far, no crisis measures have been announced. This law will be voted today. We had to wait more than a hundred days for the law on family reunification before it came into force and then the decisions had to be drawn up. For the winter 2011-2012 there will be no impact of this law. Unfortunately, it is too late for that. The law will not come into force until around the beginning or end of February, when the winter is almost over. The first winter spikes are likely to arrive within a few weeks. What will the government do about the crisis response?

I need something from my heart, Mr. Courard. I do not understand something. Mr. Somers also intervened last week. Everything is rough and the end of the government of ongoing affairs is clearly also reached. I interviewed Minister De Crem last week. He said the barracks will be closed on November 30. You say that the barracks will be closed until 31 May 2012. Without the cascades, it goes wrong anyway. That is an element.

The second element that I find very striking is that Minister De Crem tells me that he has not yet received a single question to keep the barracks in Ans open, with 300 seats. You communicate the same day that there are 300 places added in the barracks in Ans. You spray mist. There is no clarity.

I know that this law is a good law, but au fond there is no clarity. I hope that Parliament will finally be able to clarify what will happen to us in the coming months.

In principle, speakers who are not registered are supposed to ask questions to those who speak at the tribune. Of course, we can launch a big debate, but that is not the goal. The aim of the game is to question those who speak to this tribune and not to make the theory. If you wanted to do it, you had to register.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen ministers, colleagues, the asylum and reception crisis in our country, which we have faced for a long time, requires solutions and courage. A number of legal adjustments are needed for the reception of asylum seekers. Over the past year we have worked hard and long in Parliament on the basis of the proposal of Bart Somers to find a solution to the problem. In the end, almost all groups reached a consensus on an amendment.

Mrs. Smeyers, unfortunately to those who envy it, the government in ongoing affairs has also made the reception problem a priority focus. Between 2007 and 2011, capacity increased by 10 000 shelters, almost doubling. You say, along with me, that we cannot create endless shelters. In four years there is a doubling. What can we do more? Should we create hundreds of thousands of places? There will be 200,000 asylum seekers at the door. Enormous efforts have already been made by social organizations, NGOs and the Red Cross. I would like to absolutely thank the Red Cross for the efforts made, including in the fields of defence.

During that period, a budget of 100 million euros was also released. Thus, those who say that nothing happened during the reception crisis are misleading or trying to misrepresent things. That is, of course, the full right of the opposition, but the truth has its full right. The important efforts of the current government should not be ignored.

Does that mean that everything is cake and egg? and no. Does that mean there are no problems? No, because we see them every day.

Despite all efforts, there are still people who have applied for asylum in the cold and still have no shelter. This is especially important when it comes to families with children. It hurts me as a mother. It is very painful to realize that we are not fully in control of the situation.

In order to deal with the problems, various measures will be needed. This was already said here. Not only the law that we will pass today is important. It will also need to work on the influx of asylum seekers. We must, in any case, limit the influx, which has increased enormously in recent times. This will be done, among other things, through disengagement campaigns.

There will also be work to speed up the handling of the files. I now call on the next government to shorten the asylum procedures. By shortening the procedures, we not only provide more and faster clarity to the asylum seeker, who also has the right to do so, which brings more legal certainty. This also creates more places. For example, the places are occupied only half as long. An asylum procedure now takes about a year. If we can go to six months, one can accommodate twice as many people, provided, of course, that one also realizes the third step, the outflow.

However, let me talk about the second step, the faster flow. I would like to express my thanks to the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, who has struck a tooth. In the last month, the CGVS increased the number of files it handled by 71 %. It has handled 1,741 files. Last year at this time it was much lower.

As I have also said, and this is not insignificant, one must build a closure to that asylum procedure – every application comes to an end – and that is the return policy.

The Government has currently prepared a draft law that provides for the transposition of the Return Directive. Hopefully we will be able to discuss and approve this after the holiday next week in Parliament. It will be an en-en-story, with this proposal, which we will approve today, and with the draft of the government. This is also absolutely necessary.

The [...]

That’s what I said, Mrs. Smeyers; that six months. You didn’t listen, but you beat a whistle. It is forgiven you, but I have explicitly said everything about it.

It is therefore absolutely necessary that we approve the bill here, so that we can find applications in the Return Directive for other target groups as well. These target groups are more difficult to convince or have already been ordered to leave the territory for the twenty-seventh time, but have not yet done so. The aforementioned directive defines not only the groups, but also the quality and the stringent nature of what can be done for certain groups.

The present proposal must therefore really be seen in conjunction with the government’s draft. The basis for the right of reception is determined by the enforceability of the order to leave the territory.

The material assistance to the asylum seekers, which we also include in the proposal, will be guaranteed throughout the entire asylum procedure, until the expulsion order becomes enforceable. If, therefore, the asylum procedure ends and the asylum seeker is ordered to leave the territory within thirty days, reception is also guaranteed within that thirty-day period.

Depending on the cooperation between the relevant services and on the voluntary entry of the asylum seeker on the route, it may even be possible, if necessary, to extend the period. The extension can occur for all kinds of circumstances. She may come there, because it is about a pregnant woman who is about to give birth. She can get there because an airplane is only available later. The extension can occur for a variety of reasons. As long as the voluntary return is supported, the reception is guaranteed.

For those who do not cooperate, there is a partnership between Fedasil and DVZ, to force the person concerned more. Those who do not voluntarily return will be forced to repatriate.

With the proposal, we want to make one minister responsible for everything that has to do with asylum. This does not mean that we will combine the services. The Foreign Affairs Service, the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless and Fedasil will be organized, as is the case today, but a minister will coordinate the policy. This establishes a very important principle in a legislative text and allows for better coordination between the services that handle the asylum dossiers, those who take care of the reception and those who take care of the removal.

From now on, the automatic extension of the reception for multiple requests is no longer a matter of course. There is accommodation at the first application, possibly at the second and third also, but only and only insofar as the application has been declared admissible by DVZ. This is to prevent individuals from unjustly applying for accommodation. Here a filter is clearly built in, so that one guarantees only reception to those who correctly submit a second application.

Fifty-eight percent of those who have submitted a second application receive a yes, because one has rightly submitted a second application. This figure cannot be neglected. One cannot expose those persons, to have to take them back a week later. This would create a lot of problems in the reception center.

Finally, as requested by some OCMW chairs and a Attorney General, we will also address a number of abuses. We were indeed not talking about the tone in which something was said, but we acknowledge that there are problems on the ground. I think of the abuse of the social system and social assistance.

Therefore, it is good that we have taken the opportunity to prohibit EU residents – which has nothing to do with asylum seekers – from entering the OCMW once they are registered. They may only receive support from the OCMW after a waiting period.

By the way, if an EU resident constitutes an unreasonable tax for the OCMW, that OCMW has the right to report that to DVZ. The person concerned may then lose his residence permit.

In short, this proposal – the bill of Mr. Somers was the basis for this and we have amended it together – must be incorporated with the government’s draft. This will ensure that we give those affected the opportunity to return voluntarily. Voluntary does not mean non-binding. If possible, it will happen voluntarily, but if necessary, the return will become mandatory; that is then the only remaining option.

I don’t think we should be accused of being inhuman or harsh. They are simply necessary and logical measures, if we want to close the asylum procedure, if we want to continue to provide accommodation to everyone who has the right to it, if we want to protect people in this way and if we want to ensure that there is a support for it. We must protect those who are entitled to it, but we must also exclude abuse. This proposal provides an important contribution to this.

Finally, I would like to thank the colleagues, and in particular the initiator of this proposal, Mr. Somers, as well as all the colleagues who have contributed to the creation of the amendment and the amendments we have jointly implemented. It proves once again that we can do a really good job from the Parliament. I hope that we can continue to do so in the future, for example in the field of nationality legislation. I invite you to do so, but that is for after the leave.

In December 2010, the Committee on Public Health, Environment and Renewal of the Society began the examination of the bill proposed by Mr. Somers amending legislation in order to resolve the asylum crisis. The occupation rate of the reception centers is currently about 96%.

Given the lack of reception places and the many problems that arise from them, action was needed to resolve what was agreed to call the reception crisis. Some measures were taken urgently, but they did not solve the problem. More measures were needed and it is up to the legislator to help the government implement its policy properly.

During the work of the committee, this bill has been amended several times, before resulting in a text that the majority of our colleagues today support. I will not go back in detail on the terms of the text but I would like to draw your attention to a few important changes to the Accommodation Act.

The purpose of this bill is double. It is about granting asylum to those who are entitled to it, because the essence of the asylum policy is that a person who has reasons to apply for asylum must have the opportunity to take refuge and be welcomed in Belgium. It is also about ensuring that displaced asylum seekers are effectively returned to their country of origin. It is established that if the procedures were followed and followed, and if the displaced persons permanently left the territory, the situation would be less critical than it is.

Asylum should no longer be a gateway to forcing access to artificial residence. The proposed law allows to facilitate the return of foreigners who have been removed from their asylum procedure to their country of origin as part of a voluntary return.

One of the major problems of the asylum crisis is that the incoming flow of asylum seekers is far too large compared to the outgoing flow. Voluntary or forced return should be a priority for the coming months. Therefore, the inclusion in the law of a voluntary return procedure and the return journey constitutes an advance.

The return trip is an individual accompaniment offered by Fedasil for return from abroad. This accompaniment is offered to all asylum seekers displaced no later than five days after the negative decision of the CGRA and allows, to a certain extent, to extend the reception of those who cooperate and actively participate in their return.

Everyone agrees that forced return must remain a subsidiary solution. But, for the first time, voluntary return is no longer a vague principle, since it is immersed in a law. I hope that the asylum seekers concerned will understand the interest that this return journey represents, even though I do not push the candle to believe that all applicants at the end of the procedure will integrate into a voluntary return journey.

Therefore, controls and, if necessary, sanctions will be required.

The material aid granted to asylum seekers is now better structured, which responds to a need that has become imperative for a long time. It is evident that material assistance has been a determining factor in attracting migration to Belgium.

The conditions for granting this aid are now clearer, which we welcome.

As long as the asylum seeker remains in the asylum procedure and demonstrates cooperation, he can count on material assistance. However, it is clearly stated in the bill that only applications based on elements that actually fall within the framework of refugee protection will be able to open the corresponding rights of assistance and reception.

From the second application, without new element, these rights will be suspended from now on until the file is better grounded. This also puts an end to the illusions of some, encouraged by the current law, who hoped that the multiplication of procedures could eventually lead them to a regularization.

It is mainly because of these clear labels that our group will support this text, which is, in addition, in accordance with the current European directives. This is a first constructive step that seems necessary to support.

That being said, we do not lose sight of the fact that the bill that is now subject to the vote of this assembly is not the miracle solution. As the author is pleased to acknowledge, this proposal alone does not address all issues of migration and asylum. This would require further measures and, first of all, a comprehensive reform of the return policy.

The asylum policy must be adapted in its entirety in order to ⁇ better results.

In addition, things would be much easier if a single minister was competent for all aspects of asylum and immigration policy, for reception, asylum, stay and return policy in the country of origin. Indeed, the asylum crisis is also a management crisis that can only be solved by adopting a single and coherent policy of the problem as a whole.

Better cooperation between the competent authorities for stay and reception is also essential. It would be greatly facilitated if, as we hope, this minister knew how to ensure the coordination between all the stakeholders involved. This will be one of the tasks of the next government.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, doing nothing is very rarely a correct solution. This is ⁇ related to the problem of asylum seekers. Asylum seekers do not disappear from the field of sight when one looks from the other side. On the contrary, the problem only becomes bigger, more invisible and more chaotic, just like the frustration.

It is about the frustration of those who enter the country, the asylum seekers themselves. Don’t make a mistake, no one finds it pleasant to leave his country and his homeland for a future without perspective and to dwell in a strange country whose language or customs one knows, where one is thousands of kilometers away from everything that was previously familiar, a place where one has no family, friends or social network to fall on. However, there is also frustration with the services responsible for the reception and reception of asylum seekers. It is not a pleasant prospect to have to bring the bad news day after day to people who have nothing with them but a suitcase full of hope. For many people who work in these reception centers this ends up burning out, let’s not forget that too. There is also frustration among the citizens of this country. Public opinion swings between, on the one hand, compassion for asylum seekers, especially during the cold winter months, and, on the other hand, anger over the inconvenience they bring in certain neighborhoods. The frustration is also here, colleagues, in this hemisphere. It’s frustration over a file that continues to squeeze, about a crisis that has been going on for three years. Let me give you a few figures. Last week on Monday 180 asylum seekers were not allocated, on Tuesday there were 78, on Wednesday 55, on Thursday 24 and so on. The tragic threshold of 10 000 unattended asylum seekers since 2009 was surpassed on 27 September – in the meantime – considerably.

I do not want to deny that the current government has done nothing in the ongoing affairs. On the contrary, a number of things happened. There have indeed been places created, but we still sit with the problem.

Colleagues, our country recognizes the right of people to seek a safe home when threatened by war, violence and oppression.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize this right. Actions must also be taken to implement that right in practice. Especially when the large influx of refugees and deficiencies in the existing system is undergoing a crisis that threatens to emerge as an oil leak.

More just rules need to be set up so that people who come here in search of a new and better life quickly know whether their happiness is really here, whether they can actually stay here or not.

It should also be clear that we cannot take all the suffering of the whole world on us. We must ensure that people are taken care of as long as they are in the process of recognition.

This agreement already has a great merit, the advantage of clarity in a number of areas.

First, this agreement provides the right to accommodation for people in need. The right to material accommodation – not financial assistance, but material accommodation – during the entire procedure and thus until the possible negative decision of the CGVS or the Council for Foreign Disputes, is once again formally confirmed.

We would like to go further, my colleagues. The right to material reception should also apply in the procedure of the administrative cassation appeal before the Council of State. Indeed, these are very few individuals, but these people have already been hit by a filter and we consider that we should still be able to provide a shelter for them as long as they remain in the territory. I therefore ask the colleagues to further consider this problem and resolve it in the future.

A second clarification is the emphasis on voluntary return. This voluntary return is currently anchored in the law. This is a crucial element in the reception story.

People who come to our country to build a better life here will benefit from knowing quickly if our country is willing to provide them with that future. If the answer is no, if the application is rejected, everyone, whether the rejected asylum seeker, our country, or all of us, has every interest in ensuring that the voluntary return proceeds smoothly.

It is therefore good that the law provides for guidance and assistance when returning to the country of origin. In fact, a sustainable reintegration is vital for the rejected asylum seeker and in the interests of all parties.

The agreement also stipulates that the time given to rejected asylum seekers to prepare for their return will be extended by up to 25 days. In total, people have 30 days to organize and complete their return trip. This is a major improvement compared to the current situation, where one actually gets the order to leave the territory within 5 days.

A third aspect relates to a number of stricter rules in the agreement, such as the disconnection of the automatic renewal of the right to accommodation in the case of a second application, unless that second application is declared admissible, because then one is again entitled to accommodation. As I have said earlier, it is in everyone’s interest that asylum seekers get clarified very quickly, so that the hope that some abuse must no longer be a lot but they will get a decision very quickly.

Fourth, the citizens of the EU. EU citizens can still apply for asylum. However, a second aspect is at least equally important. For the first three months of their stay, EU citizens can no longer make use of OCMW support. This is important because all OCMWs can now act in the same way and there will no longer be any competition or overlapping operations in this area.

Finally, there will be a minister who will be responsible for the entire asylum and migration policy. In this way, there can be no more backcoat battles and the black piet should no longer be moved through. That one minister will be able to conduct a coordinated and coherent policy.

Colleagues, for us, this agreement is a step in the right direction, but it is ⁇ not the end point. We still have a lot of work to do. We must definitely improve the asylum procedure in our country even further. This agreement is ⁇ not the walhalla. It is not a miracle remedy by which the problems that have been raised for years will disappear in one-two-three. In the short term, we will have to do something to address the crisis that is now taking place, and which will surely be at the door again tomorrow, when winter comes.

The future government – or, if not yet, the current government in ongoing affairs – will have to take a number of temporary accommodation measures so as to enable asylum seekers to get through this winter.

We hope that this legislation will provide a structural solution for the future. Therefore, we will support the bill and the amendments with full conviction. I can only thank the applicant, Mr. Somers, and all the colleagues who have worked hard on it for months, for having been able to reach this text.

One of the essential tasks of Parliament is to respond to the problems and challenges facing our society. We must do this through the modification or renewal of legislation.

This is exactly what we have been trying to do for the last year and a half for a terribly difficult social domain where there are terribly difficult problems. We did it – and that is remarkable – with a lot of parties, on the left and on the right side of the political hemisphere, which proved willing to shake hands. Being well aware that we had to take into account the elaborate international regulations and the existing jurisprudence, we sought common answers. Per ⁇ we could do it, precisely because there was no government and because we had more freedom to build bridges, seek compromises and find a new balance.

I have been a member of this Assembly for 12 years. For me, it was one of the most exciting moments to discuss with colleagues from different political formations across party boundaries sometimes loudly, but always in an open and correct atmosphere.

I hope that with the new government some of that openness, some of that possibility to work on new regulations in Parliament, will remain. I think I can say this on behalf of all the people who have worked on this. I would like to thank them all for the collegial and correct way of working together.

This bill seeks to formulate answers to two different societal problems that have affected our country and the population for a very long time. They also confront us with scary and often inhumane conditions. They put pressure on our social protection, depict the powerlessness of the government for too long and undermine the credibility of the State. What are these two problems?

The first social problem is that of our OCMWs in cities, with Ghent as the most well-known example – which, I suppose, will have to do with the popularity and eloquence of the local mayor – but not as the only city, which are faced with an unfair migration stream of people from EU countries who arrive here and very quickly find their way to the OCMW, to appeal there to the social protection we have to offer. Through an adaptation of the OCMW Act, we try to stop this and to stop an inappropriate migratory flow. For three months, what the European regulations allow us, we deny people who support for their stay. For job seekers, this is a little longer. This is the first social problem that we are trying to address within a European framework.

The second, even more fundamental and difficult problem, is the reception crisis. It has lasted too long and must, in all honesty, bring us all the shame on our cheeks. Mrs. Temmerman, Mrs. Lanjri, I remember a debate a year ago in The Seventh Day on the VRT. We were all there together. I went out there with an archis-poor feeling, the feeling where politicians argue with each other and fly each other in the hair, while outside hundreds or thousands of people are in the cold. Impotent, unable to deal in one of the most prosperous countries in the world in a humane way with those residing on our territory.

Obviously something happened. We have increased the number of shelters from 16 000 to 23 000. However, despite all our efforts, we note that today 47 asylum seekers were again put on the streets. Sometimes they are families, sometimes single people, who are now on the streets. Our society is worthless. I am ashamed of that. At the same time, the number of asylum seekers is increasing day by day. Last year 20 000, this year, Mr. Secretary of State, probably more than 30 000.

The question is what we as Parliament can do about this. I think that with this law we have tried not to give a comprehensive answer, but rather to make some important, fundamental changes within the framework of the reception law that were very difficult to discuss for years. For years, we are sometimes beaten by our own prejudices and dogmas, let us be honest in that. We have made breakthroughs there and made fundamental changes. I remember four.

First, we have chosen to limit the reception and thus save capacity to principally the first reception. If a second reception is declared justified and admissible, the same applies to the second reception. This reduces the appeal on the reception network.

Second, through this law, we try to give back credibility to the order to leave the territory. Today is that, unfortunately, too often an unspoken piece of paper, somewhat brutally speaking, a vodje paper, which is issued without effective consequences on the ground.

How do we try to do that? We try to do so by giving the order to leave the territory again an enforceable character and by making very clear that those who are rejected are immediately ordered to leave the territory. We link both and we then give the people 30 days to organize themselves to effectively leave the territory. During these 30 days the right of reception runs. In this way we reinforce the credibility of our rule of law. We also give a clear signal to those who are faced with the difficult given that they must return, so that they can understand and do it in a good context.

Thirdly, within those 30 days, we are committed to an effective return. Mr. Madrane, you have since said: “We socialists of the PS prefer in the first place a voluntary return.” Voluntary return is always preferable. It is human. It is much more human. It is more efficient. It guarantees much more opportunities for the person to re-integrate in the country of origin. It also makes it much easier to enable an effective expulsion policy in practice.

We write in the law that at the beginning of the 30-day period the DVZ immediately receives all information to guide and prepare the return. One of the problems – let’s not forget about it – was the lack of information flow between the various services of our state. The two secretaries of state will undoubtedly bear that. By entering that now in the law, the information is transmitted immediately.

For those who do not want to cooperate on a voluntary return route, for those who refuse to do so or withdraw after time, follows the regrettable, by me absolutely not chosen and difficult, but necessary, forced return to the country of origin.

Fourth, the last change to which I call attention is the access to the overloaded reception network, which we want to limit by, among other things, addressing forms of abuse and by making people more responsible. Those who have sufficient financial resources themselves must, according to the law, be responsible for their reception. From those who have financial resources, but who retain them, the State can recover them. Anyone who leaves or refuses to leave his shelter without reason may be excluded from the right to shelter.

Finally, it is also not insignificant that the person who prefers to go to friends, family or acquaintances and thus decompose the reception network by allowing others to take care of him or her, should be given the possibility, as provided by law, to again enjoy official reception, when the friends, acquaintances or family members are no longer able or willing to take care of the reception.

Thus I have identified four fundamental changes.

Will the amendment to the Acceptance Act affect the asylum crisis temporarily or structurally? Let us be honest in this matter. The asylum crisis is not solved only by legislation, but by implementing a policy. What we can do is give the executive power the legal framework that should allow it to deal better with the reception. However, we members of Parliament are not able to solve the crisis on the ground itself. That is impossible.

Nevertheless, we provide a policy framework and take a step further than our capacity as a legislator actually imposes on us. In the present law, we will determine the way in which the executive power should organize itself. As a lawyer, I find that a bold and very extensive intervention, which comes very close to the question of whether we are not provoking the separation of powers in this regard.

What do we do? We point out the executive power on one of its fundamental problems, namely that the powers relating to reception and asylum are spread across different ministers. We will now organize the respective powers and concentrate them in one hand. We unite them, under the responsibility and authority of one minister. This is what the Parliament now decides, to encourage, persuade, motivate and actually force the government to address the issue in a more uniform and more structured manner in the future.

After all, the asylum crisis is not only a problem of legislation, but is above all a problem of management and a problem of credibility of policy. I clarify myself.

Mr. Somers, it may be strong what I declare now, but I congratulate you on the bill. It is a complaint compared to what has happened in recent years.

In my humble opinion, your party has been in power since 1999. Since then we have experienced a few general pardons, or a few dumb general pardons. We have experienced the fast-Belgwet, the immigrant voting right, the family reunification and we have put our passports in the solde.

I am surprised by the following. You talked about duplication. Which governments have implemented the doubling? I have known, for example, your group chairman as the Minister of Internal Affairs, who at that time was also responsible for asylum policy.

The doubling occurred during the policy of the Open Vld, which was in government for twelve years. In heaven one converter is happier than ten believers. There may also be twelve.

So this is a step in the right direction and I will approve the bill. Referring to the policies in the past, however, I think that you must put your hand in your own belly and acknowledge that a large part of the responsibility lies with you.

Mr. Dedecker, I would like to answer the following.

First and foremost, I am pleased that you acknowledge, understand, admit and support that this is an important mismatch in the policy. I also welcome your support for this, because I am glad when a political party, a political group, joins in support of a bill.

Secondly, you didn’t listen so well. In fact, I started my speech by saying that we all need to put our hand in our own belly with regard to the crisis. I am also ashamed of this, but the policy needs to be changed.

Third, I would like to remind you that we started working on the present bill one and a half years ago. Some members of parliament laughed at it. They thought it would be nothing, and did not come to the committee meetings; the bill was, according to them, a dead-born child, it was for the façade.

I will not say who said all that, Mr. Dedecker, but he left then. I am delighted to see him again today in the plenary session to hear that he is now satisfied with the work we have done for one and a half years.

There are two positions possible. Either one stands on the side – and there are the best stewards, which the people of Oostende should know – or one sits in the boat and tries to reach a port. That is what we have done. We were not rowers on the shore; we tried to sail somewhere with the boat. You yourself acknowledge that we have come somewhere that the effort is worth paying.

Mr. Somers, I am not God the Father, so my omnipresence is quite difficult. I am just coming from the meeting on the establishment of a special committee on Dexia. I can hardly point to other people in my group to take my place.

It is not always obvious that in the Chamber, where there are sixteen committees, all matters are to be followed alone. Therefore, I formulate my comments here. After all, everything that is said in the committee meetings comes to light here again in the plenary meetings. I use this opportunity to express my opinion here.

I had come to the point that the asylum crisis in a large degree is actually also a management crisis. What do I mean with this? One of the major problems in controlling the asylum crisis is, as we all know, that we are faced with different departments, different organizations and government agencies that are overwhelmed, difficult or poorly communicate with each other and are insufficiently integrated. Everyone has already admitted that, from left to right. This leads to insufficient interconnection of procedures and creates delays, legal uncertainty and opening-ups to conduct procedures. The absolute task for the future Minister of Asylum and Migration is to better manage this, to better align it with each other, and to try, as in Sweden, through an audit to find out where to accelerate that process, where to make the procedures more interconnected and where to ⁇ still need to make technical changes to the KBs and the legislation.

There is a second, even more fundamental task, and that is the credibility of the policy. As long as we are unable to implement and implement a credible, human but efficient return policy on the ground, as long as we are unable to humanely bring enough people who have been prosecuted and therefore remain here without legal papers to their countries of origin, so long that asylum crisis will continue. Nowadays, in important parts of the world, we are seen as a country where one can be executed. This, for me, is one of the most fundamental challenges of working on this dossier. After all, there are the greatest social dramas and the greatest human injustice.

After all, what is the best selling argument that organized crime and human traffickers have when they in a third country knock people money out of their pockets, try to convince them to leave have and good and migrate to our country? When is their argument strongest, when do they get the best sold? If they can tell people that they can go to Belgium and apply for asylum, that they will be welcomed there and that, if their asylum application is rejected at some point, they can try again to get themselves regularized. They tell them that even if they have gone through the whole procedure, if they are rejected and prosecuted and without legal papers, they can still remain in that country. If they remain there long enough, then there may be a collective regularization again. This is the strongest selling argument for organized crime and human traffickers.

Another important issue I have encountered myself as mayor. As long as one does not restore the credibility of the policy for the return policy, one puts people before an impossible choice. People who have been prosecuted face the choice of returning voluntarily or accompanied, or to immerse themselves in the illegality.

They have the choice to stay here in the illegality. This is especially important for families with children who have been in school for some time. It is a disruptive choice. Well, we only make that choice more difficult. We do that people choose the illegality, in the hope that one can still remain, yet can survive and one may eventually be regulated in the long run. We deprive the power of the argument to return accompanied and human when one has progressed.

I come to my third point. The clients of the illegal economy and of the exploitation, who must live and work in the most inhuman conditions, which remind the time of Daens, are the outcast. These are the people in the illegality.

Where do farmers get their customers? They bring their customers to those who are outgoing and can’t go anywhere. So the whole story of an effective return policy is absolutely not a classic left-right confrontation. It is a human task to do so, to protect people from exploitation, from human trafficking, from house milkers, from the fact that they end up in the illegal economy.

Finally, such situations also undermine the power of a multicultural society. It gives a misconception of what a society in diversity could be.

Colleagues, therefore, there must be an effective return policy, alongside better management of asylum procedures, alongside the legislative framework. That is the mission. That’s not hard right policy, that’s a human policy, that gives people opportunities and perspective and prevents people from getting into the hands of human traffickers and others who exploit them.

I decide . With this proposal, we as Parliament have done our part of the work. The legal framework is there. It is now up to the government, the future government, to that one Minister of Asylum and Migration, to implement a strong, credible and humane policy on the ground.

Mr. Somers, you have moved me a little. You are always angry at the return policy, which is undermined by the current asylum and migration policies.

You have rightly referred to the regularization policy, which is a dumbster on the ability to carry out a good return policy. I hope that Open Vld in the next government will not allow a second general regularization.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I missed a large part of the discussion, because the topic is close to my heart. I have already stood at the speaker’s desk a few times today on other topics, but also on this dossier I have – Mr. Somers can confirm this – worked to my best, although I got involved only late.

I share the concerns of the previous speaker. I notice the consequences on the population and also on asylum seekers themselves. It is very important that we carry out a constructive, human and at the same time business and very clear policy.

The proposed amended bill aims, among other things, to ensure that an order to leave the territory is no longer just a piece of paper and no longer remains without effect. Let me be clear: my group fully supports this. We have said that in the committee. When someone comes to the end of his procedure, it is intended that he returns, ideally voluntarily, and if it cannot otherwise, through a good procedure, forced.

This is a very important principle. Why should I start with it? This is, for us, the core of the proposal on which we have been working: the voluntary return, which is emphasized.

Mrs. Almaci, I have understood that you are the new spokesman for the migration dossier. Mrs. Brems is no longer visible.

She is in China.

I have the impression that it has nothing to do with China, but rather that it has been intervened, because her vision of, for example, family reunification testified to world alienation.

I hear you say that the order to leave the territory for you should not be a vodje paper. You say that on behalf of your entire group. Have I understood correctly that the indivisible Ecolo-Green! group is withdrawing from the 2010 Ecological Party program, which wanted the abolition of the closed centers and not a forced return? Is it true that you have a new line, a more Antwerp line, with the hot breath of Patrick Janssens and Bart De Wever in the neck, namely that forced return and closed centres can be?

First of all, I will make it clear to you that no one has allowed me to get a hot breath in my neck. Second, you can draw your own conclusions, but Mrs. Brems is still working at the university and she is a very important adviser in the framework of human rights activities. She is important to me, who has taken this from her, because she is very busy.

Regarding the position of the group in this dossier, I can communicate the following. In the meetings, we have made it very clear that we are absolutely in favour of voluntary return. We believe much more in return homes than in closed centers. As a stick behind the door – when other procedures have failed – one can decide on a procedure that is much less voluntary, namely a forced procedure.

Whether the closed centers are the best means for this, we have a different idea about it and we look at examples from abroad that demonstrate that it can be different, provided good guidance. This is the position of our group. Here, today and indivisible. I know that this is not always easy for you to go into this. However, it is so, and that is also the position that we have taken in the committee on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Almaci, I do not understand this. You say you are in favour of voluntary return. Mr Madrane and Mr Somers also agree on voluntary return. We, the nationalists, are also in agreement. We also support voluntary return. We also know that this is happening more in Sweden. I have no problem working there too.

You should be well aware that, if at the end of a process the voluntary return is not an option, there must be a forced return. Without closed centers, you have no forced return. That is very clear. Forced return cannot be arranged without closing the persons concerned at least twenty-four hours before departure. You can tell me a lot, but you can’t.

I take note of the fact that the Ecolo-Groen! group – and thus also Mrs. Genot – has changed its position and is in favor of forced return and closed centres. That is a very interesting change in your point of view and your ideological current.

Your interest in the programs of others is admirable. I do not share much of your views. It is not a piece of paper. There is a shortage of procedures, resources, personnel, performance and efficiency. We agree on this. At the end, there should be a clear pathway for return, voluntarily with guidance and if that fails, then there is the stick behind the door. Our vision of the closed centers and the applied methodology is different from yours. This is not the subject of discussion today. The transposition of the Directive will be implemented soon. I would like to discuss this with you extensively. I see that you need it. I invite you to the meeting of our group regarding those topics, because it is just a little more complicated than that. We are willing to inform you about our program. In recent years, our group has submitted a number of proposals to improve the performance of the asylum procedure.

Today’s discussion goes hand in hand with the transposition of the directive to which I just referred. I regret that the discussions are not joined together. They join together. If the State Council’s opinion refers to a directive, it is strange that it is not available during the debate. It is often mentioned in further discussions.

For us, a reception policy must be humane and effective. Today, ten thousand people are on the streets. So it is not human and obviously not effective. In their interest it is necessary to make the right choices. From Mr. Somers’ explanation, I note very clearly that it is not only a debate about a better reception law and a faster procedure, but also about addressing those who effectively exploit people on the labour and housing market.

In this regard, Mr. Francken, we also have suggestions. I invite you to raise a tree with us very soon, among other things, on the main liability, because so far not too much work has been done on this subject.

In this regard, I would like to express my concern about the exercise we have done. She has been ⁇ constructive and there has been a very long way in the committee from the initial text to the end.

Of the eight questions with which we had begun and which all have been solved, two questions have remained on which, at the end, the parties that eventually approved the bill did not share the same view. These two questions even led to the suspension of the committee meeting.

It was primarily about the right to accommodation in the period between the first and the second application. We assumed in the committee that a notification to leave the territory would be given when the first application was rejected. That period would be 30 days. You can always make a second request. What if someone submits that second application on the twenty-nine day? We have asked the question. We had submitted an amendment to provide people with accommodation in the period between the first and second application. It was then rightly said that it can be extended to the infinite.

Mrs Lanjri, let me finish my reasoning for a moment. I know you would like to speak on this.

This second application can be submitted. It has been said that the consideration of that second application by the Foreign Affairs Service will take seven days. We have then said, if that is the starting point, let us confidently believe that this will last seven days.

Let us then say for all clarity, in the protection of those who are not always well informed of procedures with a sharp deadline, that they have until the twenty-third day to sign an appeal. In that case, they have seven days within those thirty days when the Foreign Affairs Service can examine their second application, so that they do not fall without material support. Half of these applications are approved.

Ms. Lanjri has said that people can always get an exception. This is indeed the case. People can always apply for another exception from the Foreign Affairs Service. However, this is arbitrary.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Almaci, we have worked on this proposal for almost a year. You will be involved only later. We discussed this in the committee for hours. The comments you make now, we have already discussed there.

We have received from Mr. Seminara and Mrs. Van Den Ende a wonderful report in which you are also quoted and in which all your questions and suggestions, which you re-formulate today, have already been mentioned by Mr. Seminara.

I have no problem with the fact that each group here today again brings a brief statement and emphasizes the accents for its group, but I hope that here tonight we will not again overtake the whole debate in the committee, Mrs. Almaci.

Now you also say yourself that you have said this and that and what I have said. We know that and that is stated in the report. I hope that you stick to the core of the matter and that we can move forward. There is no intention of repeating the debate in the committee here. Otherwise, we left for another year.

Let’s try to have shorter interventions. There is no point in resuming the discussion. I would like to point out, for information, that two speakers still have to speak. In addition, there is a rapporteur and two speakers for the next debate, then a rapporteur and three speakers, and finally two rapporteurs and six speakers. Personally, I have time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lanjri, allow me to point out in my presentation today where I see obstacles. I know you do not like this. I know that the committee was suspended for that. However, I have the right to say in a plenary session what I think is a fair solution to that problem.

If you would approve our amendments, which we will submit again later, over the period between the first and the second application, then this creates clarity, avoids this arbitrary and is very sharp in timing. For us, this is also perfectly aligned with the spirit of this legislative change. I sincerely believe this and therefore I reiterate this. We held this debate during the suspension of that committee because we recognized that there was a problem there. We have not asked to extend this to infinity. We have made it very clear that we want to go in the spirit of the amendment and the constructive atmosphere. We agreed to make people diet that they can make a second application. However, the 23rd day is the limit, because the majority has sworn us that the Foreign Affairs Service can give a response within seven days. I think this is a very reasonable question that fits perfectly with the spirit of your law.

My second comment is more fundamental. I will keep it brief because you have already read it all and the general public will undoubtedly read it too. I am referring to Article 6b. There was a lot of commotion when I asked the question of the proposed arrangement granting the right to material assistance during the asylum procedure and after the expiration of that procedure any right to material assistance expires. There is a problem. I assume that this is an unintended consequence, taking into account the responses I have received in the committee from, among other things, the N-VA. This is about the 1% of asylum seekers who enter a difficult procedure, namely the heavy filter of the State Council, and also no longer have the right to material reception. Anyone who knows this filter knows that it is not obvious to get through it. It is a small group, but it is completely illogical that this group would no longer receive material accommodation. The answer to this was that this would be addressed in the future directive, which is not yet in place at the moment. I am very willing to go a long way, but soon we will vote on a budget amendment that reduces the funds for the reception by more than 2 million euros at a time when 10 000 people are on the streets and you in this legislation – as you know, I am not around the table at the negotiations, and until today I have nothing in my hands – have only included a verbal commitment to do something about it.

Whoever puts the pieces of the puzzle side by side finds that this is unfair. This is neither human nor business.

I look forward to the next legislation to see the commitment. However, the first text of the transposition of the Directive which I have seen does not warn of this. There is no solution.

Mrs. Lanjri, I am sorry to put this topic again for discussion, but just you were ⁇ concerned at the time when we raised that topic in the committee. I say that in the same constructive atmosphere. The two points I cited here created enough consternation within the parties working around that bill to suspend the meeting long enough.

To demonstrate the concern, I would like to point out that Mr Madrane, despite the fact that he approved the whole, clearly abstained on that point. Ms. Smeyers also made a statement on that point.

I think that is a pity for the constructive operation and the two proposals we have formulated. This is why I am proposing an amendment today. We had submitted two proposals to improve the law, but at the end of the ride – possibly under time pressure, I don’t know, and I don’t even want to make that process – that couldn’t be arranged. I find that regrettable. I hope that the commitment will be fulfilled in the light of the Directive. The first text I saw, however, does not warn of this.

Dear colleagues, put the puzzle pieces side by side. With the bill, which we will vote over later, much less resources will go to the reception. There is now an uncertainty. However, two reasonable amendments were not approved. There is, therefore, clear uncertainty among those who made that bill. There is also consternation in the workplace itself.

I admit that this bill has undergone a huge change of shape, in very short time. I have contributed to this with my best ability. A strong work.

However, from the afternoon before until the morning at 09:40, the text has undergone four to five amendments. If one puts everything side by side and yet makes those two comments, then I think it is logical that we think and timely, given the fact that the law comes into force only on 31 March 2012, together with the directive. We had time, we could have done it. I myself think that we should have done it too: that remove technical gaps, create clarity, give people the tools within a sharp timing and at the same time be human. It could have.

We have two amendments. I hope you still approve them. In this case, we can approve the bill. If you do not approve our amendments, please allow me to say that this discussion is virtually, because we do not have the directive today.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Secretary of State, we have heard it a few times: for several years, the crises in the asylum reception have followed each other. We all know the images of pregnant women or mothers with children who, even in harsh weather conditions, end up on the streets. We are aware of emergency reception in hotel rooms and barracks, much longer than legally permitted, and of the sentences of Fedasil, up to 500 euros fine per person per day, if no reception can be offered.

At the end of 2010, 82 asylum seekers, of the 600 who had brought a trial against the Belgian State that year, had already received a total of €330,000 in coercive fines. We all know it, because here in this Parliament the various responsible ministers and secretaries of state were questioned about it to the boredom.

I don’t know if you also read the interesting article on Knack Online, about the thirty-one episode of the asylum crisis. This was their 229th article. So we have been working on it for a while. Despite all these circumstances, in Parliament for almost a year, a bill proposed to amend the legislation with a view to addressing the asylum crisis has been rumored.

I am convinced – we have just heard it – that the signatories and proposers of the bill are very proud of it and may call it a school example of democratic parliamentary functioning, across all party boundaries of majority and opposition, to the extent that one can talk about it in the absence of a government. It might be better to talk about a compromise or a spaghetti from left to right, as Mr. Somers has called it, with the exception of the stunts of the Flemish Interest, because they were not allowed to participate. I would like to ask for a few minutes of your time.

We have therefore thoroughly studied that bill and the problemology and have used our democratic right to submit amendments, but it has not all had much benefit. The final bill, the other amendment, became only a very thin beast, also in proportion to the original proposal of Mr. Somers and the proposal submitted for that purpose by Mrs. Sarah Smeyers of the N-VA.

However, it was sold to the media as a substantial effort and the media, including Gazet van Antwerpen and De Morgen, naturally took it over from Mr. Bart Somers. “The law on the reception of asylum seekers is significantly tightened and the mandatory reception of asylum seekers is limited to the first asylum application,” the newspaper read.

However, the explanation to Article 4 of the bill was very clear: “If they,” asylum seekers, “because of a subsequent application that is being considered again obtained a right of residence, they can again invoke the right to reception.”

It is true that the submission of a second application no longer automatically extends the right to reception, but a limitation of the asylum reception does not mean that there is a limitation in the number of times one can submit an asylum application.

This addresses one of the symptoms, namely the overcrowded asylum centres, but not the illness, namely the abuse of the right to asylum.

There are undoubtedly also positive elements in the proposal, elements that extend further and which we can, of course, also approve. I think, for example, of the proposal to make one minister responsible for the entire asylum and migration dossier. I think everyone agrees that this is an absolute necessity to unblock the file. However, it is not yet a guarantee.

Another positive element is the restriction of EU citizens’ right to social assistance during the first three months of their stay. This possibility is explicitly granted to EU Member States in the European Directive of 29 April 2004. We must take advantage of this possibility if we do not want to undermine our social security system altogether.

I think, for example, of the words during the mercuriale on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year in Antwerp.

The Flemish Belang has, by the way, in this sense also submitted a bill, apart from the asylum reception. In fact, it does not have much to do with asylum. EU citizens represent only a very small fraction of the total number of asylum seekers. Most of them are not seeking asylum. They are here in the context of the free movement of persons within the European Union.

The effect of these measures will therefore be very limited. In any case, it will not outweigh the problems we will still face as a result of the loose action on asylum and migration. It is precisely against these consequences and dangers that we want to warn.

As mentioned earlier, the proposal goes beyond the framework of asylum reception. The purpose of the bill is to free up places in centers for material support. Asylum seekers who have been prosecuted are offered a voluntary return project. Unfortunately, so far, the government has not had much success. I am afraid that anchoring in the law on this will not change much.

At the end of the journey, before the rejected asylum seeker must leave the centre to return to his country of origin, he may, as is often the case now, leave the asylum centre, to disappear in the wild and wait for a regularization there.

After all, there is still much more chance in our country to be regulated than to actually be expelled. An example of this is that between 2005 and 2010, compared to more than 80 000 regularisations, there were 48 503 expulsions. However, for most persons prosecuted, it is not known what the consequences of the order that they were given to leave the territory were.

A second measure in the proposal to free some space is the limitation of material assistance, including to those who refuse the place of residence determined by the competent authority, to those who leave the reception center without a valid reason and in the case of multiple asylum applications not submitted in time, including Ecolo/Green! is concerned. Asylum seekers who no longer receive accommodation will then simply end up on the streets. This is indeed not an envious situation, neither for the society that will then face a lot of trouble, nor for the asylum seeker himself. The proposers of the bill assume that this will have a huge evasion effect, although the exclusion from these asylum centres is only for a very short time. I have my doubts about it.

The question is where the asylum seeker who ends up on the street will find the resources to live a living. Probably the illegality. Or is he going to go into an OCMW? CdH, PS and Ecolo / Green! Indeed, they have always urged to keep the possibility of financial support, coupled with a spread plan, open. Otherwise, they would definitely reject the proposal. Financial support to asylum seekers should always be excluded due to the enormous suction effect resulting from it. The Flemish Belang has attempted to amend the bill in that sense, but in vain.

In order to address the concern about the possibility of knocking on OCMWs, the organic law has either been adjusted to the OCMWs: they do not owe social services to asylum seekers who are put on the streets for the reasons I have just mentioned. However, it was not possible or intended to exclude financial support altogether. That is unacceptable.

The fact that we do not support this bill does not mean that we are against the principle of exclusively material aid. On the contrary, the Flemish Interest remains in favour of accommodating asylum seekers in human closed centres for the entire duration of their as short as possible procedure, so that they can also be effectively repatriated as soon as possible if their application is rejected. So no asylum seekers or prosecuted people on the streets.

To the extent that European and treaty standards prevent this, the government should take the necessary initiatives to revise those standards. There can always be exceptions. As long as this does not happen, as long as there is no work done on the application of a much stricter and more correct asylum and migration policy and as long as one does not monitor that asylum is actually applied in the country where one enters the European Union, as long as the probability of regularization in this country remains significantly greater than the probability of actual expulsion, if necessary forced, as long as one – like Mrs Brepoels of the N-VA, together with the leftist groups – insists on a European level for an environmental and climate refugee status, our asylum centers will continue to be flooded by foreigners who abuse the asylum procedure to get on the ground in Belgium, while the influx already exceeds the carrying force.

It’s already late, so I’ll keep it short.

I want to correct something. I have seen the press release of the Flemish Belang today in which an accusing finger is extended to Mrs. Brepoels, who would have voted with her left-wing group for a passage on the introduction of climate refugees.

I asked Mrs. Brepoels about this. She abstained yesterday at the vote on the resolution in the European Parliament. She did not vote for it. I don’t know where you get your information from. When you here accuse the N-VA and Mrs. Brepoels of introducing climate refugee status, you should check your sources. Mrs Brepoels did not vote in favour of this.

Mr Francken, I am pleased with your comment. I hope that this is indeed the case. I think the EVA Group voted. I hope that Mrs. Brepoels has abstained, but there are still views supported in that group, including by Mrs. Brepoels, with which another part of the N-VA disagrees. Of course, it is difficult to maintain that spread. I will check it and come back to it later. In any case, there are other groups that insist on a status for environmental and climate refugees.

If we do not act more correctly and strictly against the abuse of the asylum law, our asylum centres will continue to be flooded by foreigners who abuse the asylum law.

Our country cannot bear that. The influx exceeds the capacity of the country. Belgium receives four times more asylum applications per 1,000 inhabitants than the European average. This leads us to the second place in the world. Do not make illusions. We get two applications per thousand inhabitants, while the European average is half. We are second in the world per thousand inhabitants. Do not put our warnings in the wind.

Locations are constantly being created. In no case can we allow those who can no longer enjoy material assistance in the overcrowded asylum centers to end up on the streets and have to knock again at the OCMWs, and further disrupt the social life in our cities and municipalities.

In the end, the proposal presented to the vote today makes more use of the possibilities that the European Directive and international treaties offer us to tighten our asylum policy. Too little too late.

The initiator of the initial bill, Mr. Somers, realizes that himself. He has just said that more will be needed. The signatories must once again bake sweet sandwiches with Di Rupo and co and at the same time create the impression that they are solving the problem. They will soon realize that the asylum crisis is not conspired with this. The Flemish Importance has warned about this for a long time. We are not always grateful, but we will continue to express our concerns about the asylum and migration policy that has gone out of hand with all its social and social consequences. I think that is permissible.

We can not support this symbol law proposal, which everyone tries to suspense but ultimately solves nothing. We will abstain at all, since it contains some points that we have proposed much earlier and which we now, of course, welcome.

Let us start with the text. The text has improved considerably. You did not know about the first mouths but, fortunately, from the hearings of multiple actors, whether it is associative environments, the administration, the CPAS, the municipalities, a work resulted that allowed the text to be more calibrated. Thus, the ban on European citizens having the right to reception was removed. Europeans can be asylum seekers and when they are asylum seekers, they are entitled to reception like all asylum seekers. It also removed from the text the prohibition made to many categories who were entitled to a right of residence to have the right to reception and therefore to be returned to the CPAS, which would have resulted in a completely inappropriate transfer to the municipalities.

Nevertheless, there are still some categories that will extend to the CPAS. The first category consists of persons who lodge a complaint with the State Council. This issue has been discussed in the committee. You will remember that we have tightened the possibility of appealing to the State Council by establishing a ⁇ complex filter. The number of persons in this category is limited, but they enjoy a right of residence during this appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to extend the debate unnecessarily, but it is indeed correct that we in the committee have come up with this particular problem. Even with a tight filter, it remains possible that people, after being declared inadmissible, with their cassation appeal, end up at the State Council. We know that this procedure does not work on a suspensive basis. In other words, those people can be expelled from the country. However, as long as they are here—there are about two hundred people—there is a problem. What do we do with it?

We said in the committee that we would look for a solution to this. That is also my commitment. I would like to contribute to the next government seeking a solution to that very specific problem, without considering that the suspensive and non-suspensive character needs to be changed. This was also a question from the SP. We have declared ourselves willing to work together to find a solution to that very specific problem. We will do that too.

I hear your words with pleasure. But why remove this little piece of phrase: "including during the appeal brought before the Council of the Foreign Dispute". Just do not remove those few words, and therefore do not vote this portion of the article today, as we raised it in the committee, and everything will be settled.

Those persons who have a right of residence because they have brought a complaint would continue to be entitled to reception. Why do something wrong today to fix it tomorrow? It is quite possible to remove this tiny piece of phrase so that the work is not to be corrected tomorrow. I must admit that your arguments did not convince me.

For me, a second problem arises. It depends more on the substance than on the technique. This is the issue of the second asylum applications. We have heard a lot about abuse, fraud, etc. 58% of multiple asylum applications are considered admissible. After passing the Foreign Office filter, 58% of these files are considered to have brought new elements worth re-examining. Most of these people are in good faith and bring new elements on their second request. Should they be excluded from the reception?

Once a first rejection was opposed, people had 30 days to integrate into one or another starting process. It has not been desired that they use this procedure to extend excessively, if I can say, their right to reception. We amended our amendment to provide for an exception for persons who submit their second asylum application within 23 days of the order to leave the territory; thus, the Foreign Office will have time to consider, during the following seven days, their second asylum application. If the Office of Foreigners was to last more than seven days, in fact, these people could stay in a center. This amendment was not accepted and I regret it.

What will happen? People of good faith will introduce new items, join the services of a lawyer who will write a request and reintroduce it. The Foreign Office will review it. For some, it will last seven days. For others, this will happen less quickly: lawyers talk to me more often about a two-month delay! People will be out for two months and then will have to find another lawyer to file a lawsuit against Fedasil and hope to return to the system again. They risk being sent back to another place. Some families who, for example, started their children’s schooling in Flanders would find themselves in the Ardennes. We cannot speak of good management.

For us, these two problems are important. They could have been avoided and they did not.

More generally, as many speakers have said, this text will not solve the reception crisis, which was predictable. In 2007, we voted the text stating that people previously welcomed in open centres and then in municipalities would now stay in open centres. Unfortunately, since they did not double their number, they were quickly saturated.

However, the number of asylum seekers has increased, so that more than 2,000 people have been denied as they were entitled to be welcomed.

The humanitarian situation is deteriorating. This morning, the European Court of Human Rights appealed to Belgium in the case of an Afghan lady who has been on the street with her three children for more than a decade. The lawyer has gained cause. Fedasil gave him an appointment for November 25. As the Court found a problem, it interrogated the minister who, by miracle, suddenly found a place for this family. Others who experience the same distress are still outside.

We need to work on two plans to improve this situation. First, it is important to accelerate the procedures. That’s why we have systematically supported funding increases for the CGRA. Currently, however, the procedures are not faster. by Mr. Van den Bulck instead proposes to blur some files, and that worries me. Then, when there is saturation, it is necessary to be able to spread across all the communes to avoid situations that we know and which are true denials of law such as lawyers are needed to enforce the law. This seems to us completely unacceptable.