Proposition 53K1825

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Oct. 19, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive foreign national illegal migration migration policy political asylum residence permit removal refugee

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD 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 ¶

Nov. 24, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

We have two reporters. Ms. Galant, who is also registered as speaker. I wanted to know if you do everything together. Yes, you do everything together. Then Mr. Francken refers to his written report but will intervene immediately afterwards to present the ten amendments he has submitted. I insisted, maybe it is a pious wish, so that it will not be too long to not re-start the discussion of the committee. We have 9 registered.

The draft law is intended to transpose the Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008, also known as the Return Directive. Member States were required to transpose the provisions of that Directive by 24 December 2010. Their non-compliance with this obligation undermined the efficiency and fairness of the common return procedure and also undermined the foundations of the Union’s migration policy.

Belgium had so far failed to fulfill this obligation due to the current business period – we are still there. However, it became imperative not to postpone this transposition further.

The Return Directive provides for common rules that are clear, transparent and equitable with regard to the return, removal, detention and re-entry of certain migrants, while fully taking into account the respect for their fundamental freedoms and rights. Previously, Member States’ laws and practices on return differed widely. The Return Directive provides a common, binding legal framework for the European migration policy and ensures that all returns take place in humane and dignified conditions.

The first is to introduce an order to leave the territory which will in principle have a deadline for execution allowing both to meet a real possibility of voluntary return and to meet the deadlines proposed by the directive.

This measure will also be able to comply with the time-limits for appeal and the consequences thereof in matters of reception, as they have just been amended following the adoption by the House of Representatives of the draft law amending the legislation on the reception of asylum-seekers filed by Mr. Bart Somers and Consorts.

Of course, not everyone can claim to benefit from a 30-day period. Therefore, it is proposed, in accordance with the Directive, to limit that period in various cases, such as the risk of escape, the non-compliance with the order to leave the territory, the non-compliance with the preventive measures, the danger to public order or national security and the risk of fraud in the event of a second asylum application not taken into account.

In all these cases, the time limit will be between zero and seven days. If the deadline is zero days, the person concerned will be granted an entry ban immediately. This is an impossibility for the distant person to return to the Schengen area. Furthermore, if a person does not comply with the deadline imposed on him by the order to leave the territory, he will also be imposed an entry ban.

The entry ban will apply for the entire European territory. The obligation to leave the Belgian territory will therefore have consequences for the entire European Union and the Schengen area, with the exception of Ireland and Great Britain.

As far as prisoners are concerned, there have so far been difficulties in returning them to their country of origin. The project installs a new system to prevent a person who does not have a legal residence permit and who had to leave the territory being simply released.

A list of safe countries comprising countries whose nationals are unlikely to obtain the right to asylum will be established because, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of law in the framework of a democratic regime and the general political circumstances, it can be demonstrated that in a general and uniform manner in the countries concerned, persecution is not used within the meaning of the Geneva Convention.

The procedure related to this list of safe countries should be shortened by reversing the burden of proof. Applicants will be required to prove that they really need protection from Belgium. The decision will be made within 15 days.

These provisions recall the importance of voluntary return; it remains the most effective way for people to return to their country of origin. If the voluntary return is not executed within the specified time, the forced return will be imposed, eventually accompanied by an entry ban.

Finally, a real system of removal from prisons is established.

During the committee work, the text was thoroughly discussed by all political groups. The N-VA, in particular, has submitted more than 70 amendments.

The majority of political groups support the text. These groups, in particular, submitted the amendment that introduces the list of safe countries in the text.

You can continue with your personal intervention.

Dear colleagues, if you are interested, you stay; if you are not interested, you go outside.

Mr. President, thank you very much.

MR Group welcomes the fact that the Return Directive can finally be transposed into Belgian law. Of course, it would have been possible to go further, but this is a good signal. Things are now clearer as regards the policy of return, removal, retention and re-entry of certain migrants.

A good migration policy involves several elements. It begins with prevention, it implies the existence of a control of the incoming flow, a quick decision-making process, a good readability of regulation, as well as an effective integration and removal policy.

The project insists on the policy of voluntary returns, which is ⁇ the best method. In previous debates, we have often expressed our support for voluntary return. However, where voluntary return is not possible, a forced return is necessary. The bill under consideration responds to the concern of conducting a correct policy on forced return, respecting human rights and the integrity of the persons concerned.

While we welcome the priority now given to the return of illegal persons, we remain convinced that this measure must be accompanied by a shortening of the asylum application procedure and work to limit the influx of illegal persons, both in the interest of individual applicants and the services concerned.

The list of safe countries will ⁇ contribute to this. Our group had already submitted a bill on the list of safe countries (document 53/1146/001). We therefore support this measure without reservation. However, we regret that it is intervening so late.

The concrete development of the list of safe countries will be closely followed by our group through parliamentary debate. It is important that Albania and the countries of the former Yugoslavia are included. This is necessary if we want to reduce the number of asylum applications.

The possibility of removal from prisons will help to partially solve the problem of prison overpopulation. We also look forward to this.

Finally, I conclude my speech by reminding how important it seems to us that the next government has only one minister in charge of asylum and immigration policy, in order to take coherent measures and ensure a full follow-up of the person.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, today is a good day to discuss the migration policy in the plenary session. Approximately two hours ago, a very important Eurostat report was released which once again shows that we are indeed at the highest level in terms of the number of migrant newcomers per thousand inhabitants.

The figures are surprising. On average, the European Union receives 1.8 newcomers per 1,000 inhabitants. It also concerns European newcomers, not just newcomers from third countries. In Belgium it is 5.9 per thousand inhabitants, which is three times higher than the European average.

This makes us third in the European Union of 27. The second place is Sweden with 6.7. First, ⁇ surprisingly, is Luxembourg with 13.2 newcomers per thousand inhabitants. This will undoubtedly also have a lot to do with the financial sector in the capital of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

Today, therefore, is a very good opportunity to talk about one of the key obstacles, one of the essential elements of migration policy, namely the return policy.

Dear President, Dear Secretary of State, Dear colleagues, I am going to speak very often in the field, as many here in the hall probably do, and I am often talking about migration. I always say: if there are two major challenges for migration policy for the coming years – that will be the case not only for the next government, but also after 2014 and beyond – then they are to restore the balance between the active and the passive migration flows and to restore the balance between inflow and outflow.

With the first I mean the following. Traditionally, there are two active migration channels, namely labour migration and student migration. In Belgium, active migration accounts for approximately twenty to thirty percent of the total migration record. Last year there were 136,000 newcomers and approximately twenty to thirty percent came through the active migration channel. Seventy to eighty percent, however, come through the passive migration channels, namely asylum, legalization and family reunification. We are the leader in the European Union. In no other country there is such an imbalance between active and passive migration.

We need active migration for the labour market, we need it to combat aging, we need it to keep our welfare state good, solid and strong in the long run.

On passive migration, I once stood firmly in the clinch with Mrs. Lanjri. Indeed, it is not because someone comes through a passive migratory channel that they cannot be active in the labour market. However, the migration motive is a passive motive, one can get a right of residence without having an active element. In active migration channels such as work and study migration, there is an active element.

In Belgium, the focus is on the passive migration channels. This is not the case in, for example, the United Kingdom, the United States and other European countries. In the Netherlands the ratio is 60/40 and in France it is 50/50. The biggest challenge for the coming years is to balance the ratio between active and passive migration.

I think our law on family reunification will at least ensure that there is more active migration, so that the balance can be restored not next year, but in the long term.

That is the first major challenge, dear colleagues, for the N-VA and undoubtedly for a lot of colleagues here that day out with migration policy.

The second major challenge is to restore the balance between the in- and outflow. I am in good company in this regard, because Mr. Somers has also repeatedly accused in the Chamber of the problematic situation concerning the in- and outflow. Indeed, the return policy is the missing link of the migration policy in Belgium. Today we discuss the transposition of the Return Directive. Well, that could be a wonderful opportunity to effectively work out the missing link and address the imbalance between in- and outflow. I, along with my colleagues from the N-VA group, and especially Sarah Smeyers and Daphné Dumery, who follow the migration theme, am deeply disappointed by the transposition of the directive. It was a wonderful opportunity to change something for the better, but the opportunity has not been seized.

I will explain why. I think there are three major lines on which we can hold our criticism. We have submitted 70 amendments to the committee, of which we still have a dozen. I will not explain amendment by amendment. I will try to outline the big lines more generally, dear colleagues.

The first general criticism is that the Directive has been transposed too late. The Directive dates from 2008. Mr. Secretary of State, you became responsible for migration policy in July 2009. So far we have had to wait for the conversion. We are not alone in this, the European class is doing very bad things in this regard. Almost all of us have been built, because only one country has, I think, transposed the directive. We will be the second country. In that sense, the late conversion is therefore not the biggest drama, but that is, in my opinion, in a country with a big problem with the return, which is the case in Belgium, and where the suction effect is large. Everything could have gone faster. I think it is a pity that it has had to take so long.

A much more fundamental criticism, Mr. Secretary of State, is that the directive has been poorly transposed. Our immigration legislation is extremely complex. The Foreign Law is almost unreadable. This has created a huge lawyer lobby. Law firms earn tons of money by searching for backdoors in immigration legislation. I call it the migration industry.

Mr Di Rupo wrote in his note, as well as in the draft government agreement, that a new and legible immigration code should be introduced, which clarifies the matter, which ensures that there are fewer procedural layers and that there is clarity in the migration legislation with a new Migration Code and a new Foreign Rights Code. Let us do this as soon as possible. That is one of the very good elements of the note-Di Rupo, which is for the time being also included in the preliminary draft of government agreement, chapter Migration. I think that is a good thing.

However, from this text I can only state that it is an example of a poor conversion. It ensures that the texts become even more unreadable and that the migration industry will continue to turn on full rounds in the search for the eternal residence of persons who actually should return, but continue to hope that sooner or later they will be regulated and permanent residence as they continue to proceed.

I think we really missed a chance here and I protest against it. That is why I submitted so many amendments. There were a number of very technical – not political – amendments, precisely to increase that readability and reduce the risk of procedures.

I can give you three concrete examples. First, if the text is subsequently approved, the Foreigners Act will include a definition of “vulnerable person”, which is nowhere else in that law. I have never experienced this before: one defines something that is not further used in the other articles of that law. The Van Dale law can be defined in this law. It has no meaning at all.

I have never received an answer to my question why this definition is in it. I have submitted an amendment to remove them again. We must not write terms in a law that are not used anywhere else in that law. That is totally absurd.

Secondly, I think the definitions are not consistently applied. I will give a very concrete example. You can always improve me, Mr. Secretary of State. If a person is forced to return within 30 days of receiving the order to leave the territory, it is called voluntary departure. This falls under the definition of voluntary departure.

If one asks that person whether he considers this a voluntary departure, he will not bear that. That man is put on the plane against height and mouth, with an escort. Therefore, it is forced repatriation, for example of public order, but then it falls under the definition of “voluntary departure” according to your law. I find this completely absurd. This is not a voluntary departure, it is a forced departure.

You are, of course, free to support our amendment, then we can change it.

Third, there is another absurd situation. Only third-country nationals can return to that country. This specifically means that a person who has a right of residence in, for example, the Congo, but who does not have the Congolese nationality, cannot be returned to the Congo, even if he has lived there for twenty years. I give the example of a Rwandan who has lived in Congo for twenty years. He cannot return to the Congo because he is not a citizen of the Congo, he does not have the nationality. This is a completely absurd situation. A Rwandan who has had a right of residence in the Congo for twenty years and who arrives illegally in Belgium cannot be returned to the Congo, but must go to Rwanda, even though he has no relationship with Rwanda at all. That is absurd. At the moment, it is not so applied, but you want to register it in the law. I think it is an aberration.

Mr. Dewael, the law is completely unreadable. You are also in the lawyer’s office. I think anyone who is working with such things every day knows that.

I gave three concrete examples. I ask for the support of the House for our amendments to remove at least those three aberrations. I have never received a response from the Secretary of State on these points. If your support cannot – because N-VA is opposition – I hope to see our amendment back in the program law at the end of the year. At least these aberrations can be eliminated.

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, thanks to N-VA, fortunately, some aberrations have already been corrected. We have had a good discussion in the committee and two or three of our amendments have been adopted. The most important thing is that anyone who gets an entry ban from the French government also gets an entry ban here. I give the example of an illegal Algeria that is found in France, where it is involved in a violent crime or robbery, and that leaves for Belgium. He is banned from the French government, but he manages to leave Belgium. Mr. Secretary of State, according to your bill, when that man is arrested by the Belgian police, we must consult with the French government before we can remove him.

I think we now say – the amendment has also been approved by the majority – that only if that Algeria would ask for a right of residence in Belgium there should be consultation with the French government. Otherwise, we do not need to consult anymore and we can simply remove them. I think this is nothing more than logical. Why keep negotiating if he already has a French government entry ban on his pocket? This was an amendment that was supported by the Secretary of State and colleagues from the future majority parties. I am therefore pleased that thanks to the N-VA, some of the biggest aberrations from that bill have been removed. This, however, also proves that we as a party try to change this migration law for the better in a very conscientious way, according to our insights and analyses.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, finally, in addition to the fact that the directive has been transposed too late and just very poorly, the fundamental criticism of the N-VA is that it has been translated too loose. This law has been translated too loosely. Our amendments also go in that direction. I think that in this country it should be done with the minimum fulfillment of European directives. It must be done that the Belgian government regarding what Europe proposes – it is always a fork within which one must move, to that extent there is freedom of choice for the Member States – always chooses for the most minimal and lax solution, whether it is family reunification, return or reception. I think this is a mistake and that we must go for the maximum solution. Other countries do so too. The Netherlands is doing that and in Germany and France it is much more looked at the maximum fulfillment of European directives, not the minimum fulfillment.

I can give a number of very concrete examples, which are also an immediate explanation of the amendments. I will no longer explain them separately.

First, the proposed draft law states that the government can deport illegal persons to the border, while the directive allows that this must be done d’office. If an illegal person is found at the border without papers, without a residence permit for Belgium, he must be returned to the country of origin. You say it should not, it can. I think it would be better if we would write that this should be. There should no longer be any discretionary power for the competent minister or secretary of state. No, that must happen. If a person is caught at the border, he must be deported if he does not have a right of residence in that country, if it is illegal.

Second, the draft law presupposes a maximum detention of eight months. That is the situation as it is now. This week I went to the Centre for Illegals in Bruges. Mr. Secretary of State, we had a very interesting discussion over those eight months. We go for eighteen months. The EU directive allows illegal persons to be detained for up to eighteen months before they are removed. This is a European possibility. I am not saying that we assume that everyone should be detained for eighteen months; I am saying that it makes a difference whether we swing with eight months or eighteen months. If we swing with eighteen months, many more illegals will cooperate with the identification. They really do not want to be imprisoned for eighteen months.

A lot of people are still in there now. They remain rebellious and refuse to cooperate with the identification. In the end, they must be released. In the center for illegals in Bruges, 400 people were concerned last year. They refused to cooperate, but were eventually released again.

Also on that point we are therefore again going for the maximum fulfillment of the directive: detention possible up to eighteen months. It is not intended that it always comes out at eighteen months. On the contrary, the faster removed, the better.

Dear colleagues, Mr. Secretary of State, thirdly, the N-VA chooses the maximum fulfillment of the directive, in the sense that we argue that an imposed entry ban is always valid for five years. What do you do? You say that a ban on entry is valid for three years, and five years if fraud has been committed. In the event of terrorist attacks or a major threat to our country, the term will be extended to more than five years. The latter is already the case; it is the evidence itself and it exists as well in all other European countries. We say very clearly that what Europe can do, we do too. Establish the entry ban d’office for five years, not three years.

Fourth, this point is about something that I totally do not understand. We discussed this in the committee. Mr. Secretary of State, maybe later in your answer you can explain the reason or the motivation.

A person may, according to the present draft law, request the lifting of his entry ban in Belgium. I do not understand that. As a Belgian government, we decide to give someone an entry ban and we remove him. That man goes back to his country. In certain humanitarian situations, I can imagine someone asking for the lifting of the entry ban. Suppose it is a Congolese who has been living here for twenty years as an illegal, who has children here, all over and over. He is arrested, banned from entering the country and must return to Congo. That man will ask for the lifting of his entry ban. I think that man has the right to see at least his family, his wife and his children. That seems to me nothing more than logical. We will be the last party to oppose this.

However, I believe that the application for the lifting of the entry ban should be made in the Congo, in my example, and not in Belgium.

What does the present proposal mean? Even before he receives his entry ban, he will already submit a request in Belgium for its lifting. Of course, it makes no sense. If we give someone an entry ban and that person asks for its removal two hours later, what is the effectiveness of that measure?

I think we need to say very clearly that those who are banned from entering must return. If that person wishes to have an abolition, he may request them to be abolished. Maybe it will be granted, maybe not. The application must be made abroad, at the Embassy or Consulate of Belgium. Not here in Belgium.

The request for the abolition in Belgium completely undermines, in my view, the logic of the purpose of this draft law. This completely undermines the logic of the transposition of the Return Directive over which the European Mandarians have bowed.

Fifth, I come to the discussion of the order on thirty days. We have always said that it must be an executable order. We choose an order for seven days. An order is often issued in five days. Europe says it should be between seven and thirty days. The Belgian government imposes this on 30 days. Again, that is a beautiful example of the most minimal, loose fulfillment of what Europe allows.

Choose for 7 days! Why should one choose for thirty days, if one can choose for seven days! It seems much more logical to choose for seven days.

I would like to say the following about the administrative simplification. Finally, we submitted an additional amendment which I think Mr. Somers and other colleagues had a lot of attention to. It was about the notification of the decision of the Foreign Affairs Service. Now it is done by the municipalities, for asylum and family reunification, but no longer for regularization. I think we have to choose what was decided last year. Last year, the Chamber adopted a law that stipulates that in the context of regularization, the notification must be made by the Foreign Affairs Service. That is an administrative simplification, which is less work for the municipal officials of the Population Service and it facilitates the procedures. This is a good thing.

Well, we demand, first, the extension of this to asylum, family reunification, in short, to all procedures in Belgium. If the judgment is negative, let the order be ⁇ by the Foreign Affairs Service, no longer by the municipality.

Secondly, and more importantly, the municipalities should be informed about this. There is no information obligation. I take the example of a small municipality, such as the municipality where I live. This municipality has a small but conscientious service Population. This service does not have many staff members, but they form a close team. People like to know who lives in their town. That is logical. It is, by the way, one of the core tasks of every civil service official to know who lives on the territory of that municipality.

What is happening now? A regulated is outproceded and receives a negative advice. The order to leave the territory is communicated by the Foreign Affairs Service. Earlier this was done by the municipality, then the officials of the population service knew that the notification had occurred and that person or that family had to leave. Now that the Foreign Affairs Service does that, the municipality knows nothing more about it. There is no information obligation to municipalities. I think this is completely unwise. This is a wrong and illogical decision.

We must always keep the municipality informed about this. The municipality should no longer do it on its own, but we can at least show the courtesy to keep the municipality informed of the situation of the foreigner X or Y, through a letter from the Service of Foreign Affairs. That is nothing more than logical.

Unfortunately, Mr. Somers is not present. As the mayor of the smallest major city of Flanders, he naturally had an ear for it. It is logical that a city like Mechelen, but also other cities, should pay attention to the fact that the municipalities are kept informed who resides on their territory or not. Therefore, the amendment to introduce that administrative simplification. If it is not approved today, I am pleased to see it back in the program law.

Finally, Mr. Secretary of State, a delicate topic, namely the control authority. I listened to you very well. I know that sometimes you try to listen to me. Will there be a new control body?

You say that there is no new control body and that it will not come because we need to organize it from Europe. I can take note of your answer. Therefore, there will be no new control body under your custody on the closed centers or on the removal procedure. I think I can be satisfied with this. There is no government agency or agency in this country that is controlled as much as the closed centers for illegals. I was in Bruges on Monday and I can tell you that those people are visited every week; if it is not an accredited member of an NGO, then it is someone of the Council of Europe, UNHCR, the federal ombudsman, the Service Inspection of Homeland Affairs, the Service Inspection of Service Foreign Affairs or just mention it. They all come. That is there a go-and-go loop of people who do a control of the control of the control. It is so crazy already.

It disturbs me inexorably. It doesn’t bother me that there is control. I am disturbed by the fact that in this bill it is stated that there is a possibility for a new, independent audit body. Mr. Secretary of State, you tell me that I must stop my criticism, because there will be no one. The migration policy under your guardianship can be done within hours or days. However, the migration policy will not stop with the end of your cabinet, because I assume that there will be ministers after you. What most disturbs me is that we leave there a possibility to establish yet another audit body through a KB. I personally consider this to be a motion of distrust towards the staff involved. The staff members of these closed centers have a very difficult and delicate task. It is a ⁇ difficult balance between a kind of humanitarian fulfillment and a stricter, sanctioning mandate. Personally, I do not see this as a testimony of respect.

Last year, there were officially seven complaint letters written on several hundred and even thousands of people who have been detained. So bad it will not be. These people do their job very conscientiously. Again throwing a control body in their neck, in my opinion, is not a solution, even though I have heard from you that this will never come under your authority.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, I come to my conclusion.

I am disappointed with the transposition of the Return Directive. Ms. Smeyers will later say something more about the list of safe countries. That, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with this, but that is simply thrown up here to have something interesting in the sauce.

You will see that most presentations will go on the list of safe countries – Ms. Galant was the first – and then on the essence of the Return Directive, because that is of course not something to be proud of.

Ms. Smeyers will therefore later say something about the list of safe countries. We submitted two amendments in this regard.

That is in itself a good thing. We are pleased that the government sometimes listens to what the N-VA proposes.

I am disappointed with the transposition of the Return Directive, Mr. Secretary of State. This will not reverse the migration policy. This is, in the words of my Chairman, not a systemic reform.

The N-VA group will vote against. I am convinced that Mr Liégeois, the Attorney General of Antwerp, with this law can keep his pen ready for his opening speech of 2012.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the bill currently under discussion is, as has already been said twice on this tribune, in large part the transposition of a European directive, namely the famous Return Directive. It is part of the European Union’s commitment to harmonize all asylum and migration policies of the 27 Member States.

My group has always advocated a common asylum system within the EU. The aim should be to harmonise the rules in this area, so as to avoid in the future what is called “migration shopping” in the 27 Member States.

Overall, this project is balanced. Of course, we made some comments, but it satisfies us overall. First of all, we can be pleased that the text insists transversally on the preponderance given to a voluntary return policy. This is definitely the best way to proceed with a return. It is a fair and humane vision that allows to repatriate to their country or to a host country in good conditions a debounded asylum seeker or a person who has stayed illegally on our territory.

It is important that the recourse to forced return is a final decision taking place after all attempts to voluntarily return have failed. Forced return must be strictly regulated and regulated. This is what the project we are discussing today envisages.

We can also welcome the maximum period of 30 days set for the execution of the order to leave the territory. I will not go into the details because it is rather a committee work. The decision will now be made immediately after a negative decision has been made by the Foreign Dispute Council. This will allow for smooth voluntary return by ensuring that the foreigner is truly humanly settled in his country of origin or in a third country.

The project also provides for the possibility of reducing this timeframe from zero to seven days instead of thirty. This involves assumptions such as the risk of escape, the non-compliance with a previous order to leave the territory. This may also apply if the foreigner poses a danger to public order or national security.

This text envisages the possibility of issuing a three-year entry ban for certain foreigners and this when no deadline has been granted for voluntary departure or when a previous decision on removal has not been executed.

This period may also be extended to five years if the third-country national has resorted to fraud in order to be admitted to stay or to maintain his right of stay. The decision on removal may be accompanied by an entry ban for more than five years when the third-country national constitutes a threat to public security.

Another important point of this text lies in the fact that, from now on, the law will conserve the detention of foreigners in a closed centre as a last resort, after all the less coercive alternative measures have been exhausted. This project will also flow into the law the prohibition of imprisonment of unaccompanied foreign minors.

Furthermore, it provides that the Office of Foreigners must, before proceeding with the return of an unaccompanied foreign minor, ensure that the latter can benefit in its country of origin or host from an appropriate care taking into account the needs determined by its age and degree of autonomy.

With regard to the procedure for the removal of foreigners detained in prison and who have received – I simplify – an order to leave the country, this text also proposes some new provisions. In fact, it provides in particular for the immediate identification of the foreigner at the time of his imprisonment, an immediate transfer of the foreigner to a closed centre after the execution of his sentence and, for the detainee at the end of the sentence, the Office of Foreigners may proceed to his removal from two months before the end of the sentence.

I will conclude my speech by speaking to you about the creation, through this text, of a list of safe countries, a provision that is provided in the Procedure Directive of the European Union. In short, foreigners from a country on this list will be subject to a faster procedure, similar to what already exists for asylum seekers from the European Union; a faster procedure, of course, but with the maintenance of procedural rights for applicants.

Indeed, in all cases, the CGRA will decide on the question of whether the person concerned satisfies the conditions for being recognised as a refugee or to be considered for the grant of subsidiary protection. He will be able to be heard and will also be entitled to legal assistance.

As regards the establishment of the list, it was fundamental for my group to fully transpose the Procedure Directive so that it is inspired by human and objective criteria. A country can only be considered to be of safe origin if it uses neither persecution, nor torture, nor inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and when there is no threat due to indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict – international or internal.

The assessment of a safe country of origin will also need to be based on multiple sources of information, whether from Member States, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Council of Europe or other recognised international organizations.

I would like to clarify that this list will be revisable at least once a year and that, de facto, it can be modified very quickly depending on the global geopolitical context.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, as I just demonstrated, this text will allow for a better European integration in terms of asylum and migration.

I will conclude by saying that, for my group, it is important to define a European asylum policy, based on a principle of upward harmonisation of standards and procedures. We believe that this bill achieves this goal. That is why we will vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this is not the first time we are here with proposals on asylum and migration. One reason is that during the past year we have had a lot of important discussions on the subject. Meanwhile, we have also taken several important steps in the asylum and migration dossier. I refer, among other things, to the law on family reunification, which has also been approved here.

However, when we talk about the asylum procedure and the asylum problem, we always come back to the need to intervene in the different stages of the procedure. Only through such action will the overall policy yield a good result.

We must therefore constantly focus on, on the one hand, reducing the influx through a shortened asylum procedure as well as addressing the abuses in that procedure and, on the other hand, last but not least, on improving the outflow with a view to an effective return.

Yesterday we approved in the Committee on Internal Affairs an important draft by the Secretary of State, which will make a very important contribution to addressing the abuses, in particular those in the field of medical regularization.

But this is not the issue here today. Today we are talking about the transposition of the Return Directive, while at the same time, through a very important amendment, we are also working on the influx.

We are very pleased that finally, after so many months, the conversion is realized. In fact, we should see what we discuss here today as complementary to what we approved last month on the basis of the bill proposed by Mr. Somers, on which we all have worked.

We then stated that it is important to work on the reception and on the voluntary return. This design is actually the extension of it. We must ensure that those who are not eligible for asylum effectively leave the country.

It thus creates a legal framework to be followed when an asylum procedure has been negative and asylum seekers are told that their application has not been accepted. This occurs in more than 80% of cases. As a rule, a period of thirty days will be provided in which the refused asylum applicant will be accompanied for a voluntary return, but it is of course not always thirty days. In the case of fraud, when there is a risk of hiding or when one has submitted multiple requests, this can be much shorter, for example seven or even zero days. Therefore, it is not correct that everyone always gets thirty days anyway. If a person has already had the opportunity to leave the country voluntarily in the past and has not done so and there is a risk of hiding, then the period will be much shorter.

The Ministry is also working on improving cooperation between the Justice Department and the Foreign Affairs Service. This is also a question that we have asked from Antwerp, but it is of course of interest to everyone. Why is this cooperation important? It must no longer prevent that an illegal person who has first served his sentence in prison, after serving his sentence, ends up deadly on the street, and that only then the DVZ is notified, after which the DVZ tries to repatriate the person concerned.

From now on, while a person is still in prison or has been taken into custody, there will be contact between various services at Justice and the DVZ, so that it can be started with answering the questions who he or she is, whether a visa is needed and whether we can already prepare for the return. The law even provides that a number of periods may be extended, if necessary, so that one can seamlessly join and so that the person concerned can effectively return to his or her country of origin after he or she has spent his or her prison sentence.

It is also important that one can impose an entry ban on foreigners who have not complied with their expulsion. If the application was answered negatively and the applicant has been given the opportunity to leave the country, but does not do so or does not cooperate, then he or she will be imposed an entry ban, which allows him or her to enter neither Belgium, nor the EU, nor the Schengen countries and the associated countries.

In the design, work is done not only on the return, but also on the inflow. For example, together with Mrs Annick Van Den Ende, I submitted an amendment aimed at drawing up a list of safe countries. This principle actually builds on what we already do for EU citizens. For residents of EU countries, a reduced procedure of up to 15 days is already in place. You can still appeal, but that is only an annulment appeal. The amendment is partly inspired by legislative proposals by Ms. Smeyers, Ms. Temmerman and Ms. Galant. We have taken the opportunity to implement such a list now quickly, i.e. through an amendment.

In this way, we work not only on the outflow, but even better, preventively, on the inflow. We thus removed residents from safe countries, where the need to flee for violence, for example, does not exist, in order to come to Belgium. We also took into account the comments of the State Council.

What is also ⁇ positive to me is that the Minister’s draft has taken into account the situation of unaccompanied minors, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We must always keep in mind the importance of the child. In order to avoid cases such as Mauro in the Netherlands, it will be considered whether it is in the interest of the minor whose asylum application was answered negatively within the year that he or she is returned. In our country, approximately 30 to 40 % of unaccompanied minors are returned, reunited with their families or welcomed by NGOs in their country of origin. However, this is not always a solution. It is good that the law stipulates that the best interests of the child are always in mind.

I would like to comment on the criticism formulated here. Let me be very clear about the list of safe countries. Unquestionably, there are many applications from countries that can really be considered safe. In October, 23% of applications came from countries considered safe. These include Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia and Serbia. We will, of course, wait for the opinion of the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons.

I hope that following, among other things, the opinion of the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons and of UNHCR, we will be able to stop such abuses. For example, persons who are rightly applying for asylum and need protection will no longer have to go through too long procedures, because too many people are applying for asylum while they are not entitled to do so. Residents of safe countries must demonstrate within 15 days that they are entitled to asylum. There is a reversal of the burden of proof. If they appeal, then an accelerated procedure of up to two months follows. Of course, dear colleagues, it makes no sense that we ask for an accelerated procedure from the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, if we subsequently let the matter be brought to the Council for Foreign Disputes for half a year.

Therefore, it will also happen quickly. Of course, we also find this very positive.

Mrs Lanjri, we have, of course, already discussed some things in the committee, but I understand that you especially highlight the positive aspects of the bill. That is of course also the intention.

As for the list of safe countries, I think that the agreement that Mr. De Clerck has been able to reach contains things that are ⁇ not bad, which are a step forward. It is ⁇ so.

However, I would like to ask you why you and your group agree that a person can no longer be returned to a country where he has a right of residence but no nationality. This will therefore not be possible. They must be subjects. The Rwandan who has been living in the Congo for 20 years has a right of residence but is not a Congolese. Why could he not be sent back to the Congo, where he has a right of residence? Why should he be returned to the country of his nationality? I do not understand that. According to the definition that you and your group are likely to approve soon, only third-country nationals can return to that country. I would like to know why you are for that?

I also thought CD&V was a party that was very proud of its local attachment and embeddedness. I also do not understand why you voted against my amendment, which aims at the DVZ to notify the service Population of the municipality of a notified order. I don’t understand why you voted out. You have many more mayors than my group, hundreds of times more. I do not understand why you reject this amendment. This is a very good amendment. This is a question to Mrs. Lanjri.

Mr Francken, even when you are a rapporteur, you have difficulties with your own report.

Is your name Lanjri?

Mr. Jambon, my name is not Mrs. Lanjri, but I can intervene. Can it not? You tell me I don’t answer, but when I do, it’s too much. It is always the same with you. You always have something to say. I would like to answer if possible.

Can I say something?

The problem is that you know I will point out problems in Mr. Francken’s reasoning.

The [...]

Mr Francken, you said you absolutely do not understand that one can ask for the lifting of the entry ban in Belgium. I have said the following in the committee, and that is stated in the report signed by you, Mr Francken. “A request for lifting or suspending the entry ban may be submitted, but it must be made in the country of origin. This was stated by the Secretary of State.”

Then include it in your design.

Mr. Francken, I have already answered. It is in your own report. But now you say something else. Sometimes I have trouble with your schizophrenia.

We held a discussion on the issues in the committee yesterday. It was specifically about Article 9quater. What did you then do? You have withdrawn your amendment. On the possibility of sending those documents to the municipality, you said the following: “Mr. Secretary of State, I have heard that you are not against it, but it must be practically checked by DVZ, and then you can come back with a proposal.” I will do it. That is why you withdrew your amendment yesterday. But today you ask the question again. You ask Ms. Lanjri why she does not support your amendment, while you withdrew it yesterday in the committee. Stop your schizophrenia, Mr Francken.

Again, we have the debate that took place in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, I was not aware that the amendment was withdrawn. I was not present in the committee. I was in the National Defense Committee.

I note in particular the commitment of you and your services that you will ensure the possibility of informing the municipalities of an order to leave the territory. I think that is the most important thing. You have nothing to blame me here. If I wasn’t present, it would be hard to know.

Mr. Francken, with this you are reassured. Municipal governments are also notified. They are also involved, among other things, in housing control. This was said yesterday too.

As for the conversion of the period given to people to leave, the choice is made for 30 days. This is not a decision we made yesterday. That choice was already made in Mr. Somers’ design that we all supported, including the N-VA.

We all thought it was important to have a working deadline. In the very first proposal, there were even 45 days. In the end, we brought it to 30 days. So it is not correct that you suggest that first, when we talk about the reception law, and that you say a month later that 30 days is too much.

For all clarity, Mr. Francken, by the way, it is not always 30 days. You know that there are cases in which it can be 0 days, that we do not even give people a day longer in this territory because they represent a danger or because there is a risk of hiding. In this case, they will be repatriated immediately. For those who do not cooperate, the deadline is not 30 days, but 0 days.

I find it even more important to set a period within 30 days — 28 or 21 days, for example — to effectively leave the country, and to be sure that they are leaving the country. That is better than a period of 5 days, as is now the case, or of 7 days, as you propose, and to have to establish that the affected persons are hiding.

The most important thing is that the signal is given very clearly that we are working on that voluntary return. Voluntary does not mean non-binding. For those who do not cooperate with the voluntary return, it becomes a forced return and then that period must also be addressed.

I have another point concerning the entry ban. It has indeed been chosen for periods between 3 years, 5 years, 10 years or more. There is a minimum travel ban of 3 years, but if there has been fraud, or if one has not cooperated, that can be 5 years. When there is a danger to public safety, it can be 10 years or even much longer. It is important that the signal is given.

It is an entry ban that applies not only in our country but throughout the EU and thus also in the associated countries.

Mr Francken, it is especially important that we ensure that the entry ban is respected and that people who have been banned from another EU country also do not enter our country.

We are therefore very satisfied with this measure because it works both to limit the inflow and to improve the return and to improve the outflow of those who are at the end of the procedure. This is really necessary so that we can ensure that those who apply for asylum on a legitimate basis can have a shorter procedure and that they can actually get the protection they need.

Mr. Speaker, we will support this draft, in which Parliament has been heard very clearly, with great enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we will firmly support this bill that regulates the transposition of the European Directive.

I have already said several times at this tribune that a sound asylum policy consists of a good monitoring of the influx, a sound reception of applicants and a quick procedure. For those who can stay here, there must then be an offer so that they can integrate very quickly. For those who do not have a future here, there must be a solid exit policy. Only if all these elements are addressed can we speak of a sound asylum policy. We are therefore pleased that at last – on this point you are right, Mr Francken – the closing point, namely the return, is addressed.

For us, the return policy should include two principles. First, it must be human with respect for the fundamental rights of those who need to be repatriated. Second, the return must be sustainable and effective. For the first point, we find sufficient elements in this law. Thus, people who are victims of human trafficking cannot be repatriated. Deletion may be postponed if the non-refoulement principle is threatened to be violated. Removal may also be delayed due to physical circumstances, such as mental and physical condition.

Let us return to the first starting point. As we consider it essential that the return policy should be efficient and effective, we consider it very important that, in line with what we have approved in Mr. Somers’s Acceptance Act, the emphasis be placed on voluntary return. All these conditions are met in this bill. Anyone who has received a negative answer will be given 30 days to leave the Belgian territory. This term, Mr. Francken, is necessary to prepare those people. Those who find that too long do not realize that these people, who have long kept the hope of building a future here, will finally see that hope lost. It is necessary to prepare them for that voluntary return.

However, if one does not wish to take this path, then there will inevitably follow a forced return.

However, this must also be done with respect for human rights. The imprisonment of people can only in specific cases. For example, the Minister can take preventive measures when there is a risk of hiding.

I would like to repeat here explicitly that the risk of escape is also clearly defined on the basis of Principle 6 of the conditions under which detention may be ordered from the 20 Guidelines on Forced Return of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

It is also essential for us that in the case of unaccompanied minors, the interests of the child are always taken into account. If a family is to be held, it will have to be done in a residential unit, adapted to the needs of families with minors.

It is also important that for the person who resides here illegally and who has also committed a crime and has been convicted, the removal procedure can be initiated before the end of the sentence. Those who are in provisional detention may also be detained for another seven days in order to be expelled from the country.

Finally, any returned illegally may also be banned from entering the country.

I now come to the introduction of the safe countries principle. We have already pointed out this, as several colleagues have already said, in the Acceptance Act and also in the asylum procedure. We absolutely agree with this principle. Why Why ? Well, this increases the efficiency of the asylum procedure, reduces the time limit and, above all, reduces the misuse of the asylum procedure. It aims at a clearly different treatment for another category of asylum seekers, namely those who come from what will be called a safe country.

What is a safe country is also clearly defined. “A country of origin is considered safe when, on the basis of the status of law, the application of legal norms in a democratic system and the general political circumstances, it can be demonstrated that there is a general and sustainable absence of persecution within the meaning of the International Geneva Convention.” This means that if the situation in a country changes, an immediate initiative can be taken to remove that country from the list.

Colleagues, the introduction of this principle does not mean that those coming from a safe country can no longer apply for asylum. Only this application will be processed in a faster procedure and the burden of proof now falls on the asylum seeker. He will have to prove that his country cannot be considered safe for him. That is, colleagues, that if, after an individual examination, it turns out that the asylum seeker cannot sufficiently demonstrate that he is actually being persecuted in his country of origin, his asylum application will not be considered. If he can prove that, his application will be considered.

I have already said this in the introduction. A sound asylum policy means or implies that all elements of the policy are coordinated and applied efficiently. This also applies to the last step, the closing point, namely when there is no longer the possibility of legal residence in our country: the expulsion. We believe that there are sufficient guarantees in this bill and we will therefore approve it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, a number of colleagues have already cited it. I will repeat it again. Indeed, we need a coherent, comprehensive and, above all, continuous asylum and migration policy, not just a list of safe countries. In fact, such a policy begins with prevention, as you said during the discussion in the committee, Mr. Secretary of State. At the same time, it is also necessary to control the inflow, colleague Temmerman, a quick and transparent procedure for which Open Vld has been eager for a while, a legible and operable regulation that is clear, easy to apply and check on the ground. At least equally important, colleagues, is that, if necessary, the removal of the territory also follows.

The transposition of this Return Directive will not provide a solution to all problems, but this draft law as amended will be a necessary link in the chain of a humanitarian policy that will at the same time have to make the asylum and migration issues manageable. The strengths of the draft are seamlessly aligned with the principles of the Acceptance Act previously adopted by this Parliament.

That is to say, there is accommodation during the asylum procedure but ends when the order to leave the territory has become enforceable. We have provided a 30-day implementation period. This can be read in the explanation to the Acceptance Act. A period of 30 days is practically enforceable for those who are ordered to leave the territory. We are not talking here about a deportation in which people are chased out of the country; we are talking here about an order to leave the territory, in which people are given the opportunity to quietly, on a voluntary basis, put everything in preparation to return to their country of origin.

As I said before, the draft has the same principles as the Acceptance Act. That means that we are human and ensure an efficient policy. If it is possible to work with voluntary return, this is effectively the cheapest solution for everyone involved. The 30-day period for leaving the territory — which is coherent — begins from the moment when a negative decision is notified by the Council for Foreign Disputes.

Of course, the design is not blind to anything. We know too well, the Minister in particular, that not everyone is eligible for voluntary return. If the risk is effectively concealed, if it has been demonstrated that preventive measures have not been followed, if public order or security is compromised, if, as colleague Lanjri said, a previous order has been ignored and if there is fraud or multiple applications, the order can be shortened to 7 days, if necessary coupled with an entry ban.

Mr. President, Mrs. Van Cauter, I understand that it is not pleasant to replace Mr. Somers in this matter. Over the past year, he has questioned the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State a dozen times in a rather cassant way about the return policy. You need to replace him now. Per ⁇ he will have a good reason to not be present today, although I would have, of course, preferred that the person who is the worst critic of the policy was present himself.

Mr Francken, Mr Somers is apologized for being, as an observer, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as part of the elections held there.

Be aware that I do not appreciate much that the absence of members who have apologized in good and due form is noticed. This practice is not correct.

If you wish, at the beginning of each session, I will give a list of those who have apologized in order to avoid any observation that could raise doubts about the absences of one and the other.

Mr. Speaker, in the Flemish Parliament, according to tradition, if I am not mistaken, at the beginning of the meeting the apologized members are always mentioned. Please apologize to me.

Nevertheless, Mr. Somers has been working on the subject matter for a very long time.

Mrs Van Cauter, I understand you when you say that the draft contains good elements, such as the agreement with Justice and the list of safe countries. A number of things are actually being clarified. However, now stating that it is a fantastic, well-readable law and that one of the strengths of the current bill is that the Foreigners Act is made more readable by its provisions, the truth is violence. I refer, for example, to the opinion of the State Council, which noted that the author of the preliminary draft should ensure the coherence between the provisions. The State Council wondered why a new title was introduced, while the adjustments could perfectly be made in the existing chapters.

We have poured a whole series of technical comments into amendments, just to increase the readability.

Just putting readability as the strongest point of the current bill into paint is not entirely correct.

Mr. President, Mr. Francken, first of all, Mr. Somers has a valid reason to not be present here today, as the President has just noted.

I also mentioned my point during the discussion in the committee. We are two different personalities, but we speak the same language. We share the same views in our group.

On asylum and migration and on the legibility of the present draft, you have heard the Secretary of State in the committee repeatedly stating – he has also stated this with so many words – that the government has entered into the points of the draft in which you rightly had a number of technical comments. The improvements were made.

However, now coming to declare that the design with heels and eyes is tied to each other and that its drafting was absolutely not done expertly, is indeed the truth violent.

Today, a closing point is provided in a coherent policy that provides for accommodation during the period in which an asylum seeker is entitled to apply for asylum. If, after the decision, the order to leave the territory is subsequently issued and if that order gives him the opportunity, for a reasonable period of time, to prepare for the forced or voluntary return that will follow under certain circumstances – in particular that there must be no doubt that the person concerned will escape, disappear in the illicitness, or that he does not show any fraud or a danger to public order – then this seems to me to be effectively consistent with a coherent policy, as our group expects from the competent minister.

In addition, if we can shorten the procedures and reduce the number of procedures by incorporating a list of safe countries into the law, then we will of course be satisfied if Parliament later approves that list. All this gives the government the opportunity to incorporate the list in question into the law, so that the procedures will be reduced and processed faster. The competent services can then focus on the files in which people have justifiedly submitted an application to obtain the right to asylum.

Then these files can be reviewed more thoroughly and handled within a reasonable time. That seems to me to be in line with a humanitarian policy as we expect it. That is why we will approve the draft.

Mr. Secretary of State, as I said in the committee, it is of course necessary to cooperate with the Justice Department to prevent illegal persons who have committed crimes and who are in prison from falling back into the illegality and committing crimes again. They should be transferred to the Foreign Affairs Service to ensure that they are effectively removed. That seems to me a good thing, with which we not only improve the functioning of Justice but also ensure that overcrowding in prisons is addressed.

Until then, my comments, my colleagues. We will support the draft. Mr Somers, who is currently on a mission abroad, also supports it.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, for a while there has been such an atmosphere in Parliament in which there was a great joy over the absence of a faulty government. Mostly young and new MPs who arrived here rejoiced that Parliament had regained a large degree of autonomy. The absence of a government was a blessing for the country, because it enabled large initiatives to be made in a large and broad consensus.

One of the parades that were always promoted was the new immigration policy, which would benefit the country. It would arise on the basis of a coalition, which at the time was not a coalition, but still acted as a coalition and, besides, was negotiating the formation of a government outside the hemisphere. On the Flemish side it involved a coalition based on the N-VA, Open Vld and CD&V. There was joy all over. There was a naive joy over the fact that there would be a new immigration policy for Belgium.

I was always – that is of course the disadvantage of my years and my experience in the Chamber – cynical when I heard those joyful words, because politics in Belgium ultimately has to do with power. These kinds of coalitions are always very turbulent when it turns out that another coalition is in the making, is in power or will come to power.

That atmosphere which has hanged here for a while is an explanation for the fact that we must now tolerate here the strange phenomenon of the present immigration law. Although Belgium is the gathering point of asylum seekers around the world – we are second, after Sweden, in asylum seekers – Belgium is still there as the chickens to transpose the EU Return Directive into a law. This may be called strange, because the EU Return Directive is primarily a limitation of the autonomy, which we would use here to establish, in our own way, as our public opinion demands, a return policy for illegal and processed asylum seekers.

In particular, we do not need European law, because European law is always a limitation. What are we fixing now? Belgium was the first country to introduce the Return Directive into a law, not even taking advantage of all the opportunities that even Europe, in all its limitations, still allows. So we now have a coalition – in part a former coalition, because the N-VA has now come in opposition to the original agreements – that will implement a European Union return directive and go less far and create less dynamic opportunities to establish a return policy than the European directive allows.

The Flemish Belang asks what we have earned in the name of peace that we are ruled by politicians, even potential majorities who act as a government, who always carry out a migration policy that is weaker and softer than anything, not only Flanders would need and in its polls ever brought forward, but that is also much softer than what even the European directives allow us.

The explanation, dear colleagues, we all know. The explanation is, therefore, that atmosphere of just that, in which a kind of piano four was created after the previous elections. It is a fourth piece of immigration laws – a short word because of the Flemish Interest – on the reception of asylum seekers, on family reunification, on the return directive and on abuses regarding the medical regularisations, which will be discussed next week. All four are poured with the thick, fatty sauce of the Parliament, which was allowed to act autonomously, without a government or coalition coming to say what should happen, and that autonomous would determine how immigration policy should be improved.

There are four in a row, with – as far as I have heard during the discussions I have attended – also a coalition agreement on who could be the chief employee of the texts: the text on family reunification was for colleague Lanjri, Somers received the text on the reception, what was called asylum law. This was agreed behind the scenes, because the government would not interfere with the ongoing affairs. It would be a stream of democracy, which went hunting the four laws through the Parliament. The four main entrants were well distributed. I believe that for this text it was originally agreed that it would be Mr Francken, hence his complaint. I don’t know who it was for medical regularization, but that doesn’t play a big role now.

The fat sauce “we are the Parliament and we are autonomous” disappeared on a good day. After all, the negotiations, behind the scenes, here outside, in the non-democratic political field, made the N-VA wiped out. Suddenly, the fourth was brutally crushed. That beautifully completed new immigration structure for Flanders and Belgium had to be poured into another carcan.

The political situation became a little annoying. The N-VA was in between, but had to go back out. And the N-VA, which had approved a number of matters, suddenly began to reject those matters. It is a little like Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde; the N-VA had negotiated with it, but when they flew out, they found it a bad agreement that might be negotiated later. They called the agreement that the others had closed not a nightmare, but yet unacceptable.

And just like in Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde, CD&V and Open Vld just continued, alone. They called you the guard and sent you to walk with your vision of the Return Directive, which you had tried in this Parliament, behind the scenes, independent of a government and a coalition, in all freedom and with all the democratic force you showed.

Open Vld and CD&V let you sit. Why Why ? Not because they no longer agreed with your view on the Return Directive, but simply because they left the N-VA behind.

I take this as proof that the atmosphere of which I am talking, the fat sauce with which the claw was poured four out of four new immigration laws, is determined by coalitions, political relations, power relations and above all by a compromise that had been broken in those four drafts.

Mr. Annemans, you are shooting with spike. The Return Directive was never included in those four. There has never been an informal meeting on the return directive. You are completely next to it. This has always been within the government. The N-VA has never been at a discussion on the conversion.

I give this only for information. Please stop pondering with fantasies or assumptions. That is not true. On a number of other matters, you know that, but on the Return Directive never.

Furthermore, I would like to hear from you which proposal the N-VA submitted or supported and subsequently withdrawn? Which proposal are you talking about, which we were so-called a month or two months ago or maybe five months ago and now against? I would like to hear that from you.

I do not gamble about it. I now see that you are submitting amendments. First it was 40 and now it is 10. I assume that you cannot find yourself in the proposal submitted by the government.

I also assume, since you have voted against in the committee, that you will also do so here, with which you are, o abomination, on the side of the Flemish Interest.

This has eventually become a draft of the government, including the PS. A very impressive spectacle may therefore be impossible to implement that Return Directive. It’s a bit primitive of mine, but it’s a contrario reasoning: if the PS likes that, I can hardly find that an interesting immigration law.

I appreciate it and I find it even logical that you even amend it with us. Of course, we only continue in our amendments and there our paths divide again. I will return to that later.

What I want to say is that the clay four, for my part the clay three, to which you have collaborated, according to the Vlaams Belang is a way to guide the public opinion to the garden. The family reunification proposed as “a limitation of family reunification”, and the asylum law or reception law, if you wish, were so fake that even the Antwerp magistrates here in the hearings said that one could forget it, because that one would not get there. This is now done as if material aid for asylum seekers is being curtailed. This is the tone of public opinion.

President: André Frédéric, Vice-President

Here too again. The introduction of the Return Directive is abused by the government to suddenly make an amendment as if there is a list of safe countries. I always point out its propagandistic value. One wants to lead the public opinion, which – at this point you will agree with me – in Flanders is very concerned about migration, and rightly, to the garden. It is pretended that this law on family reunification will bind the family reunification.

The public opinion is also guided around the garden with the plea on reception that is proposed as a limitation of material assistance to asylum seekers. Now the Return Directive is also dealt with as if it is introducing a list of safe countries, while the government does nothing but modify a small article of the procedure, reversing the burden of proof. However, the public opinion understands this as Vlaams Belang has been using it for years in its propaganda, namely that people leave a safe country.

The public opinion thinks – that is why you approve the draft – that one will now work with a so-called list of safe countries to approve or reject a case in substance, while it is only a petty reversal of the burden of proof, and the procedure for the rest remains untouched.

For my part, those three – not four – asylum laws that we have are a kind of propaganda that guides the public opinion in Flanders around the garden. We wrap our words when we say it.

I would like to assume that N-VA did not mean it as misused propaganda. Mr Francken, I would not dare to think that you dare to lead the political opinion in Flanders around the garden. But it is in any case a consequence of your strategy to try to get into the feasible while setting aside the necessary if necessary. That is the big difference between your strategic, partly ideological approach and our perspective. Negotiation is almost an ideology for N-VA. You go for the feasible, Vlaams Belang remains for the necessary. I will come back to what we think is necessary.

You say you are accomplishing something together with the other parties. What is happening now actually proves that they can do without you. Once they have decided to throw N-VA out of the negotiations – about BHV, the state reform and the budget, even though Mr. Bracke may say four times that he wants to approve the budget – they do it without you.

As long as they do it without you, they will also spray the propaganda machine around migration, the abuse of the terms I just talked about, the sand in the eyes of the Flemish public opinion, through your throat. In part, that strategy of the feasible has failed somewhere, because the feasible has not proved feasible. You did not get in what could be sold in Flanders as a real reduction of the asylum problem or the immigration flow.

We continue to regret those who envy it and to turn things to the better, go for what is necessary. We predict here today that none of these immigration laws – abbreviation of the Flemish Interest –, not even the current one, will have any beneficial effect on what is at the root of the problem. We are being flooded from all over the world. We are the only country that has suffered so much. We are being flooded by asylum seekers and they will continue to come.

We believe that we should not reason in the European logic. Most of that European legislation is like a block at our legs. Of course, we must respect international treaties and of course, in my presentation, I would like to say four times that it must be human. This is obvious, and we have always emphasized this. As for the Geneva Convention, it is not our responsibility to do that. What we are concerned with is that that European legislation puts a far too heavy burden on the flexibility with which we want to continue to conduct an immigration policy ourselves.

If European law comes into effect, we can at least prove that Belgium is much too soft by the fact that it does not even fulfill those directives, as is shown by amendments of the N-VA which is now trying to do so, to go as far as the European directive allows. We assume that emergency breaks the law. We need to move towards an asylum policy like that in Australia and the United States, which is currently based on the imprisonment of asylum seekers in closed institutions. This will shorten the procedure, because it will greatly reduce the motivation to overload us with purely economic refugees. Within that framework – I would almost say the framework of the United States and Australia – Vlaams Belang considers that we should go much further, that we should not be so naive to transpose that return directive into Belgian law here and then not even do it in a way that Europe allows us. There are no other possibilities.

The facts will justify Vlaams Belang – as has been the case so often in the last twenty years – once again. That asylum flow will not stop with these laws. The asylum flow will continue. We believe that everything that has happened here today and in the last few months, and what will happen here next week – I will return to it next week – has been public opinion deception. One of the evidence or examples I can give is that nothing obliges us to transpose that Return Directive. Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, all civilized countries where civilized people rule, are currently not even thinking about transposing that return directive.

What is true is that the government in ongoing affairs, including the Socialist Party, has abused this to create the impression that the asylum policy will now be addressed on the basis of that list with that amendment on the list of safe countries.

Another example in abundance, the European Union says that Belgium is allowed to keep a list of safe countries. The Government uses this as an amendment. The N-VA seeks to be constructive and proposes to put EU countries on that list of safe countries. The N-VA does not dare, like the Flemish Interest, to ask in an amendment to include in that list that people from EU countries cannot be asylum seekers. We are the only country that allows EU citizens a right of asylum, and this is because the N-VA once in the distant past under the leadership of Geert Bourgeois asked that the Basques could land here as asylum seekers. Belgium is the only EU country that recognizes EU citizens as refugees. That was a historical mistake. The N-VA, however, remains logical and says it is trying to put EU countries on that list of safe countries of Minister Wathelet. We call for the law to include that no longer asylum seekers are accepted from the EU. None of the two will get it.

We find that these are all examples showing that one cannot be sufficiently radical in those matters and that one cannot solve anything constructively with the laws adopted in recent months.

Mr Annemans, you say that the Flemish Interest is a very humane party, not at all extremist, and that you want what America and Australia do, especially closed centers for asylum seekers.

In my view, asylum seekers in Australia, contrary to what you claim, are no longer detained when they apply for asylum. You claim that, however, and you add that the Flemish Interest is not extreme and very proper; you ask what is happening in civilized countries such as America and Australia. I think that is not even true.

You also say that asylum seekers from Europe will never be able to apply for asylum for you. I do not understand what the problem is. I think the Flemish Interest is also a nationalist party. These people are not entitled to reception. This procedure costs the Belgian State virtually nothing. The papers need to be examined, which may indeed cost manure on the civil servants, but that does not cost reception. Thanks to us, these people are no longer accepted.

For us, it applies: no reception, but still the application. There should be the possibility for people who flee their country, whether they come from another EU country or from elsewhere around the world, to get protection, for example because of their political beliefs.

I do not see the problem at all. You say that this costs us a huge amount of money and that the N-VA thus wants to pump more money into the asylum authorities. This costs the asylum and reception authorities absolutely nothing. I find it a very good thing that the Basque couple Moreno-Garcia could flee here and was protected here.

I didn’t want to talk about the Basque issue at all. I just wanted to take it as an example. There are always reasons why the asylum policy in Belgium has led to aberrant conditions. I have not claimed that the N-VA necessarily wants to pay EU asylum seekers or anything. I hear here that they cost nothing, and the better, but that’s not the matter. These are aberrant cases, such as a EU country that is the only EU country granting asylum to EU citizens. We need to see if this has historical reasons. and yes. However, this does not exclude the fact that we can always find that Belgium is in aberrant conditions with its asylum legislation, even though there is no international obligation to do so. We ask that it would be different.

I support you when you say that it should be more logical. There must be some logic in this legislation. That logic does not exist at the moment. We will, of course, go further into this, because we believe that a modern asylum policy cannot be pursued without working with a form of closed centers, detention centers. You act here as if this is an invention of the devil and I tell you that this is not the case. If this is possible in America and Australia — even if you do not think that is the case — then we should not fear to be pointed with the finger.

After Sweden, we are the only country that receives so many asylum seekers per capita. We need to do something, not just because of the numbers, but of course because the democratic reality has given each of us the message to do something about it.

All I do here as an opposition within the opposition is to say that with these measures nothing will change. One could try to convince the public opinion that one has a list of safe countries, that one no longer gives asylum seekers material assistance, and that one has restricted family reunification, but that is simply not true. I wanted to emphasize that. That is our point of view to say that we have a different thinking framework.

We will be right by the facts, now or later, as to how we will need to develop a modern asylum policy in the twenty-first century. Unless we continue to stick to the conclusion that we must flood our public opinion with people and inhabitants that our public opinion has not asked for. Therefore, we must oppose our public opinion. If we want to uphold an immigration legislation approved by the government and therefore by the PS, we will have to go against the Flemish people and then you will have to have the courage to do this too.

But then stop making small asylum laws here in an atmosphere of “we do something about it”, while you don’t do anything about it. That is the only thing I wanted to say. I would like to take the issue of EU citizens who receive asylum here only as an example.

What is my conclusion? Just like the budget in the last few days. There is a lot of abuse of the European Union and of the legislation and agreements at the European level, in order to ultimately condition more subtle arrangements, which better suit the PS. This is evident in the European Directives. They use them, they abuse them if necessary – the list of safe countries is a very good example of this – to then, on the basis of this, throw into us here softer legislation than we would actually be obliged to be European and then we are ⁇ internationally obliged. A modern asylum policy can not come, as long as we allow that state, that mechanism of abuse of European law to introduce here more soft legislation. Stop with it.

Negotiating – this has been shown in recent months – is a dangerous matter. At some point, the negotiations jump off and then it is better, especially in this case, where the public opinion in Flanders has been hammering for so long, to stick straight to its principles and move for the necessity of a modern asylum policy. It is therefore better not to seek the feasible, as we have seen with the text on family reunification. Indeed, months have been spent trying to keep the PS and Mr. Madrane on board. That ultimately failed and then a small cookie seed landed in our nest, which does not imply any restriction on family reunification. Thus it is better to keep the principles and the necessary in a straight line; the state is urgent enough.

There is no need for propaganda laws. Within a few weeks, the freezing shoe will re-enter and then the media with cameras and the NGOs are all back with their pocket clothes at the North Station. The bag will be too small again, there will be an urgent need for arrangement again, and eventually there will be again abundant and unambiguous evidence on the table that all those texts have not been arrangements, no limitations of the problems. I would like to assume that the solutions we are proposing at the moment in Belgium are not feasible. I have never silenced or held behind the teeth a necessary solution, even the most extreme of an independent Flanders and the dissolution of the Belgian State, because it would possibly not be feasible.

I ⁇ never sought the feasible when I knew for sure that even that was not feasible. We must not blame ourselves. You are not allowed to blast your voters. And especially yourself, you should not make blisters.

The so-called new immigration policy based on the immigration laws initially supplemented with the N-VA but subsequently continued with an abolished N-VA, is not a policy that the Flemish Interest can stand behind. We have attempted to amend the text in favour with a number of comprehensive and principled amendments. We hope that these amendments will succeed. We have no fear that this will be the case, because there has been no sign that there could be a debate about a thick, modern, twenty-first-century asylum policy, as we wish. Today or tomorrow, however, it will have to happen, because the problems are big and it is not with what you put on the table now that something will change.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, this bill that aims to transpose the Return Directive contains, in fact, a set of small measures.

A first package of these measures relates to the time limit for ordering to leave the territory. This period may be thirty days, it may be shortened in case of problem or extended if the interested party can prove that his voluntary return cannot take place within that period. They are still aiming to frame the order given to leave the territory.

This bill also deals with the whole question of detention. Who can order detention and for how long? Detention is possible only if there is a risk of escape and is limited to a period of two months.

That said, this bill has a gap. In fact, for several years, it has been discussed the importance of a judicial decision in case of a detention order. Deciding to deprive a person of his freedom is not anodin. We therefore find it important that a proportionality check can be carried out at this level, which is why we have submitted two amendments so that in case of deprivation of liberty, an independent body can verify that detention is necessary.

Who is currently in a closed centre? People who arrive by plane, those who fall under the Dublin Regulation, those who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But there is really no rule for determining which categories of people will be transferred and kept in a closed center. It is the administration that makes the decision to place people in a closed center.

In our view, this practice is not legitimate. When a detention is decided, there must be the intervention of a judge. This is why we submitted our first two amendments.

As for the policy of forced expulsion, the bill provides for the existence of a supervisory body without giving further explanation. However, the minister announced that it is the police control service that will be responsible for these checks. However, it does not seem to be very independent.

Indeed, between the moment when the person leaves a closed center, enters the truck, is taken to the airport, is held in a cage, is on the tarmac and then settles in the plane, there have sometimes occurred regrettable breakdowns. Therefore, it seems to me preferable, both for the expelled and for the police officers who properly perform their task, that a true independent instance assists the expulsions, in an untimely manner, and controls their proper progress.

In our opinion, this instance could have been the Centre for Equal Opportunities. The choice of the police control service does not seem reasonable to us.

Another topic discussed in the project is the entry ban issue. This concept is incorporated into Belgian law. The entry ban is the notion of an entry ban; it is a decision that prohibits entry and stay on the territory of all Member States for a certain period of time. It can be imposed for three or five years.

The Minister may decide that, for humanitarian cases - not specified - he does not accompany the order to leave the territory with an entry ban. The entry ban may be lifted or suspended for humanitarian, study or professional reasons.

In this regard, I will have a few questions to ask you. Despite our committee debates on this issue of the entry ban, how to grant or lift it remains unclear.

This new article 74/12, § 1 paragraphs 1 to 3 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the first paragraph, the Minister may suspend or lift the entry ban for humanitarian reasons at any time, since paragraph 2 provides that, for professional or study reasons, it may be lifted upon request at two-thirds of the duration of the entry ban.

and yes.

We can therefore note that the Minister answers yes to this interpretation.

In this second paragraph, it is therefore noted that the Minister can lift the ban. Does this mean that this is a discretionary power of the minister? In what hypothesis will he agree to raise it for one student and not for another, when both meet the conditions, i.e. have the status of student and have passed two-thirds of their entry ban? Will all students be able to benefit from this right or do other criteria still need to intervene?

It is not a right; it is the discretionary power of the Minister to assess whether the conditions are met and to decide whether or not to lift the entry ban after the first two thirds of its duration; in this case, it would not necessarily be three years, but three years, five years or more.

Humanitarian reasons are also not defined. Could the Secretary of State give us some examples? Is there a risk of facing again the same problem as that posed by Article 9bis, where exceptional circumstances have not been defined and where one often has the impression that they are interpreted by the administration in a rather arbitrary manner? In the case of a request submitted by a person who is present here and has submitted a request for regularization, could they be confused with the exceptional circumstances of Article 9a?

We did not want to make an exhaustive list, at the risk of forgetting humanitarian cases that we would not have thought of. That is why we have ⁇ ined the concept of humanitarian as provided for in the Directive. Again, it will be left to the discretion of the administration and the minister to decide whether or not humanitarian circumstances justify the lifting or suspension of the entry ban.

If no decision is taken within four months of the application for the suspension or lifting of the entry ban, the decision shall be considered negative. This is a little crazy! Generally, when an administration does not respond, it is considered to be in the benefit of the citizen and it is said that the decision is considered positive. Here, we are proposing exactly the opposite. If the administration does not do its job, the person will be penalized and will receive an official negative response.

Moreover, in addition to the fact that it is quite absurd and surprising as a practice, and contrary to any logic of good governance, it risks overloading the Foreign Dispute Council which will see people coming because the administration has not done its job. This seems to me to be mismanagement. Here too, we propose to return to a more classic system, which says that, if after four months – this time limit seems appropriate to me – no response has been given, the answer is considered positive.

How will the procedure for requesting the lifting of an entry ban given by another Member State proceed? The draft provides that it is the Minister or his delegate, i.e. the Foreign Office, who, when considering issuing a residence permit to a person affected by an entry ban, must consult the Member State that issued it, in order to take into account its interests.

In the committee, I asked you about the procedure and you answered that it was the one provided by the Border Code. However, I did not find such a procedure in the Border Code — established by Regulation 562 of 2006 — nor anything specific about what would happen in the event that the State would not answer the question. Can you tell me more, or possibly confirm me that it should be considered that, when the State concerned does not give a response within a reasonable time – one month, two months – it is that it has no interest in ⁇ ining the entry ban and that our country considers itself competent to be able to work in that case.

Madame Genot, I disagree with your interpretation. The entry ban can only be lifted by the State which issued it. The Schengen Border Code assesses the flow of information between different countries.

In this regard, we will face a number of difficulties when the States concerned will not respond. We will have to block a whole series of cases, while they might deserve to be examined by our administration. This may pose many problems for us, especially since there is no time limit for these other states to respond to us.

Another difficulty arises. In order to lift the entry ban, you must have left the country. This means that some people will be ordered to leave the territory, even if, in the meantime, they have founded a family. In this case, the entry ban will not be suspended. If they invoke family reunification with their son or daughter, they will have to return to their country of origin. This is what we will have to say to them! This is totally inconceivable and contrary to the protection of family life which provides that children have the right to be with their parents! I expect many discussions and failures on this subject.

Let us examine the new element of this bill, namely the amendment submitted by the new majority as part of the discussion of this bill: the list of safe countries. It has often been presented as a response to the asylum crisis, to the reception crisis. Let's cut off the wings to this duck! This will not solve the crisis of the reception or the asylum crisis. In France, after adopting the list of safe countries, the number of asylum seekers from these countries has doubled! The lists of safe countries never solved anything. France is the best example.

Where do the majority of people seeking asylum in Belgium come from? From Afghanistan: 11%, from Guinea: 8%, from Iraq: 8%.

These are not safe countries. So the asylum and reception crisis will not be resolved.

And what percentage of the Balkans countries total? How much ?

They are not in the top three countries in terms of asylum applications, except for some months when they occupy the third and fourth places.

The Balkan countries account for 22 percent.

and exactly. So, if I understand right, you consider them safe countries. That is what you tell me!

You mentioned Afghanistan. I guess you don’t consider it a safe country.

Some Balkan countries could be targeted. In any case, I hope – given that, for some of them, we have liberalized visas. This is a very large number of asylum seekers. Furthermore, Mrs. Genot, I would like you to have the correctness of acknowledging that these are the countries that have increased most in recent months.

Madame Genot, we are landing!

Let us return to the Balkans. Who are the people who come here? Most of them are people from ethnic minorities: in this case, the Roma. Are they adequately protected? When you read the European reports, which are written in ⁇ diplomatic terms, you notice that they point to the discrimination and serious violations of human rights that are perpetrated against these communities.

By the way, even the CGRA, which is the official body to check whether people are being persecuted there, has recognized several individuals from the Balkans as refugees in need of protection. At the beginning of the year, Belgium granted this status to 128 Kosovars. If we take the example of Serbia, there too, more than thirty people have received this same status. This is well because it is estimated that, in many cases, these people experience problems.

What is the disadvantage of this famous list? We tend to no longer work in a fine and individual way. The burden of proof is reversed by asking a person to demonstrate that, although they come from a safe country, they are really in danger. Unfortunately, most asylum seekers do not have a small workbook in which they have stored the evidence to produce.

That is why institutions were created. They work on each case and check whether the person actually needs protection or not.

What is most likely to happen? This list of safe countries will serve as a pretext for making quick and stereotyped responses to a whole range of categories of people from countries that will be considered safe.

Let’s be clear: I believe there are, in my opinion, a large number of countries where vulnerable people such as homosexuals, women or MENA are not in a safe situation. I am curious to see the list you will present to us.

Some countries have made their list of safe countries public. Only one country is the same on all the lists: Ghana, and again, only for men. If some countries were truly safe, all European countries that make lists of safe countries would have them on their list! If the countries of the Balkans, which you cited, are not on all the lists of safe countries of other European countries, I think it is because they are not safe countries.

In this regard, I am surprised by the definition that has been made of "safe countries". We have chosen a definition in the directive, as we have said in the committee. However, we did not choose to use the French translation, which provides that a safe country could never resort to persecution. According to this French definition, a country is safe when there is never persecution. We preferred a home translation, where the term "never" no longer appears. I find this regrettable. For me, the word “never” was very important.

The last point I would like to address is the issue of appeal. When the person considers that he has been refused on the basis of a list of safe countries, he must be able to defend himself during this procedure. Even the N-VA, CD&V and Open Vld said nothing different in July.

In the amendment they filed on 19 July, Sarah Smeyers, Nahima Lanjri and Bart Somers stipulate that "the appeal against this decision shall take place in accordance with the accelerated procedure provided for in Article 39/77. It is a substantially accelerated remedy, which offers all the guarantees of effective remedy and which meets the standards prescribed in Article 37 of Directive 2005 85/EC.

Even the N-VA, CDd&V and Open Vld found, in July, that an effective and substantial remedy was indispensable. I think this is good policy. They had listened carefully to the opinion given by the various bars of the country which had very clearly established that it was important to maintain an individual examination and that the reversal of the burden of proof could not take place. These bars recalled various jurisprudence including an earlier ruling of the Arbitration Court in 1993 that it is disproportionate to ask people to prove that they are actually in danger, according to which the reversal of the burden of proof is disproportionate. What these bars were saying was heard – I imagine it – by the N-VA, CD&V and Open Vld when they filed their amendment.

Following the opinion of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which you all have received, we have filed an amendment that aims to provide for a genuine remedy when a person is rejected on the basis of the list of safe countries. This gap in the text is important. Since our amendment was prepared somewhat in the precipitation, this element could not be integrated. I now have the opportunity to do it. You will tell me that we could do it in the Senate, but I think it’s better to save us time and work.

Still, an effective remedy is necessary and our amendment no. 134 aims to make the text acceptable.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, whose function is to monitor the implementation of the Geneva Convention, considers “that in the case of the use of the concept of safe country of origin as a procedural tool ...”. He therefore accepts this use. It also considers that once this is established and the examination of certain priority countries is carried out, each asylum seeker should have the effective opportunity to refute the presumption of a safe country of origin and to have access to an effective remedy, both in law and in fact, in the form of an independent review of the case. In its opinion to the Commission, the High Commissioner stated that an accelerated procedure, and based on the concept of a safe country of origin, should include the possibility of effective factual and legal recourse. This examination must be done ex nunc. Indeed, if the suspensive effect of the appeal is not provided, the effective possibility of requesting it is necessary.

In this context, the appeal for cancellation which appears to be considered before the Council of the Foreign Disputes would not meet these conditions. In fact, this review is a review in law and not in fact and there is concern that the evaluation will be made ex tunc, in the past, at the time when the CGRA made its decision and not ex nunc, now, that is, at the time when the Court of Appeal decides.

Furthermore, it is likely that removing the benefit of reception conditions will make access to the appeal procedure more difficult. This is what UNHCR says.

With regard to the possibility of requesting the suspension in extreme urgency of the order to leave the territory, UNHCR draws attention to the fact that the situation of extreme urgency will not be taken into account if the person is not detained and the new elements will not be taken into account. Since it is not a substantive appeal, the appeal body may not examine grounds relating to the Geneva Convention or to subsidiary protection.

On the same occasion, we should know the opinion of Prof. Vanheule of the University of Antwerp, who, too, was communicated to the members of the commission. It also confirms that the appeal for annulment does not offer the guarantees imposed by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on Articles 3 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, i.e. an effective remedy that applies in case of defensive complaint relating to the possible repatriation of asylum seekers to a country where they are at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. He cites the judgment in the judgment of 11 January 2007, Salah Akka, in which the Court noted the importance of a comprehensive examination, in the substance and ex nunc. He cites other cases in which the European Court of Human Rights has clearly stated that there should be an appeal on the substance, for example, the judgments Gebremedhin of 26 April 2007 but also M.S.S. against Belgium of 21 January 2011.

There is no need to go further. This text has a gap. This is an effective remedy on the ground. I therefore propose you to vote on amendment 134 to make this appeal possible.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, during the discussion of the Acceptance Act we have already noted that ten thousand people on the streets is a sad record.

At the same time, I have heard the various parties involved in the topic declare that it is important to do prevention. I count on the goal of 0.7% on development cooperation and the exercises, as well as the careful monitoring of the influx and a good, effective asylum procedure, integration and a sound expulsion policy, based on the principles of humanity as well as of business. Everything must be based on a principle that excludes arbitrary as well as perverse effects.

So we have presented here several bills on whether or not to imprison children and on the Accommodation Act, which, unfortunately, always had a number of loose ends, which did not always give the same beautiful results.

On 19 October 2011, the Government submitted its long-awaited projects for the transposition of the Return Directive of 15 December 2008. The submission comes three years later.

The proposal also incorporates the debate on safe lists, which we have held some time ago in the Committee on Home Affairs.

I was able to follow the debates on the subject well then. Unfortunately, I was unable to follow the last debate on the Return Directive because I attended the Dexia Committee at that time. Allow me, however, to put a word about my feelings on this subject.

We have taken advantage of the opportunity that the Return Directive offers us to give priority to voluntary return, which is a very good thing. Working on the voluntary return within a clear time frame is important. It is very important that we finally give that signal and make the decision in question. Such was urgently needed.

Working on a list of safe countries has been the subject of discussion. This is understandable, because it is also not very obvious. After all, on all the safe lists that existed so far, only one common country exists, namely Ghana. It has just been brought forward. In addition, the country is only for men on the lists.

I am therefore ⁇ eager to see what has now become the result of the debate on the safe countries, especially since I had also indicated at the time when the theme was discussed in the committee that I would like to bring my light on the issue. However, it is clear that what came out of the bus is also part of the negotiations with the majority, for which I have full understanding.

Unfortunately, the transposition of the directive, as well as the other two bills to which I have just referred, has not been carried out with the utmost care, and then I confuse my words.

I will not repeat all that my colleague has said to me, but I am concerned about the term “risk of hiding.” The risk of hiding is controversial. I notice that the opinion of the middle society differs from the compromise of the majority.

The Government chooses to deviate from the definition of the directive and chooses “current and real risks based on objective and serious elements”. In the memorandum of explanation, a whole list of situations from which the Foreign Affairs Service can make a distraction. It is, of course, a distraction based on a basis of suspicion.

Of course, it will be tricky. A presumption is contrary to the consideration that requires decisions to be made on the basis of individual elements. I will explain myself further: if the Foreign Affairs Service uses the list from the explanatory memory, there is a danger that standardized decisions will be made, says the civil society.

I have not read in the report sufficient answers to that concern. Refugee Work, Amnesty and CIRÉ have all challenged that provision and have also proposed an alternative. Why is this alternative not followed? This is a very concrete question. They refer to the actual attitude of the individual, to objective indications “that one evades” – that is their words – “to alternative control possibilities”. In particular, there is an active action, as alternative control measures are avoided.

Keeping the text as it is does not answer that concern. A lot of people could be wrongly attributed to a risk of hiding. This may give rise – again, I always assume the goodwill of the administration and the procedure – that the persons concerned are unjustly exposed to a risk of hiding. As a result, they can no longer use the path of voluntary return, which is so central to the project and which we stand behind. This still raises questions. They can also be caught immediately, which is of course also disturbing.

Some insight into human reactions suggests that the implementation of that provision will sort out such a deterrent effect that individuals may even more often and even earlier hide, thus resulting in the opposite outcome of what we actually seek.

In addition, if individuals can be arrested immediately in reception centers by the police, it can also cause panic among all other residents of reception centers and create a grim atmosphere. In 2005, we saw this reality. A lot of foreigners were hiding there. That measure therefore contains the danger of being counterproductive and is ⁇ not efficient, although – I also assume that – efficiency must still be the purpose of the law.

I come to the second issue and the amendment on the list of safe countries. In the first discussion that we held on this subject in the committee, I said that I would like to reflect on that given given, knowing which shortcomings – Mrs. Genot has just mentioned them all – in the matter already exist at the moment. I am not a priori opposed to the notion of a safe country as an instrument in an asylum procedure, provided the necessary evaluation, the flexibility to be able to reconsider matters and the necessary safeguards. I am also concerned about the current text. I just heard the debate about the Balkan countries. If one wants to address the problem of immigration from the Balkan countries, then Europe will need to work urgently on its social integration and not just on economic integration. That will be the means. That’s also better than visiting country by country and discouraging people from coming here. Europe may have to set its priorities differently.

The text today states that the appeal against a negative decision does not provide the necessary legal guarantees. It is just a cancellation appeal. That is problematic. The proposed procedure not only reverses the burden of proof, it even increases the burden of proof. Professor Vanheule and UNHCR indicate that there is a risk of violation of the Constitution and universal human rights. This is not a small beer. If this observation is made by persons who have an understanding of it, and by bodies dealing with the theme, then we must still take this into account if we want to go to a human but business procedure that excludes arbitrariness and tries to eliminate the loose ends as much as possible. By the way, several majority parties agreed with this observation during the debate on safe countries in the committee.

That observation is simply forgotten by those same majority parties today, although it is confirmed and reaffirmed from the field of work, by people who have knowledge of fundamental legal principles in our own country and internationally. I cannot participate in that. If it is our goal to make the procedure around asylum performant from beginning to end, then this is a perverse effect of jewelry that you will approve today without boe or ba. This will lead to more discussions, more debate and more procedures in the future. What does this exercise lead to? Is it just a strong piece of the kind of compromise that the majority can ⁇ ? I hope that this is not a precursor of what will follow in this Parliament, because then we will have very difficult years.

As I said, this comment was not just made by me, by our group. It was created by other parties who will vote on this bill today. It is made by people who have a sense of affairs from the middle field, from the legal field, and so on. The absence of an effective remedy in the proposed procedure is therefore not merely a concern. We have submitted our amendment. I think everyone with some common sense will take this amendment hand in hand today and approve it. There is perfectly a possible solution, a substantive appeal, which is accompanied by a strict return policy for those who, based on thorough investigation, do not appear to be at risk of persecution or do not appear to be at risk of damage, and who are therefore effectively unfounded here. That goes perfectly together, so I don’t really see where the problem is.

A third comment should really take me from the heart. During the discussion on the Acceptance Act – which Mr. Wathelet cannot answer and it is a pity that Mr. Somers is not here, but I will undoubtedly address him again later – we have found that between the first and the second asylum application there is a period in which the Foreign Affairs Service must decide whether the second application is admissible or not. In half of the cases, this is granted. If a person does so after the 23rd day – given the period set by this transposition of the Return Directive, namely thirty days – there is a possibility that he does not have a right to reception pending the declaration of admissibility or not. I also repeated this at the time in the discussion in the Chamber and the parties who then approved the Acceptance Act promised on their communion bill that it would be arranged within the framework of the transposition of this Return Directive.

I find nothing back today.

I have been told, hand on heart, that this gap in the reception law was being remedied. She is not remediated. Dear colleagues, for whom we assume that we must have a human and business asylum policy that excludes arbitrariness and addresses the loose ends, so far only the opposite has been proven. This law does the same thing again.

The loose end of the reception law that you would resolve with this law, you have not solved. You have created new ones. Meanwhile, prevention, according to what we hear, has to lead under this. The budget for reception is now going down. I find it all together a sad outcome for those who say they want a better procedure.

We will vote against today. That is the logica zelve. I hope you approve our amendment. Something else means absolute randomness, and opt for perversities in the system rather than for solidity.

Mrs. Almaci, I have one question to you. I followed your speech quite well. We can agree on some points, and on others less. This is not surprising, given the position of our parties in the social field.

I have misunderstood something. You say that it creates the same risk as in 2005, that there is unrest in the reception centers because the police could pick up people in those centers. I do not understand how that risk would be created. This is a question of information, because I do not understand your point.

If one effectively acts as described in this law, it becomes possible to pick up people without any advance in the centers and send them away. This can cause anxiety because people then start to wonder if that can be applied to them too. According to this law, a presumption is sufficient. A logical reaction is that some people get fear that in their case that suspicion may also apply. Then there are situations where one infects the other with his anxiety. We saw in 2005 that when one moves to forced return in this way, other people in the reception centers start to resist. That creates a self-enhancing effect, while another description, a better procedure, which could perfectly get rid of. It must be clear to the people who falls when and when not.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, it has been said many times, since 2007, the number of asylum seekers has increased significantly. In 2007, we had 11,587 asylum seekers and in October 2011, we already had 20,726. We have also said that Belgium is not the only country to experience this growth phenomenon. A significant increase in the number of asylum seekers is also observed at the European level; I think of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg or even Germany.

In the face of this phenomenon, the reception network is completely saturated. The rate runs to 96% and we see people on the streets every week who do not find a place.

In this context, it was important to respond with structural responses, which could speed up the processing of asylum applications and reduce the number of pending cases, while fulfilling our obligations under the Geneva Convention. Measures had to be taken! Measures have already been taken. Since July 2009, Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration Policy, Melchior Wathelet, has taken a number of structural measures. I will recall a few: the information campaigns carried out by the Foreign Office, the increase of the staff of the asylum agencies (in 2009, 56 people engaged, in 2010, 93 people engaged and in 2011, 99 people engaged), the simplification of the asylum procedure, the priority handling of certain asylum applications, the establishment of a cooperation protocol between the Foreign Office and Fedasil.

So steps have already been taken and the bill under consideration is also moving in this direction. It was widely developed in committee, a lot of questions were asked, a lot of amendments were submitted and we received a lot of answers to our questions.

Through its adoption, this project makes significant progress. It aims to transpose the Return Directive in order to establish a policy of removal and repatriation based on common standards.

The preference for voluntary return to forced removal is anchored in the Foreigners Act. This principle is the key to an effective return policy. By providing for a sufficiently long period of thirty days for voluntary departure, the effectiveness of the return procedure is promoted. It is important to have effective regulation rather than just strict.

Furthermore, the right to reception during the appeal proceedings, thirty days as I said, remains unchanged. In this way, an effective return policy can be achieved without further burdening the host network. On the other hand, the entry ban, which until now only applied to convicted persons, is extended to foreigners in illegal residence who do not comply with the obligation to return within the scheduled departure time.

The transposition text also provides for an effective system of monitoring forced removal as well as a number of safeguards for unaccompanied foreign minors. The bill creates the necessary legal basis for the effective removal of illegally staying foreigners who are staying in a prison institution.

Finally, we submitted amendments on this subject; the provision regarding the introduction of the list of safe countries is quite in the extension of the CGRA proposal. It will create a list of safe countries.

Given the current situation, it is very important to send a strong signal as soon as possible. Abuse of asylum protection for purposes other than obtaining a protection status compromises the position of those who truly need protection and reception.

All these measures taken, including the adoption of the list of safe countries, meet the expectations widely expressed in this assembly and we firmly support the text developed tonight.

I give the floor to Ms. Smeyers for the second intervention of the N-VA.

We speak with two members of the same group.

As you know, the asylum procedure is something I take to heart.

You are making sluggish decision-making by folding two amendments on the safe countries, in a file that does not actually deal with the asylum procedure. However, we are not complaining; we are pleased that these amendments are included. These amendments do little on the subject in the present draft law and they are not at all in their place, but ⁇ you have deliberately included them in the transposition of the Return Directive, because you know that they are two very good ideas and there can still be something positive communicated about the transposition of the Return Directive.

We are also pleased with the understanding of the majority and of yourself that the reception and the asylum procedure should be considered together. Strength of one must come together with the strength of the other. We have said this for a long time. The reception law was recently amended. This did not happen very thoroughly; in this regard, Mr Annemans is right. It is in any case a step in the right direction, in which we hoped that the asylum procedure would be considered at the same time, otherwise the tightening of the Acceptance Act would effectively remain dead letter.

The asylum procedure has changed somewhat with the introduction of the list of safe countries, but that alone is of course not enough. That is cherry picking, as we call it in beautiful Dutch, the candy of the whole struggle of the asylum procedure, something about which, by the way, there was an agreement with Open Vld, CD&V, sp.a and N-VA. The sweets — the safe countries — have been removed and have been amended in the current Return Directive.

However, we are not going to do anything sad at all, but it is actually a sad way of working. We will, of course, support the amendment to the list of safe countries, because it is our initial idea.

Mr. Secretary of State, we are also pleasantly surprised. Indeed, during the hearing on the amendment to the legislation on the asylum procedure, in the Committee on Internal Affairs, you were still very negatively opposed to the idea of the list of safe countries. Mr Van den Bulck was also very negative to this idea. Almost everyone who was raised there to give their opinion about the list of safe countries found that idea very bad and inoperable.

Suddenly you see the light. The other parties who were in favour could persuade you to implement that idea.

It is a pity that we and the parties, with whom we have worked well for a year and were well on the way to tighten the asylum procedure, could not continue to work on a comprehensive approach. It is good to take a small step now.

I have yet another question about this. Now we lay the legal basis. We introduce the principle of the list of safe countries into the law. However, the law also states that that list will have to be determined through a KB. Well, I ask you to do this work quickly. Do not get rid of it by satisfying us and keeping the outside world for sure that there is a list of safe countries. This KB must be prepared. I hope that you will not stop the appearance, but that you will actually make work of that KB. Parliament will not be known. This will be done in consultation with the Commissioner General, of course the competent authority. We also wanted them to be the first initiative, but it is a pity that Parliament will not be known in it.

That is why we have submitted an amendment to include at least three groups of countries as safe and secure countries. These are of course EU countries. That speaks for itself, because I do not know any European country where there is currently war. These are the visa liberalized countries. That is also quite logical, because if a country gives a visa exemption, one can assume that it is a safe country. Finally, I think of the Balkan countries, because it is systematically shown that an enormous number of asylum applications come from the Balkan countries, such as Serbia and Macedonia, but that the recognition ratio of those asylum applications is almost null.

We had proposed to define at least those three countries as safe, but it is a pity that you didn’t have an ear for that in the committee.

I know you will say that this is impossible, because the situation will fluctuate. That is true. We do not say that people from these countries are not allowed to apply for asylum. We ask only to make a presumption of that, which is of course refutable. Subjects applying for an accelerated procedure and if there is serious evidence of persecution or torture, as defined in the Geneva Convention, then those asylum applications can of course be considered.

It is a pity that Mrs. Lanjri is not there. She didn’t want to be interrupted, so I couldn’t respond to her criticism of us. She says that we agreed with those 30 days in the reception law and that we now return to that.

During the discussion of the reception law, there was no mention of 30 days. It was said that there must be an executable order before anyone can return. Nothing was said about those 30 days.

This was not possible, as the Return Directive had not yet been transposed. How could we know about how many days you would have it? We never agreed on this at that time.

What we have agreed on is that there must be a consistency in the legislation between the Acceptance Act and the Foreigners Act. They must be aligned.

At that time, of course, we never said that this could be 30 days for us. Ms. Lanjri will be able to read this in the report. Thirty days is also unfunctional. This will be shown by practice.

This should now be discussed in this law, in the transposition of the Return Directive. Now you are decided to implement a policy that allows you to return only 30 days after the order to leave the territory.

You reproach us that we should have amended it at the time, but we could not do so at the time because you were already a year late with the transposition of the Return Directive. You are now doing something that should have happened at the end of December. I would like to correct that.

Mr. Secretary of State, ⁇ it may still be worth looking at our amendments. You apparently have more and more the habit of taking good ideas from the N-VA.

Mr. Annemans, we are really focusing on politics. You say they can do without us. It may be, but they obviously cannot do without our good ideas.

Mr. Secretary of State, I hope you take on those other good ideas as well.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in matters of immigration and asylum, I have in fact only one and only regret: it is that neither my party nor the N-VA is responsible for this matter. Indeed, for years measurements have succeeded measurements and the problem of illegal immigration continues to worsen.

In my view, this project is just another frigid measurement. Because of “socialistico-humanist” policies and thanks to the inaction of the liberals, our country has become an eldorado for all paperless people. When our legislation is ⁇ lax and tolerant, or even generous, our country plays a demented role.

If only we welcomed persecuted people in their countries, people in danger because of their political orientation, it would be an honor and would not pose the slightest problem. Unfortunately, this is far from the case.

We attract above all profiters of all kinds, who come to benefit from the incredible social benefits that we grant them: housing, the hotel and sometimes even regularization if, during all this time, they have not simply disappeared in nature, coming to inflate a little more the number of illegal ghosts that will resort to theft, trafficking, begging or sometimes – it is a lesser evil – to work in the dark.

Understand that, in my opinion, these illegal people, those people who voluntarily decide to come to us while they do not meet the conditions, do not deserve that we spend public money for them. This is what we have been doing for too many years. Despite the provisions of the law, only 15% of illegal non-EU migrants, who were ordered to leave the territory last year, have actually left Belgium. I don’t know if you find this normal, but personally I find it a total aberration.

Why are we not already implementing the existing law? Why should we trust this proposal, which is announced to us as "the" solution, even though it is supported by the same parties, the same parties that created this unacceptable situation?

You should not be fooled. I don’t believe you, and the people don’t believe you anymore. My party’s position is very clear: no person illegally arriving in Belgium, except asylum seekers, should be able to benefit from regularization or to see their permitted presence on the national territory, because the initial non-compliance with the law can in no way grant rights and advantages.

However, we must be aware that paperless people are illegal and people who do not comply with our laws. We must have the courage to tell them that they are not welcome in our country. We must therefore proceed to their immediate expulsion. There is no need to turn around the pot, Mr. Secretary of State.

To do this, we need to create a clear list, a complete list of safe countries, democratic countries that respect their people. It can be said that we are far from counting, because in the present project, nothing is planned. This is the most complete artistic mistake. As previously stated, Parliament will not even have a word to say about the preparation of this list. It is very unfortunate!

Personally, I am afraid that this will again be an advertising effect. I see here only a new operation "powder in the eye". In the end, you will tell me, why change the good old habits?

What is even more serious, in my opinion, is to prioritize voluntary returns. This is the most complete mask! I invite the state to embark on organized trips, because this is really what the current policy looks like.

I cannot, of course, agree with it, because it is clear that we are being fooled and that our current system is far too lax. We must stop being afraid, we must dare to obey our laws. We must stop! For grace, stop regularizing our nationality to people who do not deserve it.

Furthermore, we need to work faster and reduce procedures even more. To do this, we need a clear, firm legislation, a precise legislation. It is clearly not the case in this legislation that I would qualify as a four-everything, which, in my opinion, has as a real, unconfessed goal, to make the people believe that the government is acting, while there is nothing.

This is similar to the transfer of foreign prisoners. We have heard in the press large effects of announcement that the Minister of Justice would return to their homes all detainees of foreign nationality.

Mr. Louis, I would ask you to stay on the subject, please.

I am completely in the subject. There are laws in this area as well. Conventions have been signed, but despite everything, there are still 45% of foreign prisoners in our prisons, fed and accommodated at the expense of the Belgian taxpayer even though they have nothing to do here.

We also had the right to a so-called consideration of the situation. The government would settle everything by signing conventions with various foreign countries. In the end, out of almost 5,000 foreigners detained in our prisons, less than 50 people have been transferred since 2005. The effect of advertising in all its splendor! We talk, but nothing follows.

That is why people no longer trust the political world. The announcements are not followed by real measures on the ground. And I fear that we are not witnessing the same phenomenon here. That is why I will vote against this project.

I fully support the position of the N-VA on this subject. Therefore, there is no need to repeat what colleagues Francken and Smeyers have brilliantly expressed. I will, of course, support all the amendments proposed by the N-VA because I think they are useful, basic and they are going in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the debate was long and rich in legal data. I say to you from the beginning that the FDF MPs will support this bill.

In these matters concerning the status of foreigners, whenever Europe can unify procedures and legal conditions, European citizenship is strengthened. I confess to preferring this debate to the one we had a few months ago on family reunification, during which I had lamented that the project undermines our conception of European citizenship.

Certainly, much remains to be done in order for the European Union to improve and strengthen the uniformity of the law in this area. One of the major issues will of course be the definition of so-called “safe” countries. I confess that this expression leaves me a little hungry, I find it unsatisfactory and I don’t especially like it. No matter what, the intention is well distinguished.

I don’t know if you can tell us in your speech to what extent the cooperation between the Member States that will apply the Return Directive can concrete at least the definition of a common list of these safe countries. It is clear that, in order to give meaning to this notion, it is necessary that the European Union applies it in the most uniform way on all the territories of the countries bound by the Directive.

There is still much work to be done to ensure that the procedural deadlines are the same. I want to talk about both the deadlines for the application of the order to leave the territory, as well as the deadlines for appeals before the courts. It is obvious that there is still a multitude of differences or divergences between states of the European Union. In fact, the directive does not impose strict deadlines and leaves room for manoeuvre to each state. I dare believe that, gradually, the legibility of the application of this Directive will be enhanced by the complementary legislative developments that the European Union will lead us to translate into provisions of domestic law.

Unlike the speaker who preceded me, what I hold from this bill is that while being firm towards those who abuse procedures to try to gain the right to stay in a country while they are not in the conditions to reside there, among the recommended measures, voluntary return remains the most appropriate measure. You are right in this, Mr. Secretary of State. That does not prevent the forced return when he sits. In any case, there is a desire to find a balance between firmness and respect for fundamental rights.

Nevertheless, I agree with the representative of the Ecolo group, Ms. Genot, when she was rightly concerned about the ineffectiveness of an appeal in certain hypotheses. The amendment she submits to Article 9 deserves to be considered.

I would be happy to hear you in response to this amendment regarding the legal reasoning you can use to meet the arguments of Professor Vanheule and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, of which it must be said that he has, at least, an authority to assess the effectiveness of the rights of appeal, as he recommends.

This is the intervention I wanted to make on this bill, wishing, once again, that the European Union should continue to deepen the harmonisation of the arrangements or laws of each of the States in the sense of greater clarity and greater understanding for all persons who will see the provisions in force apply.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will try to answer a number of questions that have been asked and give some criticism of some interventions. I will then allow myself, in a few words, to recall the philosophy of this text and the purpose it wants to pursue.

Per ⁇ some other elements related to your intervention, Mr. Francken. We are just about to discuss this. Sometimes your argument contains contradictory points. At a certain point, you call the conversion too lax and then make the comparison with other countries, for example the Netherlands. However, you must admit that the Netherlands has not yet made this conversion. Do not blame me, but compare with something that does not exist, which is a little difficult for me. The way in which the Netherlands will carry out the conversion, we do not yet know. We know that France has already done the conversion and during the discussions I have been able to demonstrate that it happened there for almost all points in the same way as it did for us.

We also discussed the possibility of 18 months of imprisonment in a closed centre. At present, detention in a closed centre is up to 8 months. There is absolutely no need to go to 18 months. The average period of detention in a closed centre is less than 30 days. If we have to keep a place in our closed centers for more than 8 months because we may not be able to remove someone in 18 months, that means that we keep those places occupied instead of placing other people in a closed center, in order to really remove those people. Again, a closed center is not an alternative to prison, but the ultimate way to remove someone. If we are not able to remove someone in a period of 18 months, then I would rather keep these places available to effectively remove people.

You also talked about the text that is absolutely incorrect, which is incomprehensible. For example, you talked about the term “citizen” that was not well defined. Read the opinion of the State Council on pages 5 and 6. The State Council has asked us to use that expression in our text.

You also talk about the people at the border. As I said at the committee meeting, this Directive does not apply to persons at the border. They do not fall within the scope of this Directive. This Directive does not apply to those persons. They fall outside the scope of this Directive.

I have already read the report on the possible lifting of the entry ban. Mr Francken, that is stated in your report, it must be asked in the countries of origin.

You have also said that men persons cannot remove to a land of which they have no nationality. If someone, for example, would have a verblijf in another land, we would die person not to that land can remove. That is not correct. Article 3: “A third-country national may be removed, either in his country of origin or in the country of transit, in accordance with the readmission agreements, or in another third country to which the national concerned decides to return voluntarily and in the territory of which he is authorised or admitted to stay.”

Thus, it also concerns third countries whose persons do not have the nationality. Something is clearly stated in the text.

You noticed that the text was not clear. It may not be clear enough for you, but the above is clear.

The last element that we have discussed in the committee is the control of removal as such. I have indicated that we are not changing the current practice, which is even challenged by Mrs. Genot. We keep the control as it is now. However, we had to include a provision in the relevant text, which is contained in Article 8 § 6 of the Directive: “Les États membres prévoient un système efficace de contrôle de retour forcé.”

We have opted for a KB, which will determine that everything will remain as it is now. This will be carried out by the Inspector General of the Police.

This has proved, Mr. Francken, that your words were not correct.

Again, Mrs. Genot, you say that the imprisonment is not controlled. When a person is imprisoned, they can directly challenge their imprisonment by submitting a release request. It is the current system and therefore this closure that, by this mechanism, is controlled as it is today.

You also say that the answer must be positive if it does not intervene within four months. I told you, the suspension of an entry ban is a favor that can be granted by states. An explicit authorization is required to suspend this entry ban. We cannot ensure that we have a system in which, in case of non-response, it is positive. This is not in line with the spirit of the Directive. I also said this in the committee.

You also gave the example of the person who must nevertheless return to his country of origin, while he has a family, in order to benefit from the suspension of the entry ban. Again, you don’t tell the whole story. This means that it concerns someone who has had an entry ban. If she had an entry ban, it means that either she had public policy problems, or she had fraud problems, or at least she did not comply with her previous order to leave the territory.

At some point, we need to set limits. There are a number of opportunities for these people. First, they can challenge the order to leave the territory given to them. For example, invoking Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, invoking their family situation to refuse to see this order to leave the territory as enforceable. Second, they may also comply with the order to leave the territory as such. If they comply with this order to leave the territory, they will not be able to impose an entry ban.

Only for persons who have been notified of an order to leave the territory, for whom this order to leave the territory was accompanied by an entry ban, only those are asked to return to their country of origin to request a suspension of the entry ban. It seems quite logical to me that at some point, when all these elements and all these filters have been passed, these people must comply with the rules and return to their country of origin in order to request a suspension of the entry ban.

Question of cancellation – question raised by Mr. Maingain – it concerns only the procedure of taking into account. The cancellation action against a list of safe countries means that the file has not been taken into account by the Office. It is the non-consideration that is susceptible of an appeal for cancellation. If the file is taken into consideration, the remedy offered is the classical remedy, also in the substance.

The fact of providing for a cancellation procedure does not deprive the person whose file has not been taken into consideration of the right to introduce a procedure and an appeal in extreme urgency to suspend the removal. It is possible, but not sure if it will be accepted. This is not a guaranteed right: the procedure must be introduced.

In summary, one, they can still introduce an appeal for suspension in extreme urgency; two, it is an appeal for cancellation but only on the element considered.

I would like to tell you that, legally, the Constitutional Court validated this appeal mechanism. Indeed, the mechanism used is perfectly identical to the one we use for European citizens. If a European citizen submits an asylum application in Belgium, the decision to take into account or not must be made within five days and, depending on the outcome, an annulment appeal remains possible before the Council of the Contentious.

In Belgium, this appeal was considered effective by the Constitutional Court in 2008. We have only implemented the same mechanism with respect to people from the list of safe countries. So, the Constitutional Court has purely and simply validated this type of appeal.

Mrs. Almaci, I answered your second question, since it was the same as the question of Mrs. Genot.

We have given a definition of the term "risk of hiding" and have listed several examples in the explanatory memory. That must be checked on an individual basis by DVZ and DVZ must justify that, against which appeal to the RvV is possible.

So to say that it can be motivated in a general way is absolutely not correct, it must be motivated case by case. There is a broad definition in the text. The explanation of the definition consists of examples in the memory of explanation.

I will come to the last questions, namely the questions of Mrs. Smeyers. It was a bit provocative, but we are. You said that you find it a little strange, because the use of a list of safe countries is made possible through an amendment to a text that does not deal with the asylum procedure. Excuse me, but for me, return is an important part of the asylum procedure, ⁇ even the most important part. When you say that it is not about the asylum procedure, then I can absolutely not follow you anymore, but ⁇ your comment was meant to be provocative.

I would like to express my gratitude to the Parliament, as it dealt with the text very quickly. The Parliament has submitted a major amendment on the possible procedure with the list of safe countries. This means a very important signal to all people who would come from safe countries.

Mrs. Smeyers, the royal decree is already available for advice to the CGVS, but a royal decree cannot be published or a decision can be taken if the legislation does not yet exist. The KB is in preparation and will be issued very soon by myself or my successor. This can only happen if the law exists.

Ms. Smeyers, you also talked about three possible categories of countries that should be considered safe.

We did not choose such a possibility. The possibility is also not in the text proposals. I would like to point out that we need the advice of the CGVS to determine which countries can be considered safe. Based on that, we will make a decision.

With one of your comments, I can absolutely not agree. You are asking to include in the law that the European Member States are included on the list of safe countries. However, this would mean extending the procedures for European countries. Currently, the procedure for European countries takes five days. If they are considered safe countries on the basis of the present text, the procedure for residents of those countries would take fifteen days.

I do not want such an extension. I would like to stay with the current text. The procedure for the European countries now takes five days. I do not understand why we would extend the procedure to fifteen days, as you suggest. I want to maintain the current system. Therefore, I absolutely do not support your proposal.

To conclude, I would like to say that this text is not intended to resolve everything. Asylum and migration are extremely complex. And we know that all aspects must be addressed. This is what I have tried to do in the context of procedural changes in the CCE. This is what we have tried to do with the supplementary staff in all the asylum agencies. This is what we are trying to do in the context of prevention campaigns. Director General of the Foreign Office, Mr. Roosemont, is, today, in Guinea, which is known to be the second country of origin of asylum seekers in Belgium. This is done in the framework of the Return Directive. This is part of the list of safe countries. This was also done yesterday in the framework of the 9ter procedure. You can see that we are trying to move forward on all aspects.

This text will not solve everything, but it must help make sure to have – and I quite liked the expression used by Mr. Maingain just recently – this subtle balance between the firmness and humanity of all our procedures, the firmness and respect for all citizens’ rights.

With this transposition, we really wanted to give priority to voluntary return – this is where change is situated – a real priority by giving people a time limit for their voluntary return, a “human” time limit of thirty days to enable them to prepare for their return, while telling them that if they do not use the opportunity given to them, they would be punished. Their sanction will be forced return accompanied by a possible entry ban, an impossibility of return on the entire Schengen area.

Furthermore, the list of safe countries should not only allow us to have faster procedures, prioritising with a change in the burden of proof, but also and above all to give an important signal to these safe countries of origin so that these people do not introduce an asylum procedure more abusively.

Madame Genot, I am sorry to have to tell you that I do not agree at all with your reasoning. What poses a huge problem to me is that, in our country, a number of people who truly need protection are put in trouble as part of their asylum procedure and the consequences in terms of reception because people abuse our asylum procedures. This cannot be accepted!

Seeing today that, from time to time, persons of Afghan origin – more than 60% of people have a status when they are of Afghan origin – are now put in difficulty as part of their procedure or as part of the reception that is given to them, because a number of people, from countries with which we really have other types of relationship and for which the recognition rate is infinitesimal, come to abuse our asylum procedures, we can no longer accept this situation.

Priority must be given to people who truly need this protection and we cannot put all of our systems into trouble because of people who would abuse it. This is what we have to do with safe countries. This is what needs to be done with the 9ter procedure to focus on people who need real protection.

Furthermore – I would like to thank my colleague, Minister of Justice – we have finally developed a system allowing for this exchange of information between the Justice and the Office of Foreigners so that persons, who are deprived of a residence permit on the territory and who, in addition, have received convictions, that is, that they have disturbed public order, are removed as quickly as possible and in the most effective manner possible. If there are many people who need to be kept away, these are those! We have made sure that this exchange of information, that these procedures are simplified between the Office and the Justice. It has not yet been won, let’s be clear! The most difficult will be the implementation and effectiveness of the measures taken today. But this legal framework allows this exchange of information and to optimize these removals from prisons. This is a fundamental advance.

Thus, this text constitutes a breakthrough in terms of returns, the signal given to safe countries and relations with justice. This will ⁇ not solve everything, but they are essential elements to advance, improve and make our asylum policy more effective, in this mix of firmness and respect for fundamental rights.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, I have closely followed your speech. I ⁇ appreciated the last part of your speech. I think that is the commitment that you need to worry about every day, namely that the asylum procedure is used by those who need it and no longer by those who abuse it.

You said a few things that I would like to briefly address. First, you say that those 18 months are absolutely not necessary, since the average period in the closed centers is 30 days. If you use 8 months as a maximum period, I think some people will continue to persistently refuse to help identify them. If we put that latter on 18 months, they will not do that, according to us.

Second, you said that I am a reporter of my own report and it states that they will no longer be able to submit an application for suspension in Belgium. In your bill you can read, I quote: “...except for international treaties, KBs and so on.” I have no problem with those international treaties, but in your bill it is very clear that a KB can overrule this. A KB can be used to draw up a list of countries for which a suspension application can still be submitted in Belgium. We ask to suspend this. You might need to look at the report.

Thirdly, ...

There are international treaties that...

Let us try to work in order. by Mr. Francken and Mrs. Genot bring their added value. You will then react if necessary, if it is important.

Finally, Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to point out two things. You picked up some things from my speech, but you did not say anything about why “vulnerable persons” are defined, if that is not used as a term anywhere in the Foreigners Act. I think this is completely aberrant.

Secondly, you – and the Chamber that will approve this later – consider anyone who is forcibly repatriated within thirty days of his order, apparently as a voluntary departure. I think this is not correct.

There’s one thing I can’t let say, that if you leave an Afghan teacher out with her three children for fifteen days, it’s because of other people doing this or that. No to No! If Afghan families are on the streets, it’s because the government has been leaving the reception dossier behind for three years. In 2007, the first Afghans were outside, and we had never had such a low number of asylum seekers. In addition, in the previous years, a number of open centers had been decided to close.

So it is political decisions that have put these people out, and not other asylum seekers. I am ashamed to say this!