Proposition 53K1904

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers et modifiant la loi du 12 janvier 2007 sur l'accueil des demandeurs d'asile et de certaines autres catégories d'étrangers.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Nov. 24, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive foreign national housing illegal migration welfare removal

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo 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 ¶

March 21, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I will be relatively concise.

The present bill has already been submitted by the Government in ongoing cases. It concluded with the parliamentary work in the Committee on Home Affairs and the Committee on Justice, which took two years. We have sought to ⁇ major breakthroughs and reforms in the absence of a government with regard to some delicate issues of our migration policy and our migration policy. The draft law is an example of this.

One of the questions discussed extensively is: how to organize a good return policy? Refugees whose application is rejected are not entitled to a residence permit and must return to their country of origin.

In parliamentary work, it has been pointed out almost across chambers, with an exception here and there, that it is very important to organize a human return policy and that voluntary return is the best option. The present draft law seeks to respond to this, namely by providing a legal basis for open return centres. In other words, the asylum seeker and his family who have received an enforceable title on their asylum application and are willing to return voluntarily can be entrusted to a return centre thanks to the design. In that centre, return officers work to accompany the persons concerned and their families in a humane and intensive way to their country of origin. Thanks to the draft law, the interested parties can permanently resort to first and second-line legal advice. They are working on resettlement programs. It ensures that those concerned receive not only psychosocial assistance, but also material assistance in the form of housing, food, clothing and a daily allowance.

That is, in short, the essence of the bill. It is a new key pillar in our asylum and migration policy. The voluntary return really gets a legal and legal basis, which should allow the government to work on the ground to make a human return for those who wish to volunteer in the project.

Three amendments were adopted in the committee. The first amendment gives the Labour Court jurisdiction for disputes relating to the law. In this way, coherence is sought in our legal system.

A second amendment sets the deadline for the entry into force of the law, not because the committee demonstrated a great lack of confidence in the executive power, the government, but to emphasize how important we find the text, how important we find it to quickly get rid of the draft law.

Then there was the third amendment. This is something that I personally want to draw attention to. We found in the committee that the executive power, the government, had forgotten that an important reception law was passed, which bears the name of your servant, and that the new bill was not compatible with the new reception law. We have through an amendment that re-established accounting.

There were questions from colleagues in the committee about the implementation on the ground, including whether there are sufficient financial resources. Furthermore, colleagues asked whether the new law guarantees sufficient material and social correct conditions for the outgoing asylum seeker who arrives in such a centre. The Secretary of State has – and I leave the judgment on this to each faction – tried in devotion and ability to give a correct and comprehensive answer to it.

Mr. Speaker, the bill has ⁇ a broad majority in the Chamber Committee, a broad support, beyond the boundaries of majority and opposition.

Mr. Speaker, we do not initiate the debate without the competent Secretary of State being present.

She is coming.

We will wait until the relevant Secretary of State is present. She is now definitely not the secretary of state with the most overloaded political agenda. It is obvious that we can only conduct the debate in her presence.

If anyone wants to intervene, I would like to give them the floor. The Secretary of State is on the way.

by Mr. Madrane and Mrs Lanjri agree to intervene. We will therefore continue with Mrs. Lanjri and then with Mr. Galanterie oblige, Galanterie oblige! The others will be able to intervene when Mrs. De Block is present.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, not that I do not appreciate the presence of the Secretary of State, but since we have already been able to conduct the debate in the committee, we can already start. If there are some responses and responses, we can always forward them.

First and foremost, I would like to talk about the work done in Parliament during the past year. We have, among other things, revised the Acceptance Act in view of the return policy: we must ensure that people are more encouraged to return. Based on the proposal of Mr. Somers, we have amended the reception law. We have also transposed the European Return Directive into our legislation. With what is now ahead, we get the closing part of the return policy that we must carry out and that we have agreed on in the government agreement.

If one speaks of a correct, fair and humane asylum policy, it implies that people are given proper examination and the right to shelter. If the answer is negative and they are not recognised as asylum seekers or receive subsidiary protection – which is still the case in our country in approximately 76% of cases – they must also leave the country. In the past, this has happened only a little bit: last year’s figures indicate that about 10 000 people had to leave the country, partly voluntarily, partly forced. That is still too little compared to the inflow. Last year, the influx amounted to about 25 000 refugees. The return rate that we achieved last year, and also the years before, is too low. There is a need to be put a tooth on the return policy.

Our vision is very clear: we want the return to take place as independently and voluntarily as possible, but therefore not without obligation. The government agreement agreed that if people do not engage themselves in the voluntary guided return, they switch to the forced return. We have also provided for this in both the Return Directive and the legislative adaptation in the draft law. In the committee I did it and today again. I call on the Minister to continue to invest additional resources in the voluntary and independent return. You can expect it to be permanent.

After all, individuals forced to expel the country costs more money to society and one is not quite sure that it is a permanent return.

I am pleased that the agreements of the government agreement are not only words, but are also translated into actions. Now we are going to invest. The budgetary control provided the resources for this, in particular 2.9 million for the realization of an open return centre. That’s important, but I expect the Secretary of State to realize it now that the money and the agreement are there. We know that this is not easy. We have seen several times that many municipalities respond with “not in my garden, not with us”. However, the center will have to come somewhere. We hope to consult with local authorities as soon as possible. If local authorities complain that there are illegal persons in the country, they should also cooperate when the federal level develops initiatives to return illegal persons. One should not complain about the misfortune of illegal persons if one does not want to participate in the return. Therefore, we call for a dialogue with the local authorities concerned. I would like to know if initiatives have already been taken in this regard.

In addition to the dialogue with the local authorities, it is also necessary that refused asylum seekers from the beginning of the procedure are prepared for return and reintegrated in the country of origin. This also requires agreements and cooperation with NGOs, in particular IOM, Caritas and others. More such pilot projects are needed. We know that voluntary return works best, but often the persons concerned are not immediately willing to enter a path of voluntary return. An encouragement or support is required for entering the voluntary return. In addition, a tooth must be added.

In short, we will once again support this initiative. We are, after all, the requesting party for the work of the return and the open return center. As I have already said in the committee, we also strongly urge a return policy through a closed return centre for criminal illegal and drug addicts, along with an open return centre for ordinary outprocessed and illegal persons. This is also included in the Government Agreement. Also for this, we should not wait for the realization of a new construction, because it can take another two years. In the short term, a separate wing in a separate building must be released so that the cities are freed from the criminal illegals by being captured in a closed center for the purpose of removing the territory.

Finally, we think it is useful to review the return policy very regularly to see where we are now and within a year. So we will have to do that very regularly to see what works, what doesn’t and where we need to adjust. We owe this not only to ourselves but also to the asylum seekers. Asylum procedures also mean that one is recognized and the other is not. They must therefore be returned. It is also necessary to relieve our reception networks. This is due to the rapid progress of procedures.

CD&V expresses its support for the design but also urges the rapid realization of both the open return center and a closed initiative. The latter will be small-scale, but there must be an initiative for the criminal illegals very soon.

First of all, I would like to thank the speaker. Somers, for his excellent report.

Mr. Somers, I would like to congratulate you on the quality and accuracy of your report, which made the discussions held in the committee of interest.

I understand that some would like the Secretary of State to be present, but those who followed the dossier know: we didn’t wait for the commission to discuss it. For many months, even during ordinary affairs, this debate has been open. We have already discussed this issue with the previous Secretary of State. Objectively, everyone knows the issues and issues that confront the different political groups.

I will not recall the contents of this bill, of which my colleague, Nahima Lanjri, recalled the essential elements.

First, it is about trying to provide a legal basis for the Minister or his delegate to designate an open return center so that the asylum seeker and members of his family, who have received an enforceable decision regarding their application, can be taken care of.

Then there is the material assistance provided during the stay in the center; this is an important thing for us – you doubt it. This support is very well defined in the text. As a reminder, the conditions of reception include accommodation, food and clothing (provided in kind, in the form of financial allowances or vouchers) as well as the daily allowance.

Finally, the foreigner also has access to a voluntary return program. I think that is the key to the device. An attempt is made to direct the candidate who has debounded his application to a approach that includes psychosocial accompaniment allowing that person and/or his/her family to enroll in an accompanied return project.

I would also like to highlight the points that are important for us.

This bill is in line with the government agreement. It will allow to decompose the reception network whose saturation has been the subject of fierce debate within this assembly.

On the other hand, this project goes perfectly in the direction of what my group has always advocated, that is, a return if possible voluntary, but always just and human.

To avoid misunderstandings among colleagues, as the rapporteur recalled, only asylum seekers and family members who have received an enforceable decision to leave the territory can be transferred to these centres.

The reception will experience a continuity as material assistance is ⁇ ined, as well as housing, food, clothing as in the traditional reception network, plus an accompaniment, access to the return program, etc.

I would like to emphasize a few points on which our group will remain vigilant.

For the asylum seeker, it is essential to be able to make a thoughtful and informed choice through the journey and the return program.

Then, as everyone who follows the dossier knows, one of the requests of NGOs, especially highlighted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and CIRÉ, etc., was psychosocial assistance. Indeed, both the thoughtful and informed choice and the quality of psychosocial support are important for asylum seekers who are standing.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to welcome the arrival of our Secretary of State, which will reassure my colleague Francken.

It is crucial for such asylum seekers to enroll in a return project that must be carried out in good conditions in order to enhance its effectiveness and enable sustainable integration in their country of origin or in a third country, as provided by EU legislation in its Return Directive.

In conclusion, as provided by the government agreement, we will remain attentive to our country’s collaboration with UNHCR’s action in refugee relocation programs in their country of origin.

What we want is that these people can be accompanied in human and just conditions, with extremely important psychosocial support.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, our group will support the project that is submitted to us because, in our view, it is important that the voluntary return enables standing asylum seekers to build a new life project accompanied in their country of origin. In fact, there are times when the role of politics is to face problems and propose solutions. We believe that the proposed text offers solutions in this regard. What satisfies us in any case is that these proposals are fair, human and respectful of the international conventions signed by our country.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, our group will absolutely support the draft law on the open return center. I said that in the committee. It was initially our idea to do this.

We presented it to your predecessor, Secretary of State Wathelet, about a year ago in the Committee on Home Affairs. However, according to him, this was not a good idea. A few months later he proposed to do it anyway, because he thought it was a good idea; there was music in the proposal of the N-VA. He thought it was a good migration idea and wanted to work on it.

This is not the first time our proposals are taken over by the sitting government. We are very pleased that one is willing to listen to what the N-VA proposes.

This proposal is a good proposal and we support it. You will also be able to count on our support for the concrete development.

I would like to point back to the fact that there is uncertainty in this bill. In our opinion, the logic of the story of this bill is that someone sitting in an open return center must also have signed a voluntary return route. Otherwise he cannot stay there. This is not stated in your bill, and I regret that. I think that logic should be built up. This was also logical in the committee. I therefore ask you to include this in the law. These are three words. When it comes to migration, one often knows where one begins, but not where one ends, especially with our administrations. We have seen that with Fedasil, a very good example. You will know Bob Pleysier. He can talk about it all days.

Let us, therefore, make good and clear legislation from the beginning. So let us stipulate that anyone who is sent to an open return center and there receives material support, a daily allowance, a bed, a bath and bread, which can only be obtained if he has signed a voluntary return route.

I think that is lacking now. I will not repeat the amendment that was rejected in the committee. However, I would like to express this concern. If problems arise in this regard, we will ⁇ have to introduce them.

There was a lot to be done about the practical development. I have to congratulate you on the fact that you have raised extra money to realize this project. There was a lot to be done in the committee. During the last meeting, I pointed out that the return budgets have been reduced by 8% in your budget, to which you replied that it was not your budget. It’s your budget, but I’m not going to repeat that discussion. That does not make sense.

You have completely corrected it; you have taken your responsibility. You were able to release 2.9 million euros, as I remembered from your answer to my question last week. So we can work.

The money is now there and the bill will be published in the Belgian Staatsblad within a few weeks.

Where does that center come from? In the bill, the deadline is early June. If I can estimate it correctly, then it will be very difficult to find a location, Mrs. Secretary of State. You have begun to represent Sint-Pieters-Leeuw, but you were flown back by CD&V, by Mrs. Vanlinthout, who enabled Mr. Doomst, who questioned you in the committee. At the same time, he made it clear to you not to do so in Saint-Pieters-Leeuw. The district Negenmanneke in Sint-Pieters-Leeuw is, in his opinion, just not the right location. If I am not mistaken, you had a conversation with Mrs. Vanlinthout today. Maybe you can tell more about it later.

Then you gave an assignment to the administration, although I don’t know if it was an assignment. On Wednesday, last week, an internal message was sent to all staff members of the Foreign Affairs Service, a thousand people. I quote: “The Secretary of State has decided to implement the plans for a new open return center in the very short term. The Department of Foreign Affairs is therefore looking for a location where that center could be housed. This refers to former monastery buildings, internships or rest houses that are still in good condition and that can be taken into use immediately with minimal adjustments.”This is stated in the email of the Foreign Affairs Service, of Freddy Rosemont, to all employees. “The building should provide the space for accommodation of approximately one hundred residents with spaces for accommodation opportunities for both families and single people. In addition, there should also be space available for an administration: management, administrative team and return coaches. If you know locations that would be eligible to accommodate an open return centre, you can always report this to the competent official of the Foreign Affairs Service.”

Mrs. Secretary of State, one could say: why not? All possible tracks.

The [...]

This was ⁇ by the Foreign Affairs Service. I don’t know if that happened on your behalf, but apparently not, so. In any case, it was your administration that did it.

It is a creative way to find locations. If time runs, then everything is fine. I don’t think it’s very professional, but if I were in your shoes, I might also assume that a thousand people know more than one person.

The mail was sent last week Wednesday and apparently a stream of suggestions of locations came in. Several officials signaled empty nuns monasteries, internships or rest houses in their neighborhood, an empty football cantine, who knows... The mails came and massed, ⁇ also because one wanted to have a fun to the other, because over time there was joking about in the administration: one knew a good location and one would send it to the competent official. You know how it goes; sometimes “The Colleagues” are not far away.

What came out? Vilvoorde seemed to be a really attractive location. It just seemed like that. This morning I read a press release from the chairman of Open Vld Vilvoorde, Jo De Roo, a former top employee of Marleen Vanderpoorten, who wondered if that could be true, since Vilvoorde in Vlaams-Brabant is most affected by the problem of diversity. Mr. Bonte is in the hall. He may later be able to say something about it. After all, I read in the newspaper that he wanted to see something again, because he wasn’t sure yet. In short, for Mr. De Roo there may be a return center everywhere, but not in Vilvoorde.

Six months before the municipal council elections – we do not have to be embarrassed about it – it is a very delicate exercise. I repeat my plea, Mrs. Secretary of State. I want a community-wide fair distribution of the return centres. I have said this several times. There are now 7 return centers, 6 of which are in Flanders. Four of them are located in Halle-Vilvoorde.

There is only 1 in Wallonia, in Vottem, near Luik. If one states as a justification that they should be located close to an airport – because that is of course easier for repatriation – I can tell you that Waals-Brabant is also close to the airport. I used to count it on Google Maps. Lasne is approximately 32.7 km from Zaventem Airport, while Sint-Pieters-Leeuw is approximately 31.9 km from that airport. Waals-Brabant is a very good option. Nature is beautiful there. People can learn something while getting a fresh nose, on the lake of Genval or something like that. Or in the municipality of Lasne, where Ms. Onkelinx and Mr. Uyttendaele have a residence.

In short, it seems to me a very good initiative to open an open return center in Waals-Brabant. This is only real solidarity, and that is the adagium of many PS Mayor?

Singing the International, they advocate for solidarity, but that often stops at the village border, at least six months before the municipal council elections. This is how it goes and goes in this country. I therefore here again make a call, Mrs. Secretary of State, to filter the hundreds of e-mails of the 1,000 officials by distance from the airport, filter them by municipalities of Waals-Brabant and look at the mayors. Maybe you can discuss with your colleagues, Mr. Flahaut, for example, the strong man of the PS in Waals-Brabant, and Mr. Michel? An agreement should be reached on an open return centre in Waals-Brabant.

In Halle-Vilvoorde, the N-VA will continue to resist, but not because of the nimbys syndrome. On the contrary, we do our part. Halle-Vilvoorde is doing its part. We already have four of the seven at the moment. Five out of eight seem to us not normal and not fairly distributed. Let us please place the center in Waals-Brabant or in Wallonia. It can also be in Henegouwen or Luik.

Mrs. Secretary of State, I hope, if it is decided, that you go for minimal adjustments. For it has come to my mind again that Caricole is apparently still not round and that there are more than ten adjustment works to be done, sometimes small things, sometimes a little bigger. You invited me to open the center together. I will definitely be present at the opening. I found it very joyous of you to invite me.

You said the center would open in April. We have another month and a half. I really hope it succeeds. I have, as you know, sent a letter to the Court of Auditors to request an investigation into the cooperation between the Administration of Buildings and the Service for Foreign Affairs, because I think we must learn from the mistakes of the past. These are not the mistakes, for which you bear the political responsibility. It is not the mistakes of the past, for which Mr. Dewael bears the political responsibility. That is not my story. My story is that we want to create another open return center. We want to create a closed center for illegal criminals and we have other plans. We must learn from the mistakes of the past.

If we see in practice that the Caricole reception center actually should have been opened for two years and is delivered, but that it is still not open, then one should keep it close to the lamp and see what one can learn from it. I hope that the Court of Auditors can provide us with a report, that we in the committee can take a good look at this and that your people can learn from it. I know that the problems in Caricole have not yet been resolved. If you are now choosing a location where too much adjustment work still needs to be done, then I’m sure the center will not be ready in June.

I hope it can be up and running in a few weeks and you will find a location in Waals-Brabant.

Finally, I want to say a few words about the story and the big story. Mrs. Lanjri has, unfortunately, left the hemisphere, but she has made allusions to it. Mr. Somers has done that too.

Honestly, I thought that the carpet was used. In March last year, about a year ago, the government, headed by Guy Vanhengel, then Minister of Budget, and Melchior Wathelet in a press release announced that one would go from three return flights with escort to five a day: “We are going to bet on return and we are going to do really work of it. We are going to work on the identification and we are going to give the return policy a real body and put it on our feet.”

I see from the 2011 figures that there is no increase in forced return. I think there may be a dozen more people forced back to their country of origin.

Mrs. Secretary of State, I hear the signal on the ground, which you undoubtedly also pick up, that there are still not five return flights per day. The increase from three to five is not possible.

I also heard today, maybe you can say a little more about it, that the largest neutral trade union of the airport police has made a strike announcement for 30 March. In two weeks they will go on strike. They made a strike announcement today with Mrs. Milquet.

All the officers are really tired of having so much extra workload on them and that the additional staff of 45 police officers that was promised has not yet been recruited. I find this very bizarre because I have questioned Ms. Milquet about this and she says that of the 45 police officers, more than 30 had already been recruited. Nevertheless, I hear from the people there that no one has yet arrived.

I think you are there with a potential social conflict, Mrs. Secretary of State. I hope that you and Mrs. Milquet will be able to dismantle this before 30 March. Consult and see what is possible. You have an extra budget. Additional measures may need to be taken and resources must be shifted or re-examined.

We must ensure that the police, which we really need there and that does a good job, does not start to strike. Forced repatriation is a difficult task and has been a sensitive topic since Semira Adamu. It is balancing on a loose wire.

You and all of us, as responsible politicians in this country, must not hunt those people against us in the armor, because that doesn’t help us. If they strike for three weeks, the figures for 2012 of forced repatriation will also not be good.

I heard that they submitted a strike notice this morning. I hope that we will get there together. I hope you can say more about this too.

I will start with a few comments and questions that have not been answered in the committee.

A Dutch-speaking lawyer told me that in article 2, § 1, you indicated "betekening" while you should have put "kennisgeving". I am not able to judge the relevance of this comment, but it might be worth considering it.

In the committee, we asked you the exact budget of the center but you did not answer. In the meantime, you received a envelope that could allow you to accommodate 100 people. Can you tell us the exact cost of the structure? What amount per day and per person will be needed?

of 2.9 million. I answered Mr. by Francken.

In the committee, you have no answer.

This is in the report.

You should read the report. This is in the answer to the parliamentary question he raised the following week on budget adjustment.

In the budget discussion, we had a debate on the disengagement of the reception network. Since these structures will be more expensive than traditional reception places, it is clear that we will not disengage the network. We could create more traditional reception places instead!

The second reason why the 'return center' will not provide a solution to the clogging is that it is a public that no longer has the right to the reception and therefore is no longer in the reception centres. When we talk about disengagement, I unfortunately think that goal will not be achieved.

I also asked you in the commission on the envelope in which we will be drawn to compensate the one you call the ‘functionary return’. You told me that Fedasil and the Foreign Office would work hand in hand. This is a good thing, but a clear answer on the budget envelope in which to draw would be welcome.

You talked about an accompaniment on the spot. Whenever I have contacts with people who have returned there, on-site accompaniment is limited to a ticket from the capital to the person’s home city.

There is no accompaniment on site. Will other projects be developed for the 100 people who are in this 'return center'? If yes, which ones?

The bill also covers a priority target group for transfers. What do you mean? What will be the exact role of the ‘return officer’? Article 5 provides for the introduction of an application for extension. What does it consist of? Does it add to the traditional reception network? I am not sure if I understood it correctly.

More generally, the 'return center' is unfortunately not a new project. Indeed, in 2002, Belgium had attempted the experiment of ‘Centres Conseil d’État’, i.e. open structures aimed at accompanying persons during the examination of their appeals by the Council of State. They were closed, and the device proved to be a huge failure: only 16% of people were affected by a transfer, while 84% had disappeared in the wild. I wonder, therefore, why are we proposing again that system that does not work.

Other experiments were conducted. I think so at the Ter Apel Centre in the Netherlands. The balance sheet is as follows: 23% of people have returned independently ...

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Genot, I hear you constantly criticize the return policy here and in the committee, but I have never heard of an alternative.

I do not understand something. I ask you to clarify this once and for all. What is the point of view of the Green-Ecolo Group on closed centres and the return policy in general? I see on Sunday 18 March that there has been a demonstration of the extreme-left Collectif de résistance aux centres fermés pour étrangers. These are those who beat everything short and small in 127bis less than six months ago. They have argued for the disappearance of the closed centres in Vottem. Who was there present? Muriel Gerkens and Eric Jadot.

I ask this question whenever it comes to the return policy. I suggest Mrs. Almaci, because Mrs. Brems was taken from the file the same question and she says: voluntarily if it can, forced if it should. So you are still in favor of closed centers because how else will you get someone forced away? You need to explain this practically.

However, there are other members of the same group who protest here a few months later for the closure of those centers. What is the position of the Green-Ecolo Group on this return policy? I understand nothing. One day it is white, the other day it is black, gray or purple. I understand nothing of it.

To be honest, you are completely unreliable. When will there be a proposal from your group instead of always just criticism?

I understand that the N-VA does not respond to the criticism I make. Indeed, I heard the N-VA rejoicing by saying, “For the first time, the government takes back one of our ideas!” I tell you that this idea is disgusting and I develop a series of arguments. You are not answering! You change the subject and you say, “We don’t hear your proposals in relation to the returns!” I have developed them in committee and will develop them in the last part of my speech.

There is another thing that annoys you a lot. I understand that a regionalist group, which absolutely wants to split the country, is very anxious, because French and Dutch speakers try to work together and when you find that we disagree with 125% of each of the points, you try to put them against each other. Now, we are both on the same wavelength in terms of returns, but not in any way and at any price under penalty of inefficiency.

I will develop our return proposals after discussing the bill proposed to us today, if you allow it!

Mrs Genot will explain our alternative proposals, but with regard to closed centers, Ecolo and Groen have always been consistent and have taken the same position since the beginning of the existence of these closed centers. We consider that a person who is illegally in our territory is not, therefore, a criminal and that that person should not be locked in a structure that has all the characteristics of a prison. We have always opposed the imprisonment of people in such structures. Ms. Genot will explain how we prefer to handle asylum applications and what we consider for the return of debout applicants.

Mrs. Genot, you say that one is trying to play the community, that there is indeed disagreement but that it is only a detail.

The expulsion and return policy is not a detail in the whole migration policy, it is even an essential element of it. I hope we can really work on it in the coming years. For a lot of Flammers and even for a lot of Belgians, it is not a detail, it is the essence of something that has gone badly for years.

Mrs. Gerkens, you say that the position of Ecolo-Groen has always been clear, that it is not to imprison illegal persons in something that resembles a prison. So you are against forced removal, because how can one remove someone who is not imprisoned?

How can one remove someone without closing them? You must be intellectually honest. If Ms. Almaci says “voluntary as it can, forced as it should,” what do you think is forced removal? How will you forcibly remove someone? Do you ask if he wants to leave? This is not how it works in practice. This is floating in the ivy.

To be intellectual honest is to examine what is proposed as well as the results.

If I look at the statistics of the Netherlands, I realize that the goal was only partially achieved. Returns can be done in bad conditions. But we know very well what happens next. Of course, you can engage in a battle on the numbers with Mrs. the Secretary of State by advancing the number of returns. However, it is known that when returns have not been matured by the interested parties, the latter rush to return. The money of the taxpayers is thus wasted by creating closed centers, return centers, and by procuring the expulsion of people who will be found a month later in Brussels. It is by acknowledging the facts that one proves intellectual honesty!

Mr. Francken, if you allow me to speak on the project under review and defend our proposals, ⁇ you will understand our point of view!

In our opinion, there is a problem in terms of the effectiveness of the measurement. Indeed, the various experiments conducted have demonstrated that when people are not allowed the opportunity to maturely reflect on their return, they do not adhere to the project and end up, generally, by disappearing in nature. In doing so, it can be said that the work done has served nothing.

As for the release of seats in the reception network, the argument forwarded is not good since it is about people who are no longer entitled to reception. And it is known that a whole series of these people will start a new procedure and will eventually join the host network again. This is, in any case, what the analysis of the experience of the Netherlands shows.

We believe, for our part, that the return can be considered, but the issue must be addressed, from the beginning. It is when the person arrives in our territory that we must consider with him the possible options. If she wishes to apply for asylum, for example, it is necessary to let her know that she will be called to encounter difficulties, difficulties, obstacles and that, numbers to support. She should be informed that the return is another possible option and that the latter can be arranged with her.

A number of NGOs have looked at the issue and organized real return projects based on an established relationship of trust between the social stakeholders present in the open centres and the interested parties.

When a person is seen opposed to a refusal, to be removed from the reception structure and the people with whom a trust relationship has been established, to be placed in a new center with new social workers, she will judge the latter knowing that the purpose is his return. We will then be far from the relationship of trust that can convince her of the interest that constitutes, for her, her return to the country.

Experienced non-governmental organizations organize, in consultation with the interested parties, their return and elaborate, with them, a project for "the after".

This is obviously not the choice that was made here; it is regrettable. Because, in fact, few are those who will leave and will not return.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, colleagues, we all know that an effective asylum policy consists of several components and that one of those components is indeed return. I believe it is necessary — which has indeed been mistaken in the past — that each of those components is based on legal rules and that those rules are aligned with each other, but above all also that decisions are effectively executed, this for all components, for the reception, for the procedure, for the decision and, finally, if necessary, for the expulsion.

With this design, at least, we are taking a step in the right direction for the last element, especially the negative decision. The asylum seeker knows that he has no future in this country and is offered a possibility. What possibility? The possibility of voluntary return. This is especially important to the SP. A rule of law also has the duty to properly guide people who have come to its territory with great hope so that they can start a new life in their country of origin. That is why we find it so important that here the emphasis is placed on the voluntary return.

The voluntary return must be there. Let us not forget — and I also address the Ecolo-Groen group — what happens to the people who are ordered to leave the country and with whom nothing happens, as in the past has been so often the case. These people disappear in the illegality. What happens in the illegality? They are exploited by everyone; sometimes only by house milkers, but worse is when they end up in prostitution and are sexually abused. The common fact is that some parasitize on the illegality of those people. Those people have to get rid of this illegality. It must not be that illegality always gives hope for a future. This simply can no longer. If people are ordered to leave the country, then we must give them the opportunity to do so and we must accompany them. Accompanying is the most important thing.

We must also be realistic and honest with regard to asylum seekers. In fact, we need to make it clear to them from the moment they apply here that the chance that they can stay here is very small. This should not happen at the end of the procedure, Mrs. Genot, but as early as possible. I also understood from the Secretary of State that it will happen now, that there will be a continuity in the reception until the end of the whole process.

There can be no abrupt ending.

Now, at the end of the procedure, there is something new. If they have received the order and therefore know that they must leave the country, they can from now on go to this open return center and they will be accompanied there, which is very important.

I would like to call on everyone to support this bill. A legal basis for a return centre will be created. The material aid is very clearly defined, because there were questions about it too. There will be a program for voluntary return, which did not exist in the past. Asylum seekers have permanent access to legal assistance. There is also continuity in the reception. And, most importantly, there is a return officer.

Colleagues, it is clear to everyone, the sp.a will with conviction support this bill. We are convinced that this is the beginning of a sustainable return policy, but this is not the end. As I said in the beginning, the asylum and migration policy consists of different components and we must also work on that.

We will support this bill and we hope, Mrs. Secretary of State, that you can quickly open a center and that the nimbys syndrome will not interfere with your plans.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, several majority parties stressed that the present bill is an important building block for an effective return policy. Flemish parties that are part of the government, in their speech in the committee and here today emphasized that through the bill will come to the realization that those who do not have a valid reason for staying in Belgium will be returned. That sounded and sounds very tough, but our faction is wondering how real it is, how it corresponds to reality. Miss Secretary of State, what guarantees can you give us that the voluntary return policy, supported by an open return center, for which no place has yet been found, will really work this time?

Mrs. Secretary of State, I have asked you on two occasions what guarantee you can give that the draft law will provide for a reversal and that rejected asylum seekers will return whenever voluntarily, i.e. without coercion. I have still not received a response to that. The return figures of rejected asylum seekers are not very reassuring in this regard. I heard in the committee some colleagues narrowly comment on whether our group is suddenly against the voluntary return of rejected asylum seekers. Of course not, we would be crazy! If rejected asylum seekers and foreigners who have lost nothing here voluntarily leave, why not. I am even willing to follow the reasoning that this form of return is ⁇ the most certain, but you must not expect naivety from me and from our group. We will not, like others, content ourselves with a voluntary return as the closing part of our asylum policy. In that case, you are wrong.

For years we have challenged the lax and non-binding policy. I would like to remind you that the Flemish majority parties before the elections announced that they would fundamentally change the nothing-must-all-can-policy of recent years. In any case, the present bill will not change this. Now say for yourself, the combination of a mere voluntary return policy with a non-binding route, compulsory to nothing; there are little or no obligations imposed. Think of the Open Return Center. You need to explain to me where the tightening of the policy is right here.

If the new asylum and migration policy is addressed in the same way as the search for a building for an open return centre, that is little reassuring.

Our political group is not won for an open return center. We note that our experience in this field is shared by other countries in Europe and beyond. There are no guarantees that an open return center and a voluntary return route would work. The deadline for rejected asylum seekers to leave the country was recently extended from five to thirty days, combined with the absence of strict closing rules on forced return. Again, it is too little, too soft and too non-binding. It will not bring about a change in the asylum and migration policy.

Our group wants closed reception centers. With open return centers you will not get there, Mrs. Secretary of State. You cannot give me any guarantees. The policy is full of contradictions. I mentioned this at the committee meeting. You want to keep the reception of asylum seekers as short as possible, but at the same time you fail to expel the illegal persons who have been staying in the country for so long, in a correct but kordate way. They are internal contradictions, where you do not fall out. We cannot support the policy. We vote against.

An open return centre linked to a voluntary route for the rejected asylum seekers is far too little to speak of a fundamentally changed asylum policy. It may be clear why this does not come or should come in this country: some of your political partners do not want to go beyond a voluntary return policy. We have heard enough of this in the committee meetings and in the plenary session. They will continue to find the Flemish Interest on their path. We will continue to fight this false policy.

Mr. Logghe, we have already discussed this issue in the committee. On the one hand, I’ll go for a bit into some of your critical comments, in particular that it probably won’t be enough. You are very critical because the figures are not good and because the experiences from the past are also not good. Johan Vande Lanotte has also tried this in the years after 2000. His policy was subsequently suspended. In the Netherlands, this policy was also stopped, because it did not succeed.

On the other hand, I do not understand the following completely. I think you have some inconsistency in your speech. The Vlaams Belang conducts a barnum campaign under the slogan “Return satisfied”. That refers to the slogan of the GB supermarket chain of the past. After all, it had to be a little laconic, which is funny. The number of the International Organization for Migration was even mentioned, even though it was a wrong number. The media laughed at this and even Filip Dewinter could react against it.

You want to encourage voluntary return. You want to invest money in it and you want to call on every foreigner to return to his country as soon as possible. But if there comes a proposal from the government or parliament to centralize the voluntary return policy to improve it in that way and thus increase the number of returning people, then you say that you do not believe it, because it is all naive. Suddenly, you are advocating closed centres and a forced return.

I personally find this a somewhat strange reasoning. We say very clearly that there is also a need for closed centers. In the Netherlands there are 2,000 locations in closed centers, while in Flanders there are only 400. At such a time, we know that there will be work on closed detention in the coming years if we really want to improve our migration policy. However, if one, like our party, also believes in the voluntary story, as you apparently do, because you advertise it, then is it logical that one also supports the establishment of a closed center? I personally do not understand that.

Mr Francken, I am pleased that you react. You also respond continuously twice. You respond for the first time in the committee and then respond again with the same comments in the plenary session. I will repeat what I said in the committee. I have already said this in my speech.

We are not against a voluntary return policy. We would be shit! What one is doing now is to put a little slice here and put a slice of paint there, and then think that it is a good policy, and that while the foundations are not even there! There must also be a compulsory return policy. Closed return centers should be established.

In fact, we differ fundamentally in opinions due to the choices we make. We want a consistent and coherent policy.

The return policy is a special priority of the Government. This establishes the legal basis for arranging the reception during the stay in the return centers. Over the past few weeks, the budget was also negotiated and promised. Indeed, between the discussions in the committee and this discussion, the persons and the resources were available.

Indeed, it is necessary that we use more people and resources to persuade those who can no longer stay in our country because they have passed through the procedures and received a negative decision, in a humane way to return to their country and to help them rebuild a future in their country. It is too easy to give them an order to leave the territory and then let them disappear in the illegality. It is not humane and it is also a further stretch of a stay and a life without a future. And yes, Mrs. Genot, we will bet on return guides, and the trust relationship you so attach, between the return guides and those who agree to return to their country, will be there.

As Ms. Temmerman correctly pointed out, it is necessary from the outset to point out to the persons concerned the very high likelihood that they may get a negative decision. That seems fair to me. Thanks to the cooperation between Fedasil and the Foreign Affairs Service, this is already done. From the first day they undergo an investigation by the Foreign Affairs Service, they are notified of this. Also in the collective reception structures someone is already present if they want to talk about voluntary return. In the reception centers, books, cassettes and all the audiovisual materials available are also used.

It is the concern of colleague Madrane to ensure that the quality of the reception in the return centers is as good as the quality in the regular centers. This is true, because in the draft it is clear that there will also be medical, legal and psychosocial assistance. The quality will be the same as in the reception centres.

This is a revised return policy. Mr. Logghe, you don’t believe that, but I haven’t heard you suggest many alternatives yet.

Mr. Francken, you are asking where that center comes from. As you know, there are several pistes. I am also always so honest that from the moment we have a suitable building in mind, we first contact the relevant college. Sometimes this results in one reaction and sometimes the other. Sometimes the reaction is a bit emotional. Ms. Temmerman rightly called this the Nimbys syndrome. However, it is important for me to inform the colleges first about the possibility of a return center in their municipality.

Yes, a mail was sent within the Foreign Affairs Service, but not by me, because I do not have the possibility to send a mail to my entire administration. I am not planning that either. I do not understand why I should communicate to the entire administration of the Foreign Affairs Service. You know how motivated the staff of the Foreign Affairs Service is, because otherwise they would not have taken the effort to forward to you a mail, sure knowing that you would ⁇ help if you know a property and sure knowing that I would know it first.

Indeed, you have seen the property in Lasne and have seen that this is not too far away. I therefore invite you to give me some addresses of properties, Mr. Francken, if you want to be so kind. We will investigate these tracks. You don’t have to do anything else, one piece of me is enough. And I will not forward it to the entire press, as you usually do. It is enough that you just mail to me.

There is also a larger budget allocated for the escorts. The number of escorts in 2011 was an average of 3.34 escorts per day. We have recruited 45 additional police officers for escort and 30 of them have already begun. It is also true that some have also flown away due to service changes, but normally this should be clear in the figures.

I can’t say anything about the strike announcement on 30 March, because you attack me with it. You will have a very good source with the police. I will look at it, together with my competent colleague.

Mrs. Genot, you will find the answers to your questions on page 11 of the report. As I announced in the committee, the budget amounts to 2.9 million euros.

Fedasil and the Foreign Office worked well together.

Previously, people were wondering who would manage the “return center”: Fedasil or the Office of Foreigners. They worked together and started recruiting the necessary personnel.

Mrs. Temmerman, you understood it correctly. What is presented here is a closing point of a human return policy. We indeed choose to invest as much as possible in voluntary return, and therefore indeed also in open centres. The stick behind the door will always remain the forced return, but I think it is very important that we all realize that it is about people, people who may have come to our country with false hopes, but who cannot stay here. They get negative advice, but they are not criminals. We should not imprison those people. We only need to convince them that they have more future in the country they come from.

Mr. Logghe, you are asking if this will be successful. You ask that every time, as you ask for the numbers every time. If the center is in operation, I will be happy to give you the numbers, but I do not have a glass ball, which I have answered you several times. You always say the same thing. You have cited a number of things. For you, it should not be an open center. I have already told you in the committee that I know your position on this; I will not repeat it here. You say that our position is too soft. Well, Mr. Logghe, then I may go into history as someone who has gently guided the people back to their country, but that will all be better than the inhumane way you would like to do it.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, it makes no sense to continue the discussion here.

Mrs. Secretary of State, you say that you have the habit of first informing the colleges and consulting with them before you come to Parliament with proposals from return centers. I would like to tell you very specifically with which colleges you have been consulting in the meantime?

Second, I did not ask you for numbers. I have only asked you what guarantees you can give that it will work this time compared to all those other times, when all kinds of projects were also drawn into action.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, apart from the fact that we will approve the bill substantially and that we agree, I would like to ask you the following question.

Do I understand correctly that you agree with the statement of our group, that the burdens should be shared fairly by the community, also in this file? It is now six against one.

Halle-Vilvoorde – your electoral circle, Mrs. the Secretary of State – does its part. So I don’t think you’re talking about the Nimbys syndrome, because that’s not the case. If there were no return centers in Halle-Vilvoorde, and in Waals-Brabant 5, then you could speak of the nimbys syndrome, then you could say that in Halle-Vilvoorde no return centers were desired. Then you could say that they want return centers, but ⁇ not in their own region That is just not the case, because in Halle-Vilvoorde are already located 4 of the 7 return centers on Belgian territory. Flemish-Brabant will definitely take its part for its account.

Do you agree with my statement that 6 versus 1 community is fairly unfairly distributed? I understand that the Zaventem airport must be close, and that Flemish-Brabant is therefore interesting, but also Waals-Brabant is located close to the Zaventem airport. So I hope you are looking for a correct distribution. I think your nimbykritik is not entirely correct and I will surely make you other suggestions.

Finally, you say that you did not send the mail. Of course, that is always the discussion. If your top official, Freddy Rosemont, sends such an email, you are politically responsible for it. I think you can’t simply say, “My official has sent it, I have nothing to do with it.” That’s dancing on a sluggish rope, that’s skating on smooth ice. You must be careful with this, and not say, “I have nothing to do with it, it was my top official.”

The [...]

I understand that. I didn’t say you sent him.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, Mr. Francken is very attentive to fair distribution across the territory, I imagine that now he will defend a balanced distribution plan so that asylum seekers are dispersed taking into account all the data, i.e. closed centres as open centres.

That said, I would like to recall one question to which I did not get a clear answer.

Is the staff hired by the Foreign Office or by Fedasil?

Which budget line does that 2.9 million come from?

Does this amount apply only to staff or staff plus food? In fact, the bill gives me about 79 euros per person and per day.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, it is always surprising and incomprehensible to find that those who are indignant in the winter of the network congestion are the same ones who are opposed to the creation of new centers aimed at a disengagement.

It is in vain to remain perpetually in the protest. At some point, it is important to act and make proposals. That is why I thank the Secretary of State and Mrs Temmerman for her comment: an order to leave the executive territory must be respected in a humane and just manner.

Finally, I will say to my colleagues from the N-VA that one cannot at the same time say that Brussels must have less resources and take on its own role. It is impossible to have everything and its opposite. I find that they agree with the distribution plan and I am very happy to observe today that they are aware that the capital, the Brussels Region, cannot take on all the issues of asylum applications in our country alone. Therefore, you agree that much more resources will be needed for this Brussels Region. I thank you for that.