Proposition 53K2556

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 27 décembre 2006 portant des dispositions diverses II.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Dec. 11, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative formalities foreign national illegal migration political refugee judicial proceedings access to the courts information technology applications refugee

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

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 ¶

Feb. 28, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, the Internal Affairs Committee discussed the proposed bills at the meeting of 5 February. The Secretary of State stressed in that meeting that it is two bills that form one whole. They were divided because of the constitutional basis.

The draft includes various measures that also implement the government agreement. Thus, measures are introduced that should dissuade the submission of multiple applications. In addition, measures include the introduction of fast and high-quality procedures by optimising the procedures, homogenizing the deadlines, reducing the administrative burden, introducing an electronic procedure for asylum applications and combating the misuse of the procedure.

In case of discouragement of multiple applications, the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, and no longer the Foreign Affairs Service, will judge the new application within a period of eight working days.

The definition of "new element" will also be adjusted. From now on, the content will be primary and decisive and not the chronology, i.e. the moment when that element is presented. The deadline for defence and replica notes is in principle set at eight days.

The procedure in case of extreme urgency is reduced to three working days instead of the current five days of which at least three working days. Previously, there was a lot of uncertainty about whether or not counting weekends and holidays.

At the Council for Foreign Disputes a number of reporting obligations are abolished. In addition, extensions are provided for communication with possibilities for notification by fax. There is also an initiation to an electronic procedure.

Some improvements benefit the protection. New definitions are introduced regarding the terms “new element” and “gender”. It is clarified that gender aspects are taken into account when applying the “social group” criterion. On the other hand, the applicant is obliged to disclose all the elements as soon as possible, unless he or she has good reasons not to do so and can subsequently prove those reasons.

From now on, the principle of a single order to leave the territory after a negative decision of the Commissariat-General shall also apply, with a renewal of that order after confirmation of the decision by the Council for Foreign Disputes.

In case of admissibility of the cassation appeal before the Council of State, a reception is also provided.

There were many questions and comments made in the committee, but I will only overcome a few of them.

Mrs Schyns of cdH has asked questions about the definition of “real protection”, and has been answered. PS, CD&V, sp.a and Ecolo-Groen have also joined these questions.

Mr Thiébaut of the PS welcomed the reference to sexual orientation in the definition of “social group”, as also included in the European directive. He was also satisfied with the improved residence arrangements for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.

In the interventions of the groups of PS, CD&V and Ecolo-Groen, clarification was requested with regard to the transposition of Article 4.1 of the European Directive. That article deals with the cooperation between Member States and asylum seekers in the protection procedure.

Mr Francken of the N-VA ⁇ saw some positive points in the present draft, but he also had some concerns. He argued that the removal of DVZ’s admissibility decision to the Commissioner-General would lead to a faster processing of applications. He then said in the draft he missed the maximum transposition of the European Directive. According to him, this could introduce more possibilities for apparent unreasonability in the Belgian asylum procedure. He also supported the introduction of a cumulative ban for the establishment of various procedures, more specifically for asylum and regularization. Excessive administrative burdens for local authorities should also be avoided.

I also pointed out, on behalf of the CD&V Group, the lack of information on the increasing number of multiple applications. I wondered if it would be useful to find out why people tend to submit multiple consecutive asylum applications. Furthermore, I asked questions about the number of positive decisions subsequently resulting from those multiple applications.

The State Secretary stressed that DVZ in no way makes a value judgment on the application. DVZ will only receive the new element and send it without delay to the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons. Only the Commissioner-General will assess the new element in its substance. The reception task is left to DVZ, because DVZ is known as the body where files must be submitted. DVZ also has the necessary expertise and can carry out the formal control. The provision of Article 9 is very clear in this regard.

The Secretary of State points out that the investigation of the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons will include all elements à charge and à discharge. There is no shared burden of proof or reverse burden of proof. The rule that the asylum authority is responsible for assessing the relevant elements of the investigation in cooperation with the applicant for asylum is, in any case, one of the principles of good administration, and in particular the principle of due diligence.

The question of why the number of multiple asylum applications remains high, according to the Secretary of State, was indeed investigated. The analysis showed that there is no unambiguous explanation. It is a whole of all kinds of elements. Most multiple applications come from files with the shortest procedures, such as files from Balkan countries or from safe countries.

The Secretary of State further states that in 2011 the protection rate of multiple applications for the Foreign Affairs Service and the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons combined was 3.7 %, compared with just 1.8 % in 2012. These figures show that the enormous burden on the agencies is not proportionate to the number of approvals resulting from these procedures. It shows that it is wrong to assume that the extension of the procedures is eventually rewarded with recognition anyway. However, the figures show that this is not the case.

Mr Mayeur and other colleagues of the majority submit the amendment no. 1 in, which extends to the introduction of a new provision on the spread plan, as was, by the way, stated in the government agreement.

If a crisis arises and the voluntary action of the OCMWs in connection with host initiatives is not sufficient, then the spread criteria will be determined by a royal decree that will be adopted after consultation in the Council of Ministers. In doing so, of course, will be taken into account the peculiarity and the supporting power of each municipality. Based on those criteria, the burden will then be spread across all municipalities and the few dozen municipalities that currently do not have reception initiatives will be obliged to take it. However, the majority of Belgian municipalities already have a voluntary reception initiative. This amendment was also adopted in the vote.

Both amended bills were adopted by the committee with twelve votes for and two votes against.

If you allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to immediately move on to my personal view on the matter.

Thank you, Mrs. Lanjri, for this very comprehensive report, which allows me to open the general discussion. I give you the word.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the CD&V group is very pleased with the present bill, which implements the government agreement. We can only welcome this.

The handling of multiple asylum applications is a key point in an efficient and humane asylum policy. Multiple asylum applications undoubtedly involve a significant workload and have an impact on the processing time of the first applications. As early as last year, we wanted to discourage multiple requests from Parliament. The majority parties also submitted a bill on this subject. Apparently, this has not worked enough, as in the past year one in three asylum applications was still a multiple asylum application. Therefore, additional measures should be taken. The present texts address this.

It was noted that last year only 1.8 % of multiple asylum applications were responded positively. This also means that the procedure for the first application is quite objective and well conducted and that almost everyone is received in that first period. We believe that the transfer of the admissibility study to the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless is a good decision.

We would ⁇ also like to welcome the possibility of adding new elements to the Council on Foreign Disputes. This saves time and ensures that not first the entire procedure for the Council for Foreign Disputes has to be completed and then the file is returned to the General Commissioner’s Office for a new decision. This leads to time saving and greater efficiency.

All these measures will undoubtedly also have a positive effect on reception capacity. The majority amendment we have signed is a stick behind the door so that an appropriate solution can be given when a reception crisis occurs.

In the whole asylum debate, we believe that the government should continue to focus primarily on return. The figures are known. In 22% of the ⁇ 20 000 decisions taken, the residence permit was granted. They were recognized as refugees or received subsidiary protection. In 58% of the cases, a negative decision was made and those persons were able to return. Last year, 11,398 people returned to their countries of origin. There are more people who return voluntarily.

However, the calculation shows that 20 % of those who have received a negative decision are no longer found, do not leave the territory and disappear here in the wild. That is still a lot too much, because it is specifically about at least 3,914 people, with the exception of the number of people who illegally enter the country, because their number we do not know. If that number increases year after year, then there is a problem. We face the challenge of finding a solution and ask you, Mrs. Secretary of State, to make it your next action point.

You can continue to count on our cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, my group also welcomes the evolution that we are bringing, with the change of this legislation, to the asylum situation that has not always been easy to manage in our country – that is the least that can be said – with a lot of congestion in the services, a lot of waiting for people, a lot of administrative difficulties, even judicial. We need to put everything in good order. I think this text helps to advance in a number of subjects in an extremely positive way.

The simplification of the procedure, the administrative simplification and the acceleration of the procedure are, for us, quite welcome elements that we have been asking, like others in this homicide, for a long time. The removal of unnecessary administrative tasks, the alignment of the powers of the Council and those of the General Commission to refugees and stateless persons, the uniformisation of the time within which the parties must submit their procedural documents, the introduction of electronic processing – it was time – the fight against the improper use of the right of access to the judge, even if it must be ⁇ ined and guaranteed, the fact that the availability of the judges of the Council of Litigation is increased must allow us, we think, to improve the situation of applicants but also the management of the flow of asylum applications in our country.

We welcome the fact that sexual orientation is finally clearly expressed in the definition of a certain social group, as it is obvious that some suffer persecution because of their sexual orientation. This must be recognized and integrated. This is important to clarify.

The fact that the status of residence protection for subsidiary protection beneficiaries is improved is a good thing; this element had to be settled.

Finally, as I said but repeating it again, shortening the deadlines, making sure that the procedure is managed within the six months is essential for us. It is necessary to ensure that the administrations follow. This is the intention of the legislator; this is the will of the government by putting the means into it. It will be necessary to check on the ground that the application is in accordance with our wishes and the means we are implementing to ⁇ this.

The exclusive competence of the examination of new applications entrusted to the CGRA is also capable of improving the duration of the administrative procedure and its administrative simplification.

In this regard, we also support the procedure implemented.

Finally, it should be recalled that “the burden of proof in this matter lies with both parties, not only with asylum seekers, but it must be borne.” It cannot rest solely on the shoulders of the applicant. It also needs to be shared. We are pleased that this item is guaranteed and ⁇ ined in the text that is submitted to us this afternoon.

I would also like to emphasize the subject of an amendment that I submitted with several colleagues of the majority. In our view, it is important, as it aims to enable the government to take, if necessary, an authority measure that consists, in the case of insufficient hosting capacity in the centers and in the case of insufficient local initiatives, to implement a distribution plan.

The latter must, of course, meet criteria that the government must determine.

1 of 1. The municipalities that do not provide effort must be among the first to be contributed to a distribution plan. This seems to me logical.

2 of 2. We must be in a crisis situation. We didn’t know, before we venture to Mali, if the war would not produce an arrival of refugees to Europe and our country, but maybe we had to anticipate it! Tomorrow, unfortunately, there will still be conflict zones in the world, often at our doorstep as well. Per ⁇ it is necessary to anticipate events and thus allow the government, through this amendment, to take quick action. I wish, of course, that we are not put before the fact accomplished without having planned anything. The amendment empowers the government to anticipate a situation and to prepare, if necessary, a distribution plan.

3 of 3. Material assistance is the rule. A crisis situation, an emergency, requiring a distribution plan, would not justify the latter to become a distribution plan with financial intervention. Material assistance must remain; it must be distinguished from the social policy carried out in particular by our CPAS in the communes, which is a policy of insertion of persons. We are there in another logic that aims at bringing people into autonomy, and therefore there the financial aid is obviously insurmountable. On the other hand, for the reception of asylum seekers and those who arrive in these situations, of course we are in favor of material assistance, which must therefore be organized differently.

What we are calling for is solidarity. Especially large cities and large agglomerations, which are often faced with an overload of aid seekers, need to be relieved. Indeed, people settle where they can and generally in large cities where they find installation solutions more easily, not always good. Many problems arise around this and these people are eventually victims of human trafficking, sleep merchants, etc. A proper material reception is required.

Solidarity is needed: communes that do not do things must be imposed a plan of distribution in a crisis situation and, if necessary, be sanctioned financially, and their CPAS be sanctioned. I think it is through these mechanisms that we can find solidarity in our country when necessary to help the proper reception of asylum seekers. It is a basic human right that our state and society must be able to guarantee. In this sense we have submitted this amendment and we will vote on the bill that is submitted to us.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, colleagues, both bills are a step in the right direction for N-VA.

For example, the modernization of the functioning of the Council for Foreign Disputes is a good step. However, in the committee, where I was absent, my colleague Francken has expressed a number of fundamental objections, among other things, regarding the narrow definition of the concept of “new elements”. We also do not understand why material assistance is reintroduced in the case of an admissible cassation appeal before the State Council. This reverses a tightening of the reception rules, which was previously decided. We also believe that the possibility of extending the European Directive is not fully exploited.

Finally, referring to a bill submitted by Mr Francken and myself, we find this draft a missed opportunity to introduce a cumulative prohibition of Article 9bis – the humanitarian regularization – with the asylum procedure, a cumulative prohibition that I will explain further.

Additional comments relate to the competence to consider multiple asylum applications, which will no longer be submitted by the Foreign Affairs Service, but by the General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless Persons.

That is an endorsement of an old demand of the PS against which, among others, your colleague Patrick Dewael has always opposed. He wanted to leave that power to the Foreign Affairs Service. Furthermore, and you know, the current coordination between the Foreign Affairs Service and the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons in this area is still not as good.

This is a missed opportunity for administrative simplification. N-VA specifically advocates for direct notification of decisions on the asylum procedure. Now this is happening through the municipalities that are overloaded in this area.

Mrs. Secretary of State, we will repeat the four amendments submitted to the committee by my colleagues Francken and Dumery. I will light them briefly.

The First Amendment No. It is about the reform of the asylum procedure. As I have said, that amendment provides for the broadest possible powers for the Commissioner-General to declare a request manifestly unfounded. We want the European Directive to be fulfilled and utilized as much as possible. Only in this way will the absorption effect be maximized. Being smoother than the European standard – that’s what you’re now doing with your bill – will create a suction effect. The maximum transposition of the entire directive would allow us to significantly reduce the number of unjustified multiple asylum applications.

The Second Amendment No. 12 which we re-submit today, aims to re-annul the material receipt during the appeal before the Council of State. The amendment aims to avoid turning the clock back. The draft law reverses the recent constriction by re-allocating the material aid when the appeal before the State Council is declared admissible or admissible. During the period of ongoing matters, all Flemish parties were involved in the negotiations on this matter and they all agreed – after one party – not to grant material assistance during the cassation appeal before the Council of State. Often – you know, because you say it yourself in the explanation to the two bills – the appeal is made for dilatory reasons and almost always the previous ruling of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless and of the Council for Foreign Disputes is finally confirmed.

The third amendment is amendment no. The 13th. We want to introduce a cumulative prohibition, in particular a cumulative prohibition between Article 9bis of the Foreigners Act and the other procedures, in this case the asylum procedure. The proposal addresses one of the most striking phenomena, namely the unlimited cumulation of procedures. It refers, as I just said, to a previous N-VA bill of 24 April 2012. We therefore want to place the initiation right 9bis to regularize on the government, and not on the foreign person concerned. Only those who are familiar with the Foreign Affairs Service are eligible. Regularization – we have said it many times – must be an absolute exemption procedure and only an option when all other procedures are exhausted. We believe that the right of initiation should be in the hands of the government. Unlimited stacking of procedures leads to abuse. For example, a 9bis procedure is often already initiated when the asylum procedure is almost completed.

The fourth amendment is amendment no. 14 is It is the last amendment that I will explain, and it concerns the administrative simplification of the notification of the decisions, in particular the decisions on refusal or recognition. It makes it possible to communicate decisions more quickly and easily directly to the foreigner, thereby reducing the work of the municipalities and thus also reducing the administrative burden of the municipalities. The proposal, on the other hand, builds on the system introduced more than two years ago with the notification of the humanitarian and medical regularisations and, as mentioned, brings a substantial reduction in the administrative burden for the municipalities.

The N-VA will submit the four amendments again. I hope you still approve them. Your two bills are a step in the right direction. On certain points, however, they remain a missed opportunity.

There are still registered, Mrs. Temmerman, Mrs. Galant, Mr. Man and Mrs. Genot.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, colleagues, we have mentioned here several times that there has been a lot of happening in the field of asylum and migration in the past year.

Nevertheless, I would like to repeat the remarkable findings. The inflow has been reduced. More and more asylum seekers choose voluntary return, which we absolutely support. We can say that the reception crisis is behind us. The occupation rate was still 90 % in January 2013. Fourth, the abuse of medical regularization was stopped by the introduction of the medical filter. Finally, a new nationality law was adopted.

Nevertheless, there was another very persistent problem, namely the problem of multiple applications. There was no progress in this area until the submission of the present draft law. On the contrary, the number of multiple applications increased continuously. Between 2010 and 2012, the increase will be doubled.

In 2013, this trend seems to continue. In January 2013, the General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless Persons ⁇ 630 multiple asylum applications, accounting for ⁇ 40 % of the total number of asylum applications. If we extrapolate this figure to the end of 2013, we get to very large numbers.

It should be clear that multiple applications pose a huge burden on the reception system. Some consequences include: crowded centres with out-of-date asylum seekers, long procedures, persistent uncertainty and undermining the entire reception of the asylum procedure.

The government has planned in the government agreement to address this high number of multiple applications, because like with the 9ter procedure, the boundary between multiple use and abuse is often very thin.

Colleagues, I think most of us are in favour of a quick, efficient and high-quality asylum procedure. My group is, in any case. These draft laws address this.

Several concrete measures aim to discourage multiple asylum applications without affecting the rights of the asylum seeker. Therefore, we were also absolutely in favour of ⁇ ining the right of reception in cassation appeal.

By entrusting the admissibility procedure of the next asylum application entirely to the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless persons, Mr Smeyers, it can be done faster — within eight days —, more efficiently and, above all, in a quality manner, and can also be effectively judged on the new elements. You are not listening, but it may be good to read the report again later.

My group has been increasingly in favour of the processing of applications by the Commissioner-General. Our view is that the General Commissioner’s Office is the only body that has the necessary expertise to deal with the matter of the asylum dossiers. Again, it goes much faster and much more efficiently and that is something you were in favour of, I thought.

In addition, I would like to mention a number of positive elements in this bill.

First, taxing gender aspects, gender identity, women’s circumcision and the asylum seeker’s sexual orientation. These are ⁇ elements that today are under-exposed in the whole migration problem. It is good that these are addressed now.

Second, my group is pleased that re-acceptance is provided when a cassation appeal is declared admissible. This, after all — you are not listening again, Mrs. Smeyers, even if that might be useful — is about a very limited group.

Third, the legal possibility of forcing municipalities to take asylum seekers. From now on, the government has an instrument, a stick behind the door, if a new reception crisis suddenly arises. In a solidary society, all municipalities should be able to sign up on a voluntary basis.

Our group is therefore very satisfied with these designs, which we will approve with full conviction.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the bill that is subject to our approval and that is part of the asylum reform is another step in the implementation of the major reforms envisaged in the government agreement. This bill contains positive clarifications that will accelerate the processing of procedures, while respecting the course of justice and preserving the right to asylum of those who really need protection.

The objectives are clear, they have been repeatedly recalled: discourage multiple asylum applications, knowing that almost 30% of all applications involve multiple applications that delay the processing of files; establish quick and high-quality procedures; optimize procedures; homogenize timelines; reduce unnecessary administrative burdens; encourage the use of the electronic work procedure, and combat improper use of the procedure.

The objective is also to transpose different European directives and regulate the reception of persons engaged in a procedure before the State Council.

For the MR group, it was essential to simplify and optimize the procedure to ensure that the applicant can receive a final decision within six months of the introduction of his asylum application. The elements that most ⁇ receive our support are the following: the failure to consider multiple applications faster by the CGRA, rather than by the Office of Foreigners; the definition of the new element in relation to the content of the file; the failure to consider persons enjoying a protection status in another State of the European Union; the requirement of active collaboration of the applicant, and the possibility of removing the material reception in case of a second application.

We also supported the amendment providing for a distribution plan. The government is equipped with the means to alleviate a crisis situation of the reception on a plan of distribution of material aid. We are convinced that the Secretary of State will make every effort to prevent this provision from one day having to be applied. Given the encouraging results in the cutting down of the reception crisis, this measure is not relevant and will not be in the short term. But it is not unnecessary that the government has the power to intervene if some municipalities refuse to implement local host initiatives.

For all these reasons, we support the Secretary of State and we will vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the bills that are submitted to us today aim to improve the asylum procedure; we can only be for improvement. They aim to make it faster; if the quality of the procedure is preserved, it is positive, but guarantees are needed. They also aim to better take into account certain elements such as gender or sexual orientation; this is an important element in our view. I hope that, when examining the family situation, the situation of all members of the family will be taken into account; in fact, some files leave the impression that the examination is only aimed at whether the gentleman is persecuted without sufficiently taking into account the situation of the lady or even their daughters.

An example: an Afghan family belonging to a religious minority; young girls cannot be educated. Indeed, in Afghanistan, the situation is very difficult for religious minorities, and even more for young women. Despite this particularity, they are rejected and are asked to return to the country. To want to return brilliantly educated girls to Belgium is to deprive them of all schooling. Therefore, the situation of the whole family must be taken into account.

Another disturbing aspect of one of the projects is the notion of "multiple requests" which presents them as all abusive. Nevertheless, it is noted that, in reality, often for Afghans, it is at the second, third, or even fourth request that those people who deserve protection finally receive it.

For what reason? Because they are not always well defended from the beginning because they do not have all the elements to judge their situation and that a certain time is needed for them to find their brands.

Mrs. De Block, you say this is not true. We have been asking for the exact numbers for years on this subject and we still do not have them. If you have them, we will welcome them with pleasure.

As some elements of the projects concern us, we have re-submitted two amendments, already discussed in the committee. The first concerns the concept of “new elements”.

We propose to remove the words: "(...) which significantly increase the possibility that he may claim to be recognised as a refugee within the meaning of Article 48/3 or to subsidiary protection within the meaning of Article 48/4". Therefore, an additional weight is introduced. It is important that the filter is as light as possible so that the CGRA can quickly deepen the work. And that this filter is entrusted to it seems to us to be in the right direction, provided that this does not prevent the CGRA from examining all new requests.

A second aspect concerns us. What happens when someone reinserts a request? He has the choice of answering questions from the Foreign Office or quietly filling out the questionnaire at home. With the new procedure you propose to us, the person must answer the Office’s questions without being assisted by his or her lawyer. This seems to me to be contrary to Directive 2005/85/EC, which provides in Article 15.1 the possibility for the asylum seeker to be assisted by a legal counsel. For us, this is an important element. It is known that, often, people do not understand exactly how the procedure works. The law of foreigners is very complicated. That is why it is important to be able to be attended at all stages, especially since this hearing at the Foreign Office constitutes an important moment for the consideration of the second or third asylum application. The fact that they can no longer be assisted by a lawyer seems to us, here, a real retreat. That is why we submit this second amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, colleagues, the Bill No. 2555 and No. 2556 want to optimize the asylum procedure. No one can, of course, deny that for years there has been a ⁇ heavy pressure on the reception system. I was pleased to see Mr. Mayeur complain about this. Who is to blame, Mr. Mayeur? First and foremost the fault of the PS, I think. That reception system is not only heavily pressured by the hotel reception and the rest of the story we know, but there is also the gigantic price of everything, which can be estimated at around and at half a billion euros per year. We pay for that, year after year, because of the too loose attitude of the successive governments.

Over the past decade we have received almost a quarter million asylum seekers, in recent years even a ratio of approximately 30 000 persons per year. This not only provides us with a financial catastrophe, but also causes a real social disruption in our major cities. This is now apparently beginning to penetrate even the multiculturals and therefore the government now wants, among other things, to discourage multiple asylum applications, reduce the administrative burden, simplify the asylum procedure and/or transpose provisions of EU Directive 2011/95. But, colleagues, as with most recent changes in foreign policy, one does not go far enough, one does not want to act thoroughly enough.

The process is accelerated, but not sufficiently. We submitted amendments to the Committee on Internal Affairs to further shorten certain deadlines, but they were rejected.

The concept of “new elements”, which should enable a renewed asylum application, will be criticized. But will this bring a lot of sorts to the dive? Per ⁇ I didn’t understand it correctly, but with regard to the filter the majority think will have that effect, I don’t understand exactly where those effects should come from. I am especially impressed by the ingenuity of the asylum seekers and especially of their lawyers and the heavily subsidized foreign lobby in this country, because in that respect they know no boundaries, literally and figuratively.

I will take a closer look at some of our objections.

In an amendment, we ask that the Minister or his authorized representative should designate a closed centre for every foreigner who submits an asylum application, in which the asylum seeker then stays until the decision on recognition of the status of refugee, to the granting of a status of subsidiary protection or to the order to leave the territory is executed. In fact, the vast majority of asylum applications submitted involve improper use of the asylum procedure. In other words, they are asylum fraudsters.

Such compulsory reception in a closed centre, during the entire asylum procedure, would result in a significant decrease in the number of inappropriate asylum applications, while it would only constitute a temporary inconvenience for those who actually have reason to fear persecution, as provided in the 1951 Refugee Convention, and who therefore deserve our protection. Thus, in the way we propose, it is possible to reconcile the need for protection of real refugees with the legitimate concern of the government to ensure social security by combating that additional, not underestimated and above all undesirable immigration.

A second amendment aims to ensure that asylum seekers who submit multiple asylum applications would also be detained in a closed centre in order to ensure their effective removal from the territory in the event that their application is not considered. This measure is, of course, justified — many colleagues have already pointed out — by the high probability that the application of such asylum seekers, multiple asylum seekers, will nevertheless not be considered. Return is ultimately the most obvious prospect for those asylum seekers or fraudsters. Letting them disappear in a big city, where they rarely end up in a more or less criminal sphere, is not an option for us.

Furthermore, we consider that the good is too much that after a decision of the Council for Foreign Disputes it can be appealed again. We re-submit the amendment that provides for the abolition of the administrative cassation appeal before the Council of State against decisions of the Council for Foreign Disputes.

Finally, colleagues, I repeat the main demands of the Flemish Interest on asylum policy.

First, we want shelter in closed centers, to avoid a significant portion of asylum seekers disappearing in the wild. I am not the only one who says this in this plenary session.

Second, asylum seekers should be welcomed as much as possible in their own region. This was, by the way, the original purpose of the Geneva Convention, which was intended to provide for the reception of European displaced persons, and not for displaced persons from almost the entire Milky Way.

Third, collective regularizations can absolutely not be for Flemish Interest. Refused asylum seekers and illegal persons must be effectively and quickly deported.

Fourth and last, colleagues, as long as this kind of overwhelming measures is not taken, the gates will remain too wide open and the significant financial and social suffering caused by the lax asylum policy will only increase.

In short, our group cannot agree with this bill, which may not or will barely reduce the number of recognitions and, in the long run, the number of asylum applications in our eyes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members for their interventions at this meeting and for the good debates in the committee.

I think that with this bill three important points of the government agreement are implemented.

First, discouraging multiple applications. Last year it was almost 30%.

Second, optimising the procedures, homogenizing the deadlines and reducing the administrative burden, including for municipal services. There is a start to electronic process running, which goes faster.

Third, discourage the improper use of procedures. At the same time, a European Directive is being transposed.

During the appeal to the Council of State, only in the case of admissibility, material support is offered again, but, Mr. Speaker, this is less than ten persons per month. I do not think that this creates a great absorption effect.

Finally, this also sets the legal basis for a compulsory material spread plan, something that we hold behind as a stick.

If the figures evolve as they are now — in February there were 1 380 applications, again 500 less than in February of last year, or more than 30 % less — we are on the right track.

I do not want to accommodate asylum seekers from their first application – a request for help, a request for political protection – in closed centers. Therefore, I would criminalize the application for political asylum and I will not participate in that. I would create a social drama, you claim. However, I say that such behavior would be a violation of human rights.