Proposition 53K3046

Proposition de résolution relative aux différentes initiatives d'accueil pour les demandeurs d'asile.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Nahima Lanjri, Bercy Slegers

Submission date

Oct. 3, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

migration policy resolution of parliament political asylum refugee

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Alexandra Colen (VB) abstained from voting.

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. 13, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, colleagues, after the reception crisis at the beginning of this term, we have happily managed to once again provide every asylum seeker with a shelter.

We are even lucky to be able to reduce the number of shelters, thanks in part to the decrease in the number of asylum applications. In the full crisis period there were 24 000 places, even slightly more, including hotel accommodation. At that time, we even had to use a hotel service. Today, the number of places fluctuates around 20 000. We are also working on the further removal of the shelters. This is positive in itself, especially since no one else ends up on the street.

I would like to thank all the people from the various groups who supported and approved my resolution. The approval proves that there is a large level of support to put a number of matters further on track or to follow the same path.

What do I ask in the resolution?

First, the demolition scenario that we are currently working on – which is intended to reach 18 000 shelters by the end of this year and have a buffer of 1 800 places – takes into account the optimal mix between shelters in large-scale collective and small-scale shelters, which is primarily provided by local shelter initiatives, such as OCMW governments and NGOs. It is important to take care of a good mix, also because the individual reception is also cheaper than the collective reception.

Second, I also ask in the resolution to examine whether, in certain cases, we can move faster to referring people to individual shelters. Now the legislation stipulates that this happens after four months, but for vulnerable groups it must happen much faster, even from the beginning. I think of pregnant women, unaccompanied minors and the elderly. For those people, it is necessary to provide the right reception faster. This must be done, especially now that the reception crisis is over. We need to invest in high-quality care.

Third, in the full crisis of reception, we have often had to appeal to local partners, both NGOs and local governments. It is therefore evident, now that we are demolishing, that that demolition takes place in consultation with those partners. It should not happen over their heads. In this way, a number of individual wishes can be taken into account. For example, there may be OCMW governments who may want to decompose more and others who just want to keep a little more.

As long as the global number can be achieved, these individual needs of local partners should also be taken into account.

Last but not least. This resolution is especially important because of the last point, in which we call for an even stronger effort on the individual return of asylum seekers. Today, there are 330 places in open return centers. A lot of people, about half, also leave voluntarily, it is the best form of return, because that is sustainable. The voluntary return takes place in principle from the collective centers and can only take place from the individual centers if one subscribes to return in advance, i.e. before one has a response.

I ask in the resolution to make possible the return from local initiatives also at the time when people get the final decision. This is an extension of what already exists today.

We are asking for a number of pilot projects. Of course, we must be able to evaluate what is going well and what is not. This should also be done on a voluntary basis, the local partners should be able to sign up voluntarily. Positive above all is that in this way there is no break between the reception of families or families or persons who are received in the individual reception and then the return guidance. This forms a continuum.

I believe that more people will be able to subscribe sustainably to this voluntary return. We can also see this from the figures provided by Refugee Work and CIRE themselves: they indicated that 87 % of the people who were deported eventually disappear in the illegality. This is often also because there is a break in the accompaniment. With this initiative, with these pilot projects, we can work a lot to fix this problem.

I am pleased that the resolution was accepted and that you would like to support it. I hope for your support and approval this afternoon.

Mrs Lanjri, first, as the people of my cabinet have also said in the committee, this resolution is also supported by our group, though it was only because in practice all the points you cite are already in use. We have not only resolved the crisis, we have also continued the reduction, from 20 000 places to 18 000. We come from 25,000 locations. There are about 10 500 places left in the collective accommodation and 7 500 in the individual accommodation. There are fewer places killed in the individual reception. I think this is correct. You, by the way, yourself supported the efforts of the cities and municipalities.

Second, as regards the faster allocation for certain vulnerable groups, it is already in force. A qualitative target group policy has been developed. Of course, that couldn’t happen when I was just appointed because we didn’t have enough beds at that time for various reasons. Since then, this has been included in the management plan and now, from the beginning, the specific needs are looked at.

You mentioned pregnant women. Well, we have doubled the number of places for pregnant women in specialized centres. We have also provided adapted places for disabled people. Asylum seekers with psychiatric problems are also tailored from the beginning of the reception. However, some things are still being implemented. There is still work to be done for wheelchair dependent people.

Third, the demolition of the building network takes place in close contact with the partners. Fedasil has been working on the demolition for more than a year. The closures are carried out in close consultation with the relevant partners. In the committee you have ever asked if each OCMW was consulted individually. No, that happened through the dome of the Association of Cities and Municipalities because it is very difficult to work if you have to consult with 589 OCMWs separately. They were informed which conventions were cancelled and what the duration of the cancellation period was. They could also respond individually. Before that, there was a regional contact point at Fedasil. Therefore, the number of places could be negotiated. However, the overall picture had to continue.

Fourth, you are proposing interesting pilot projects. However, I must reiterate that some of the proposals referred to in paragraph 1 are also already implemented in practice, without reference to pilot projects.

First, the return guidance should already be offered in the individual reception. I have repeatedly pointed out that from the first day a person applies for asylum here, he or she can also register for a return route if a return becomes necessary. Such an inscription is possible. It doesn’t happen often, but it can.

The return route is launched in all reception structures as soon as the asylum seeker receives a negative decision, thus also in the individual reception structures. If the asylum seekers concerned are willing to return where appropriate, there is indeed no need for a relocation of the family to an open return centre. The proposed procedure is already in practice.

You are reviewing the figures of Refugee Work Flanders. I challenge those figures; which only concern the number of returned persons from very special open return places for illegal families. It is a center for illegal families. It is the most difficult target audience, namely people who previously stood 100% in the illegality and whom our municipalities did not keep up with. The figures in question are extrapolated, as if they were for all return routes. I am challenging them. I will give you the correct numbers again.

We have record volunteer return figures in 2012 and 2013, ranging from around 5 000 persons, an increase of 50 % compared to 2011 and 100 % compared to previous years. The figures in 2013 are even stronger, as 10 000 asylum-seekers are also fewer entering our system and procedures are running faster.

Therefore, it is not necessary to experiment with pilot projects in this regard. Rather, we must continue to maintain the necessary fine-tuning of our return guidance. We must also give the families involved the opportunity, but that depends on the decision of the family. In individual shelters they can stay in the shelter and register on a return route.

So I support your resolution proposal, simply because it has already been implemented in the policy. I thank you in any case for the exercise, which you have made.

Mrs. Secretary of State, I have the impression that you are defending yourself, while that is not at all necessary. My nose is in the same direction. Moreover, I have even noticed that our proposed resolution is supported not only by the majority, but also by various members of the opposition, just because we need to further strengthen the direction we are now taking.

I have never claimed that there is no voluntary return. We know the figures and they are good. However, we need to shake a tooth on this issue. Therefore, we must give new target groups the opportunity to leave the individual reception.

As you have already cited, it was difficult in a given period to really accentuate quality care. Once the crisis has been resolved, it can still be.

Therefore, consider our text primarily as an encouragement to continue on the path taken, for you or your successor. In the voluntary return, we will have to add another tooth. That is my message.

I am pleased that the proposal is widely supported and that you are also willing to indicate further implementation.