Proposition 53K3239

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

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Dec. 9, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive foreign national family migration migration policy political asylum admission of aliens residence permit

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) 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. 12, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, I have the pleasure to communicate to you, together with my honorable colleague Mrs. Lanjri, the report made on behalf of the Interior Committee on this bill amending the 1980 Foreigners Act. I will make, for my part, the summary of the presentation of Mrs. Secretary of State and Mrs. Lanjri will make a summary presentation of the subsequent debates.

The bill transposes a number of European directives into national law. It is a directive, but also old directives transposed in an incomplete or incorrect way.

With regard to the extension of the status of long-term resident, the draft under consideration is intended to respond to the infringement proceedings launched by the European Commission. The aim is to organize the portability of international protection for persons with the status of resident as they now have the rights of mobility within the Union. This also implies that they must be protected in the event of a possible removal measure by a second Member State, which will have to apply the principle of non-refoulement. The bill guarantees these two principles.

The second is the residence of other family members of the citizen of the European Union. A number of provisions that have not yet been explicitly transposed into the Foreigners Act are now incorporated into the legislation, as required by the European Commission. For example, other family members of an EU citizen than those who already have a right of residence in the context of family reunification will now be able to obtain a residence permit. These are family members who were already part of the EU citizen’s household before his arrival in Belgium or who have been ⁇ ined by the latter or whom he must take care of due to serious health problems. The arrival and residence of such family members of the citizen of the European Union shall be facilitated. These residence applications will now be given a specific framework in a separate chapter of the law.

The conclusions of the Chen judgment of the European Court of Justice are also reflected in this law. The parent of a child who is a citizen of the European Union and is established in another Member State can now also benefit from a right of residence in that Member State. However, the parent must have sufficient resources to support his or her own needs and those of the child, as well as a health insurance.

For the other measures, this draft provides for amendments to the Foreigners Act. Thus, a definition is given to the Schengen Information System which gathers all notifications for the purpose of non-admission or residence prohibition and can therefore be the basis for the repatriation of a foreigner in the event of a notification. Administrative fines for carriers taking on board passengers whose travel documents are not in order are increased, unless a possible protocol agreed with a transport company.

The aim is to have a system of fines more consistent with the provisions of EU law and thereby encourage companies to be very vigilant. Alongside these changes, the Foreigners Act is aligned with the new Citizenship Act, which no longer provides for the acquisition of Belgian citizenship by option. References to this procedure are therefore deleted by the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, before giving the floor to my colleague, Mrs. Lanjri, I will say that the Socialist Group will vote in favour of this text with great satisfaction. In fact, this text not only makes it possible to bring Belgian law in line with European law, it also contributes to enhancing mobility opportunities within the European Union itself. It removes age-old administrative barriers for EU citizens and contributes to the realisation of the idea of European citizenship, which has been harmed repeatedly since 2008, both by the policies of the Union itself and by the way some implement them at European level. Moreover, it strengthens the coherence of asylum and immigration policies in the Member States for the benefit of third-country nationals, which is a step in the right direction, the direction of a just and humane migration policy that we call for.

For these reasons, the Socialist Group welcomes with satisfaction the text that is presented to us today. I thank you, Mr. President, Mrs. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, for your attention.

Mr. President, Mrs. Secretary of State, colleagues, Mr. Devin presented the first part of the report, namely the explanation given by the Secretary of State. I will limit myself to the interventions of the various groups and the responses of the Minister to them.

During the general discussion of the draft, several speakers pointed out the origin of the draft, which is the result, among other things, of several directives and judgments of the European Court of Justice.

The spokeswoman of the Ecolo-Greens Group can find itself largely in the proposed amendments, which include an extension of the protection for certain groups and which also promote the mobility of long-term residents within the European Union. However, according to the Ecolo-Greens Group, the system for the proportionality test is too restrictive. It refers to the opinion of the State Council, which points out that this test should only be carried out if the foreigner would pose a danger to public security or if the foreigner would pose an unreasonable tax to the social security system. According to the speaker, the proportionality test should also be carried out in other circumstances.

The speaker of Vlaams Belang points out the evolution in European integration in which Member States are increasingly unable to conduct their own asylum and migration policies, and the consequences for the identity and survival of communities. His party deeply regrets this evolution. The speaker is ⁇ concerned with the transposition of the Directive and the imposition of fines on carriers of illegal migrants. He wondered why the most stringent approach allowed by the Directive was not chosen.

I’ve worked on CD&V. Among other things, I pointed out the effect of the proportionality test on depriving EU citizens of their right of residence who pose an unreasonable burden on the assistance system. I also pointed out the uncertainty that prevails as to the period in which the responsibility for the family still applies.

There is also some uncertainty about the extension of the notion of “core family”. We have wondered who exactly is meant with “the partner with whom the citizen of the Union has a duly proven relationship and which is not referred to in Article 40bis § 2, 2°”. We wanted to see if there could be polygamous relationships in such cases.

The PS group expressed its support for the present draft and believes that the whole is in line with a responsible, fair and humane asylum and migration policy. The speaker pointed out the need for the further development of a genuine European asylum and migration policy.

In the article-by-article discussion of Article 9 of the draft, there was another amendment by Mr. Somers and consorts. Ms. Genot asked questions in this regard, in particular concerning the documents that can be submitted to determine the identity of the applicant.

The Secretary of State responded that various documents can be submitted by the applicant, but that this will always be examined case by case. Ms. Genot regretted that European cards issued by other Member States would not be sufficient.

In the discussion of Article 24, a reference was again made to a provision relating to partners of EU nationals with whom they have entered into a lasting relationship, but which is not the partner referred to in Article 40a.

The Secretary of State responded that in no case can this be polygamy relations and that this article should be applied to partners with whom the EU citizen is not married or has not entered into a registered partnership, but who is the partner. The durability of the relationship will also have to be demonstrated.

Subsequently, the speaker of the Flemish Interest pointed out the very broad criteria provided for in Article 26, which must prove the relationship the EU citizen has with that partner. The Secretary of State stated that in the case of interpretation problems, these criteria can always be clarified by circular.

Regarding the amendment of the fines that can be imposed on carriers of foreigners who entered the country illegally, the Secretary of State argued that the imposed fine could be imposed per person transported, thus contrary to the flat-rate fine provided for by the Directive.

The proposed amendment also provides the possibility of concluding a protocol agreement with the carrier so that the possibility of self-regulation exists.

The committee adopted the draft with twelve votes for and one against.

Next, I would like to give the vision of my group on the draft.

Indeed, the present draft is the result of an interpretation of the Directive by the Commission or involves changes brought by the case-law of the European Court of Justice or of the European Court of Human Rights.

It is important that we contribute in this way to a European asylum and migration policy and further shape it. That is, of course, positive, but the weak link as a whole still remains the absence of a truly social Europe. That is really a problem.

Belgium has been ordered to introduce a proportionality test, which does not allow EU nationals who constitute an unreasonable tax for the social assistance system to simply be expelled from the country, and where the DVZ must from now on constantly verify whether the state of unreasonable taxation is possibly temporary, review the duration of the stay, take into account the personal situation of the EU citizen and also look at the amount of the aid.

The decision to terminate the stay should also take into account the duration of the stay, age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration of the person concerned and the extent to which he is bound by his country of origin.

In the past, too, something has already been tested. An end to someone’s stay did not happen blindly. In recent years, however, serious work has been done and a lot of abuses have been addressed, especially since the intersection of the databases of the DVZ, the FOD Social Integration and the OCMWs. In 2011, 1,542 Europeans were returned to their countries. In 2012 and 2013 this number was 2 407 and 2 712 persons, respectively. Most of those people were returned to Romania, Bulgaria, Spain and the Netherlands.

The question arises whether we can continue to address such abuses in the same way and whether it will not be hindered by the imposed review and justification if Belgium considers that certain persons constitute an unreasonable tax on the social assistance. In my opinion, it can be ⁇ problematic for Member States such as Belgium, where there is a very comprehensive social protection.

Therefore, CD&V calls for more work to be done on a social Europe. That is the only guarantee to prevent people from looking for countries where social protection is better. I am not saying that Belgium should reduce its social protection, but it should not be the only country in Europe with good social protection. After all, there is an absorption effect.

We are still concerned about the expansion of the notion of “core family” for Europeans. In accordance with the law on family reunification, we have strictly ensured that it is only possible for Belgians and persons from third countries living in Belgium to have their partner with whom they are married or have a registered partnership or who they know long enough, and to have their minor children come to Belgium, but in no way parents, grandparents or other family members.

This is not the case for Europeans. Europe requires us to grant Europeans who reside in our country the right to bring their parents, grandparents, grandparents, cousins, cousins or nephews who are cared for or who are in poor health. We are worried about that. This right also applies to partners with whom one is not married or has no registered partnership. The directive states that a lasting relationship with a partner may be demonstrated in all possible ways, while our law on family reunification very clearly imposes the condition that a minimum duration of one year of cohabitation abroad must be preceded. We fear that the new directive will partly undermine what we have worked hard to build up with our family reunification law.

When one wants to find a partner with whom one has not yet a relationship, it is not conceivable that one will simply move to another country, to the Netherlands or France. Conversely, Dutch people can come to us to allow a partner from Europe or another country to come to our country, because as a European one has much more rights. As a European, one can let happen not only to the partner but also to family members. We are afraid of abuses in this area.

Mrs. Secretary of State, you have responded to my comment on the fact that a circulation letter is distributed, if necessary. We hope that you will also use all means to tackle abuses and that the work of the Parliament and government in recent years, both in terms of tightening the provisions on family reunification and in terms of combating abuses such as hypocritic marriages and hypocritic relationships, will not be disrupted by what Europe today imposes on us. Mrs. Secretary of State, we expect that you will take care of the necessary circulars. This is what we can do from here to clarify the policy. In addition, we also expect that not only a uniform asylum and migration legislation in Europe will be sought, but also a social Europe.

In this way, migration shifts due to a variation in the attractiveness of one country versus other countries will forever belong to the past.

Mr Francken, before the N-VA, was Mrs Smeyers registered in this debate?

Mr. Speaker, since Ms. Smeyers is preparing her presentation in the debate on euthanasia, I would like to take the word on the above-mentioned texts.

I was not present in the committee, but Mrs. Smeyers was present, Mrs. Lanjri. We have even submitted an amendment on human trafficking. I read the report for a moment.

I have two comments. First, I would like to propose that our amendment to increase the fine from 5 000 euros to 500 000 euros, as made possible by the Directive, still be approved. I read the response of the Secretary of State. The penalty is imposed per person being transported.

In addition, it is a crime that is prosecuted. I will look at it, because I have submitted a written question about it. In fact, I would like to know how many convictions for human trafficking and trafficking have been pronounced in Belgium over the past five years by the Belgian judiciary. I think I may not be able to count them on one or two, but I’m sure I’ll be able to count them on five. I think they are ⁇ few. I asked the Minister of Justice. I will hear from her.

Apart from the legal prosecution, of course, there is the fact that one can act administratively. The Directive allows that. The fine may amount to a maximum of EUR 500 000, which is now EUR 5 000. I don’t think the average human smuggler is scared by a fine of 5,000 euros if one knows what the average Afghan or Iraqi pays to get to the West, the continent of milk and honey. It is mainly intended to make the transit to Britain.

I honestly think that those 5 000 euros are but peanuts compared to what is paid for such a trip. The average human trafficker is therefore not really discouraged by that fine of 5 000 euros.

He is not even deterred – we know how Belgian justice works – by the fact that he might someday be convicted. Those involved are often simply gone again. By the time a conviction comes, they have for a long time simply resumed their activities, it is not in Belgium or in another country.

Again and again, we demonstrate our immense naivety. I am in favour of raising the penalty. It likes Europe. Why should we not comply with the provisions to the maximum extent?

We will therefore submit the amendment on this subject again.

Mrs Lanjri, unfortunately, I was not able to attend the committee meeting. Otherwise, I would ⁇ have been there. You know that we have worked well together on the law on family reunification. We are both very proud of this law and should be so, given its results.

It is a pity that the philosophy of law is partly undermined by the Chen judgment of the European Court of Justice. I have to lose something about it.

I fully follow what Thierry Baudet, for example, but also Marc Bossuyt, explains. Marc Bossuyt is the former refugee commissioner of this country and the first president of the Constitutional Court of this country. Marc Bossuyt is not just someone. He expressed serious criticism of the fact that both the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice are out of their book and are also increasingly out of their book, including in the field of asylum matters. According to his theory, they are not authorized to do so. They attribute this power to themselves in a kind of general philosophy that they may speak right about it, but that is never promised or granted to them.

When we look at the number of cases on the waiting list for treatment, when we look at some of the decisions of those bizarre judges ginds in Strasbourg, I can only note that I regret this. Again here we get an example of how Europe, or at least the European courts of justice, impose on us certain rules that reverse things and in which we see little added value.

If you present this to a hundred people in this country, then many will not stand behind it because it is unclear, especially the point concerning the core family. I understand the uncertainty, the doubt and the questions in the sector. I wonder if this is wise. Who exactly can happen? What exactly is that nuclear family? To whom is the right granted or not? How far does it extend? Does it also apply to uncles, aunts, cousins and nieces? Will we then go back? We are the first country in Europe to introduce the rule that ascendants can no longer do family reunification.

I understand very well that boundless love exists and that is good too. If I marry a girl from Afghanistan, Somalia or anywhere else, it seems logical to me that she can happen; that is a matter of common sense. That is how a healthy democracy should be, open-minded and welcoming. However, that she also takes her uncles, aunts, cousins and nieces, who can enjoy social assistance here after a few months, I find that no longer makes sense. The common sense that exists throughout the country is that this is a step too far.

Although this is about Europeans, not non-Europeans, my question remains whether this is not a step too far. What exactly about family members? What is the definition of the nuclear family? Should we interpret this as much as possible or will it be clarified? How will this work after its entry into force?

On the other hand, I agree with Ms. Lanjri’s concerns regarding the reform of this law. We are in part obliged to do so by a court which, in my opinion, may not even decide on these matters, but should we not be extra critical and possibly introduce an evaluation moment within half a year or a year, where we can check whether a different interpretation is needed and whether other European countries now introduce it as well? Is there no room for interpretation? Even if there is a judgment, there is still a grey zone for whether or not to complete certain amendments to our Family Reunification Act that we all cherish.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, I thank the reporters for their report, but of course I have expressed some more objections than the one you cited in your oral report, Mrs. Lanjri. In particular, I have raised seven main objections, which I cannot remember.

Most of the provisions of the draft law have a European law origin. The legislator has only very limited political freedom in relation to the regulated matter. In a matter of decisive importance for the Member States, such as the identity of the communities and their sovereignty, national legislators have less and less room to make their own decisions. This is not ignored by the general public. It escapes the general public increasingly less and less.

Governments have less and less to say about migration and asylum in their own territory. Member States are becoming less and less legislative. Citizens are increasingly feeling that everything is decided above their heads. For the Belgian legislature, of course, the EU framework has a great advantage. In fact, one can hide behind the EU governments with the reasoning that one must transpose the European directives into national law.

That reasoning is heard over and over again. This is stated by you in the explanation to this bill. I am referring to the Singh judgment. As a result, the national legislature can no longer determine how it intends to organize migration in its home country, who it intends to grant unlimited right of residence and who not.

In this regard, Mrs. Secretary of State, I would like to refer again to the comment of the Council of State, which notes on the addition of the two correspondence tables the following: “They can ensure that the exercise of the right of amendment does not go beyond the limits of the discretion conferred by European law on the Member States.” In other words, national law is no longer the primary legal basis of the Member State; no, European law is determining. The national legislature still has very limited powers. You said, however, that the limited powers should not lead to the Member States determining, determining or tightening of the migration policy as determined by the EU summit.

Flemish people see things differently. Particularly in matters such as the entry and residence of foreigners on the territory should remain the competence of the Member States. We reject the ever-growing evaporation of our own powers over a supranational EU regulation, which is also led by a number of bizarre judges.

It is precisely these powers, Mrs. the Secretary of State, that we give even further under this bill. In any case, we will not approve this bill.

Lanjri, you have indeed partly taken over our criticism, among other things from an article in the Gazette d’Anvers. In the committee, I summed up our criticism of this bill in seven points. For the sake of clarity and completeness, I will briefly present the summary here.

First, there is the extension of the status of the long-term resident, which consists in that the applicant no longer needs to have an unlimited right of residence in order to apply for this status. For us, this is once again a violation of our fundamental sovereignty to decide who and what.

Second, there is an easing of the existing situation to the benefit of the applicant, by the calculation of the required period of residence of five years, and then the fact that the period of processing of an asylum application is sometimes accounted for half and sometimes fully as a period of residence. This is again an infringement on our sovereignty, or what remains of it.

Third, in the case of refusal to grant the status of a long-term resident, for example for reasons of public safety, a proportionality test is introduced, which requires the Foreign Affairs Service to take into account a ⁇ large number of arguments. In other words, cannot any refusal of the status of long-term resident be underestimated by pointing out that that proportionality test was not sufficiently charged? What is the refusal of the statute with this proportionality test still worth? What can we still stop?

Fourth, if a foreigner who enjoys international protection in Belgium was denied the status of long-term resident in another EU Member State or a removal measure was imposed, then Belgium would be obliged to take back that foreigner. This is again a relief and facilitation of the stay in Belgium.

Fifth, in the case of the expulsion of a foreigner who has the status of long-term resident, proportionality, the duration of the stay in Belgium, the age of the person concerned and so on must be taken into account.

Sixth, the same applies to the termination of the right of residence of a non-economically active EU citizen on the basis of an unreasonable tax on the social security system of the person concerned in Belgium. Other colleagues have already mentioned this. The proportionality test also comes around the angle to be applied: health status, family status, economic status, social and cultural integration, etc. must be taken into account.

In other words, Mrs. Secretary of State, is it possible, on the basis of this proportionality test, to terminate the right of residence? Isn’t it being completely eliminated? Is it not made without objects?

Indeed, Mrs. Lanjri, how do you get profitable outdoors? Any termination will now be able to be challenged, for example because not all elements of the proportionality test were taken into account or because they were not sufficiently motivated.

My seventh argument against this bill relates to the possible temporary nature of the difficulties of the person concerned. From now on, Mrs. Secretary of State, this element will be taken into account in the evaluation. However, we have not received an answer in your committee on the question of why the criteria provided for in the majority of the European Directive must necessarily be anchored in law.

What is the added value of that? Wouldn’t one open the door to all sorts of disputes that eventually, because it all takes too long, can lead to regularization? This argument has been known for a long time. Why, Mrs. Secretary of State, should the host country demonstrate that it is not a temporary problem but a structural problem? Why is the burden of proof placed on the host country and not on the applicant, who constitutes a tax on the social security system? Why is the burden of evidence reversed?

Mrs. Secretary of State, I do not want to talk about the other arguments, which have been widely discussed in the committee, such as the uncertainty about the concept of “other family members” or the extension of the concept of “core family”. The alignment of these categories is unclear, which once again opens the door for possible abuses.

I also do not want to talk about the missed opportunity to punish the carriers of illegal persons with the heaviest possible penalty of 500 000 euros. You make a political choice, but that is not our choice. You want to keep the option open to conclude agreements with the carriers of illegal protocols. Mrs. Secretary of State, we see it differently and I have said this very clearly to you in the committee. You have tried to answer that. It is a political response, so be it.

In any case, we will not approve this bill. Based on the hesitation heard by the colleagues, I do not think that this bill will be unanimously approved by the House. In any case, you have our opposition.

Mr. Logghe just said that I did not mention each of the seven points in my report. Of course, I have only cited the main points of each group. For the rest, I refer, of course, to the written report, also to the presentation of Mrs Smeyers in the article-based discussion.

The draft law transposes new European directives and corrects certain previous transpositions on the basis of reports from the European Commission and/or the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

As regards the status of long-term resident, the regime applicable to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection shall be aligned with that applicable to refugees. Such a measure guarantees a uniform right to free movement for all beneficiaries of international protection.

The CDH group also highlights the inclusion in the law of the systematic proportionality check when adopting a removal measure for reasons of public order or national security, which emphasizes the specific situation of the applicant.

The CDH group fully supports the logic pursued by this project, namely a fair and humane migration policy. We will vote in favour tomorrow.

Mr Arens, I thank you. As no one is registered, I give the floor to the Minister.

I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their report.

I have already said in the Commission that this is not just a transposition of a European Directive, but also some improvements to previous transitions of European Directives. The European Commission made a number of comments on the matter and an infringement procedure was also opened. There is already a legal system in this area, and the necessary adjustments have been made.

I will not fully repeat the explanation I gave earlier in the committee. It was a whole collection of articles. I will comment on the most important comments.

First, the observation that a proportionality test must now be carried out. In practice, this is already done by our services when they check whether someone is an unreasonable tax on our social system. I have never received as many ambassadors as in the last few weeks. Indeed, many persons from a European Member State who, however, impose an unreasonable tax on our social system, have been ordered to leave our territory. They also removed their benefits. All this has led me to never have had as many contacts with ambassadors as in the last few weeks. There are a number of agreements planned for the coming weeks as well. We are apparently one of the only countries that imposes so many sanctions and takes so many measures.

I understand your concern, Mrs. Lanjri, but I tell you that our services will continue to do so. They will continue to carry out these checks, after crossing the data of the Foreign Affairs Service with the data of the POD Social Integration. Such studies are already taking place. We need to be able to motivate this. The interested parties are also obliged to provide additional information. Nothing changes in practice. Only legislative provisions are adapted to European legislation.

Therefore, the investigations will always be carried out with the utmost care.

The same applies to the concept of “core family” about which much confusion has been sowed here. Are they cousins, nieces and aunts of the seventh hole? No to. A heavy burden of proof will have to be provided by the applicant, who must also prove that he has ⁇ ined a family relationship for a certain period of time and has sufficient resources for him and his family.

The categories previously covered by Article 9a or Article 9(2) are now also covered by this Directive. This gives more opportunities for a more thorough investigation.

You have referred to the possibility of bigamy or polygamy. As I said, this is prohibited in our country. One can claim to have two, three, four or more women, but it will never be accepted.

Thus, it is a matter of a partner with whom the EU citizen has a duly proven lasting relationship – that is to say, not a nephew, niece or aunt – or of family members who are or already were a part of the family of the EU citizen and of the father or mother of a minor EU citizen, but that is already the case.

As regards the observations concerning the fines, an amendment was submitted to the committee by Mrs Smeyers, also signed by Mr Francken. Mr Francken, you say you have read the report. I have done that too. I was also present in the committee. That amendment was again withdrawn after the explanation. This is on page 20. You have the right to submit it again.

Why ? I will motivate it again.

You can, as you wish, ask for a flat amount in case of an infringement. However, this can only be done once. In this way, there is no incentive. Suppose one is once caught for smuggling one, ten or fifteen persons, it remains the flat amount. We, on the other hand, choose an amount per infringement. This is cumulative: the more errors and breaches, the more fines we can collect.

An additional incentive is also a protocol agreement with an individual rate that becomes more expensive when repeated. This allows the counter to be set to zero every month, giving the carrier an additional incentive to check as well as possible at departure. This is again a preventive action. The better the means of transport is controlled, the less likely people, consciously or unconsciously, will be smuggled. That is an incentive that we could only maintain by not choosing the flat-rate amount.

Furthermore, in the committee, I also recalled that as regards the legislation on human trafficking and smuggling, the criminal fines have been increased by a recent amendment to the legislation. Therefore, it would be counterproductive to opt for a single, higher flat amount. After all, we also know that smaller companies are likely to go bankrupt simply because they can never pay that amount. In this way, the incentive to self-examine whether there are people in the trucks is completely lost for the transport company. We choose the practical arrangement, for the measure that can produce the most in the field.

It is a pity that you have not been able to follow this in the committee, Mr Francken. You are of course free to re-submit your amendment to the plenary session.

Mrs. Secretary of State, it is all in all my consideration to follow the line put forward in the past by Mr. Wathelet, to link databases.

Since June 2011, the linking of the databases allows us to detect whether EU citizens are in charge of the OCMW for more than three months a year. As they constitute an unreasonable tax on social assistance, they can be returned. You say that nothing will change that. I hope that, and I remain convinced of it.

I think no one has a problem with Europeans coming to work here. Even if one is unlucky and one must temporarily and briefly recover from the support of the OCMW, that is also no problem. However, if this is unreasonable, it must be possible to take action against it. We all agree on this in the semiconductor. This effort must be continued.

Try to maintain the approach from the past. Hopefully it will not become too complicated to maintain the line that we have previously set out, because every decision must be motivated.

It is not just about the direct stakeholders. After all, as a member of the European Union you have the right to stay on the basis of work, you also have the right to transfer family members. That is not a problem for me when it comes to a partner, even if that partner is not registered. Today we apply this to others. That is obvious.

Our concern is that we set criteria for a Belgian or a foreigner who lives here and who wants a partner to happen. It must prove that it is a relationship of at least one year. The new scheme does not provide for a minimum duration of one year or how long the person being transferred should be held in custody.

You declare that it is not about cousins or nieces. However, the provision does indeed stipulate: “the family members not referred to in Article 40a, for whom the citizen of the Union is required to provide compulsory and personal care due to serious health problems”.

These are those who now enter through Article 9bis.

The debate is being resumed in the committee.

We will not resume the committee debate.

For example, if a person can prove that he or she contributed financially to his or her nephew due to the nephew’s health condition, he or she has the right to transfer the nephew.

That is a step too far. I am not saying that you should not help those involved. Just as Belgians and foreigners do for partners or family members in another country, it should also apply to Europeans.

In this regard, a good word must be spoken with Europe.

Mrs. Lanjri, I assume that you will at least refrain.

You want to talk to Europe about asylum and the Family Reunification Directive. However, if I remember correctly, Belgium has not requested the revision of the family reunification directives. Europe has recently requested our comments with the White Paper. We have not responded to the question of Europe. The government, if I am not mistaken, has absolutely chosen not to engage in the question of Europe.

Mrs. Lanjri, therefore, it is a little too late to suddenly start talking about Europe. This could have happened two years ago.

Mrs. Secretary of State, regarding the amendment, you explain that there is 5 000 euros per person transported, while otherwise it becomes a flat-rate fine of 500 000 euros, resulting in the bankruptcy of the small transport companies.

However, it is one of two things. If effective fines are issued, you are talking about 5 000 euros per illegally transported. The chance that someone will ever transport a hundred illegal people is, of course, null. This penalty is much more punishable. First, there is much more deterrence.

Second, if so, I will ⁇ ask them in writing, but may you have figures on the number of fines – they already exist in the Foreigners Act – that have already been issued? How many of them have been effectively collected, which is another matter, from carriers who transport illegal persons, such as truck drivers, carriers by boat, truck or car?

I would like to know the number of fines. There are discussions with the sector. I asked Mrs. Turtelboom a question about the number of convicted human traffickers in the last five years. I tell you that it will be a very thin beast. How many of them have been fined, will be absolutely none.

Miss Secretary of State, maybe you have those numbers. I will ⁇ ask them in writing.

The [...]

Are penalties an administrative issue?

If necessary, I will request the figures from Minister Turtelboom.

We will ⁇ uphold our amendment.

Mr. Secretary of State, you say that the proportionality test is already being used by the Foreign Affairs Service. However, in the current draft law, it is also formalized. You can appeal, in other words, any refusal can be challenged. So I think we left for a nice series of controversies.

With regard to the fines, you say that it is also necessary to ensure that the carriers do not go bankrupt. But if they don’t transport illegal people, then they don’t have to go bankrupt at all? A threatening bankruptcy cannot be a reason not to collect a fine.

The core of our speech remains entirely standing. In any case, we will continue to vote against the further evaporation of our own competence in favor of a supranational EU regulation. We cannot accept that we no longer have control over our asylum and migration systems.