Proposition 54K1839

Projet de loi 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

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

May 18, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive labour tribunal right of asylum foreign national judicial proceedings welfare penalty rights of aliens

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI 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 ¶

June 9, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur is Ms Vanessa Matz.

Mr. President, Ms. Matz had to be absent for medical reasons. It refers to its written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. The report is too. I will not repeat all that has been said. I will not come up with new arguments today.

I will only have a few words to emphasize that the current project remains a concern for the PS group. The facts covered by the sanctions incorporated in the law fall within the jurisdiction and the Criminal Code for us and we cannot rely on a simple administrative procedure to judge them.

It still raises questions about effectiveness in the follow-up of sanctioned candidates. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is concerned about the fulfillment of the material obligations, other than housing, which belong to Belgium in the framework of this project.

An amendment to the initial draft requires an evaluation of the measure at the end of one year. This is the reason for our abstention. We will therefore be attentive to this evaluation, and it will be done in depth. I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, as the bill shows, the asylum crisis poses many challenges. Fortunately, the number of asylum applications is declining, but that does not mean that the high number of applications in 2015 has already been fully processed.

As a result of the huge number of asylum seekers currently required, the number of smaller and larger incidents in shelters is naturally increasing, with physical or sexual violence unfortunately sometimes rising sharply. The figures speak for themselves, fourfolding the number of people who were temporarily excluded in 2015 compared to 2014. Unfortunately, the current arsenal of sanctions shows that there are not always enough good deterrances for some asylum seekers. For others, the facts are so serious that a temporary exclusion, which can now be maximum, is not enough. There are also people who repeatedly grieve the atmosphere in the centers, but even in their case, a temporary exclusion does not provide sunbath. It is therefore logical that a director may decide that it is for the sake of public order or good peace in his center that it is necessary to permanently exclude someone. Fortunately, in exceptional cases, it is for persons for whom a transfer to another center no longer offers a solution.

Mr. Secretary of State, this draft extends the legal possibilities to address an acute problem in the reception centers. Our group is well aware that a mere permanent exclusion from an asylum centre cannot be a complete solution to dealing with asylum-seekers who are misbehaving.

Detention of those involved in the existing closed centers is also not a solution at the moment, because those persons are still undergoing a procedure and because the seats in closed centers are reserved for out-processed asylum seekers with a view to their return. Therefore, we repeat the question that we have already asked you in the committee. We ask you to take two actions to better address the problem of violent asylum seekers.

First, the N-VA group has already pledged in the committee that it is being investigated whether it is possible within the federal government budget to provide additional capacity for the closed reception. We want an additional closed centre or an additional closed wing in an existing centre, precisely for those persons who make it difficult for other asylum seekers in the – by definition – open asylum centres to coexist and who constitute a specific threat to public order.

Second, our group considers it necessary that such persons, after being imprisoned, end up in an accelerated procedure, so that there is rapid clarity about their right to stay. If they are not recognized as refugees, they can be expelled from the country very quickly.

Mr. Secretary of State, our group understands that this bill aims to provide a solution in the very short term to the very acute problem that you and your services are now facing. We see it as a step in the right direction in addressing asylum seekers who seriously misbehave in the centres. Nevertheless, we ask you to discuss with the Government the above proposals.

We will, of course, fully support this bill. We hope that the other majority parties will be willing to discuss the other two proposals.

An amendment has been submitted to the committee at the request of CD&V, but Mrs. Lanjri may be able to clarify this by herself. It is intended to review this measure, which hopefully will be adopted later, one year after its entry into force. We hope to discuss in this Parliament within a year whether this measure is adequate. Nothing, of course, says, Mr. Secretary of State, that we must wait a year to take other good measures if necessary.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, for all clarity, we are also of the opinion that inappropriate behavior in reception centres cannot be, that it must be countered and that it must be sanctioned. If asylum seekers commit very serious crimes, sexual offences or other, then we believe that Justice should act. In this, I follow colleague Dewael who just said firmly that the legislation in our country must be respected. Justice must act on crimes. If it is about less serious facts, inappropriate behavior, then I think we need to resolve it internally. Many people and actors in the healthcare sector are often confronted with violence or inappropriate behavior and try to monitor and correct that internally. There are many ways to do this.

However, I find it very difficult with the proposal to send asylum seekers who commit crimes, who commit misconduct, to homeless centers, to put them on the streets and de facto to have local authorities engaged in supervision and public order. If I have well understood her, Ms. Smeyers also indicates that merely exclusion solves nothing in the longer term and that we must seek other instruments to deal with it in a good way.

If I now have a bad will and act populistly from the opposition — which you would ⁇ do from the opposition — then I could actually say that a malafide asylum seeker must, in the long run, commit crimes or misbehavior because he then gets the right to leave the asylum centre and do what he wants. I therefore agree with the question of seeking sustainable solutions and moving away from the cross-border and strut bird policy.

Mr. Secretary of State, it will not surprise you that we are in favour of stricter measures against asylum seekers who abuse in reception centres.

I can largely agree with what previous speakers have already said. Mrs. De Coninck is absolutely right that pure exclusion does not solve anything in the long term. It shifts the problem alone. However, I absolutely do not share her opinion that this will create precedences for other asylum seekers. They are now in an open asylum centre, where they can go and stand where they want. In Germany, 140,000 asylum seekers are traceless. They were registered and stayed somewhere in an asylum centre, but they go and are now where they want. The argument that you just cited, therefore, of course, does not apply.

I have submitted two amendments to your bill.

One of these is in line with the comments I have just heard from colleague Smeyers, namely that exclusion from an asylum centre alone does not solve anything. You describe that only exceptional cases and very serious events can lead to a temporary exclusion from the asylum centre. When it comes to such serious cases, one should be concerned not only for the safety of the staff in the asylum centre but also for the safety of society in general. You can’t just let those people go and say they can’t come into the asylum center anymore. We are equally committed to safety in our neighborhoods, cities, parks, swimming pools and so on.

We are therefore of the opinion that you should not wait for the justified request of colleague Smeyers to provide additional capacity in the closed reception, in order to provide an additional closed center. If such cases are justifiably excluded from the regular asylum centres, they must be transferred to a closed centre. For this purpose, we have submitted an amendment.

A second argument that it is ⁇ necessary is that they may end up in an accelerated procedure. If, then, it turns out that they must be deported, which is not a guarantee, but of course can, then there is a very high chance that they will not be found before their deportation, if they are not transferred to a closed centre.

For us, this is not a non-binding long-term recommendation, but a prerequisite to be able to approve the current draft legislation.

However, I just heard Mrs. Smeyers. I can count on your support for my amendment.

Mr. Secretary of State, a second amendment that we have submitted to your draft law concerns the daily allowance.

You rightly provide the possibility to withhold part of the fee or the entire fee to which they are entitled for a maximum of four weeks.

When I read the discussion in the committee’s report, I had the feeling that it was about the parent who wants to take away a few euro pocket money from the child of the primary school. It is not a matter of very many cents. An adult now receives 7.40 euros per week. For minors under the age of twelve, this is 4.50 euros.

You think it can be partially reduced for a maximum of four weeks. The idea is good, but it is somewhat soft.

Therefore, we should amend our amendment in order not to limit that retention in time. You can do so for four weeks, but you can keep that money for longer. With our amendment we do it without maximum deadline.

The option of partially withdrawing the money is also not very impressive, since it is still about such low amounts. This option is also immediately removed in our amendment, a question of being able to give a strong enough signal to those who are misbehaving. We therefore want that at least the full daily allowance could be held for a period of time, often longer than four weeks.

Thus, I conclude the explanation of our amendments.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, it is true that the bill pretends to respond to situations, facts or behaviors that have unfortunately multiplied in recent months, or even in recent years, due in particular to the increase in the number of asylum seekers in our country. There is no doubt to nuance the statistics in relation to the reality that we seek to sanction through the bill that is submitted to us.

What strikes me when reading the provisions that are submitted to us is that, in short, we move from a regime of administrative sanctions as provided for in the Law of 2009 in case of breach of the internal regulations of the establishments or centres of reception for refugee candidates, to a more disciplinary regime, in particular by the nature of the sanctions that are provided. In fact, the nature of the sanctions that can be issued against political refugee candidates who would have serious and heavy behavior and could be punished on the criminal level is aggravated.

I agree with Ms. De Coninck’s speech. I believe that it should not be based on the principle that justice cannot track the offences or common law crimes committed by political refugee candidates and that as a result, only the measures provided for in the bill can be effectively applied.

I cannot insist too much on asking that the government first ensure – this obviously implies giving means to justice – that there is a memorandum of understanding between the College of Prosecutors General and the competent authorities at ministerial level to ensure the actual prosecution of the most serious acts committed by asylum seekers, in particular if there are offenses or crimes committed on behalf of persons. This is obviously unacceptable and this is where we need to be very firm.

I feel that the government proposes to have a regime of substitution for the absence of criminal prosecution by prosecutors in the case of offences or serious offences committed by political refugee candidates. I do not share this option that is to say that the justice does not do its job, we propose a disciplinary regime of substitution. Justice may not do its job because it is not given the means, or because it is not given the means to make it a priority.

The State Council said this when examining your bill: it will be necessary to verify the proportionality between the sanctions issued and the nature of the facts accused. Given the type of sanctions that can now be imposed, such as permanent exclusion, withdrawal or reduction of allocations for four weeks, it would be necessary to know the nature of the facts that may be the subject of them. The criterion of proportionality requires that a sanction cannot be established without qualifying the facts likely to be the target. The bill is silent on this subject. It is in this that, in my opinion, you will be criticized, because you cannot allow the judgment of the establishment directors alone to qualify certain facts and impose certain sanctions without the establishment of stricter legal criteria than those listed in your bill or in the laws in force.

These are the reserves of legal nature and therefore of political opportunity that I express. No laxism – no one is above the laws when established in Belgium – but no regime derogating from the general principles of law which everyone in a rule of law benefits from. I am not sure that with your bill you did not ultimately create such a particular regime that you will deprive the interested parties of a correct assessment of their situation in view of the nature of the facts they have committed. We will abstain from this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I join some of my colleagues on this bill, in which we recognize the stigmatizing speech of the Secretary of State towards people who fled the war; even our wars, I could say.

Of course, this is not about justifying violations of physical or sexual integrity. This type of offence must of course be punished, but it must be punished, like any crime. Everyone is subject to possible convictions in court. However, what is proposed here is a parallel regime of sanctions, an exceptional regime. This is obviously unacceptable for the PTB-GO! Who will vote against this bill?

I will add that the State Secretary’s argument that justice is overwhelmed and fails to deal with these cases is obviously not valid. Indeed, it is known, this government gives too few means to justice, and this is still seen in the social actions carried out by the magistrates. This is obviously not a valid or valid argument for establishing a parallel regime of exception. We will oppose this project.

Mr. President, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, the People’s Party cannot support this bill, as I had announced in the committee. Indeed, I remain concerned about the consequences of a permanent exclusion from the host network and the abolition of the daily allocation. These people would find themselves on the streets, without means of subsistence. There is a high risk of falling into crime. Furthermore, an appeal to labour courts seems to me inappropriate, in the sense that these courts are already overcrowded. The case could not be examined within a reasonable time.

Furthermore, this would be a bad signal sent to workers who resort to this jurisdiction and have to wait for an equally abnormally long period. If there is a violent or factual offence, it is in my opinion the correctional court that is the only competent, as for any citizen of that country.

I am also skeptical of reintegrating, even partially, a permanently excluded asylum seeker. If already, after a few days, he has difficulties in complying with the rules of living together, what will happen in the future?

For these reasons, I will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, asylum seekers who misbehave in centers, it is a difficult topic. We have welcomed a lot of asylum seekers over the past few months. The vast majority – I cannot emphasize this enough and I have said it in the committee – behaves ⁇ well. Sometimes there are incidents and we should not wipe them under the mat, but what do we do with them?

The problem is not new. It exists as long as the asylum policy exists. There has been accommodation in collective places since the late 1990s and collective structures sometimes face challenges in this area. Therefore, in 2007 a law was passed with a number of measures. According to the law, seven sanctions can be imposed gradually. It begins with a warning, then the misconduct must enter the administrative file, then follows a transfer to another center. The last of seven possible sanctions is the exclusion for up to one month.

In the committee, the criticism of Ms. De Coninck, among others, was that asylum seekers should not be excluded, since they then end up on the streets and they actually start a cross-country operation. I remind you that the measure was approved in 2007 by, among other things, the party of Mrs. De Coninck. Whether an asylum seeker is excluded for a day, a month or permanently, the principle remains the same: he or she has no longer the right to accommodation in the traditional reception structures. Mrs. De Coninck, I am very happy to hear it, but the concept you are now fighting, namely the exclusion for a month, you yourself approved in 2007. If you disagree with the concept of excluding someone because they end up on the street or have to go to the homeless shelter, then why did you approve that? Whether it is a day, a month or permanent, it comes down to the same thing, namely that an asylum seeker can no longer go to Fedasil or other reception structures.

I agree that the judiciary should do its job. I said this in the committee. I would like to say once again that we had a good discussion in the committee. I also found that no one voted against. It is believed that there can be a problem in principle, but there must be opportunities to address one and the other.

That Justice must act is obvious, but when someone is arrested and interrogated, in some cases he is not permanently detained and goes back to the reception structure. In some cases, this is not obvious.

In recent months there have been such incidents. Persons who are prosecuted are not necessarily detained, which means that an asylum seeker returns to the reception centre, sometimes even in the same room where he or she committed the facts, sometimes very serious facts. Then one must find a solution. The asylum seeker in question may be convicted – I can hope – but that will be a long time later. In the meantime, he or she still has the right to accommodation.

There must be a solution, dear people. It is from the practical experience, from the field, from the center directions, from the civil society assistants that there is a demand to expand the criminal arsenal, not to abuse it.

Of course, proportionality should always be checked.

We are taking sanctions. I have also given the figures in the committee, but I would like to repeat them here. The figures on the imposed sanctions are as follows. For the temporary exclusion imposed by Fedasil, there were 62 cases in 2015 and 52 cases in 2016 at the time the text was submitted to the Chamber. There will be a pack more now. There is a deployment in closed centers, Ms. Pas, for 32 cases in 2016; in 2015 there were four cases and in 2014 two cases.

It is not that we do not impose sanctions. We take those sanctions, but that is done with proportionality, file by file. It does not happen as Mr. Maingain describes it, with a disciplinary regime. This is absolutely not correct.

Mr. Maingain, it might be good to visit an asylum centre and talk with the management of the asylum sector to learn that the people who work there day after day with heart and soul for a good, correct and warm reception of the asylum seekers do not establish disciplinary regimes in our asylum centers. You are doing the truth violence and I suggest you visit some asylum centers and have a conversation there with our staff. You will be surprised.

We will extend the arsenal of possible sanctions, but it will be handled proportionately and it will be done in a conscious, well-considered way by the center management, in consultation with the social assistant who accompanies, and always with the director of the headquarters of Fedasil in Brussels. There is always an appeal possibility, so also in this area the rights are fully guaranteed.

What we introduce here is not new at all. It exists in France, the Netherlands and Germany. Many European countries have such a system for a long time. We will now also make this possible. I can hope that I will almost not have to use the arsenal, preferably as little as possible, but in some cases, unfortunately, it will be necessary.

Is it a transitional operation? In my opinion, it is absolutely not a transshipment operation. The right to a dignified reception must always exist. If someone is permanently excluded, they can go to the homeless care facility. This is happening now too. In the previous legislature, from 2007, there were also one-month exclusions. An asylum seeker who, not for the first time, was unlikely to have committed misconduct, had already received a whole series of sanctions, according to the management, was completely unmanageable and as a sanction received an exclusion of a month, could then also go to the homeless shelter. Then there were also solutions.

There is even a very clear additional guarantee registered in this law that was not included in the Acceptance Act of 2007. If it fails and if one seeks shelter but does not find it, for example because all beds in Brussels are occupied, which of course can happen, especially in the winter, while one can prove that one really did its best to search, then Fedasil will be held accountable to still find a sustainable solution. There are therefore in this bill additional guarantees inscribed for wrongdoing asylum seekers, who are for all clarity perpetrators and not victims.

I think we found a very correct balance. Following the advice of the State Council, adjustments have been made, which absolutely maintain the balance, to be human, but also strict for people who really abuse our hospitality. That is the red thread of my policy, the government agreement and this government. We are gentle to the vulnerable, but we dare to be harsh to those who abuse our hospitality. I think that red thread is shared and worn by the vast majority of the public opinion in this country.

Regarding your amendments, I would like to say two things.

With regard to your first amendment to Article 3, concerning the temporary or definitive abolition of the daily allowance, according to the draft I present here, the daily allowance can be held for four weeks. It is a small amount, 7.5 euros per week or a little more than 1 euro per day, but it is a symbolic amount. You ask why a fraction of that amount is reduced. You are proposing to deduct everything, because the amount is already so low. It can also be anything, but it can also be, for example, half of the weekly or daily allowance. It is up to the management to decide on this.

When will this measure be used, for example? We are planning with this government to organize from September, fully integrated in all asylum centres, a course on dealing with women and gender issues. This is already happening in Norway and in many other European countries. This is nothing new. It is already happening in many asylum centres, but it is now a unified course, in all asylum centres.

Suppose a young asylum seeker says he does not want to take that course. Now nothing can be done against it. In Norway, in such cases, the daily payment is held. I think that is a very good stimulus.

That is why it was introduced. You say you are in favour of a definitive abolition. It can be for a maximum of four weeks, but you can also impose it several times.

I understand the essence of your amendment, but I think that what we propose can also be applied in this way by the Centre Directorate, if it is really necessary. I do not really see a problem in this area.

With your second amendment you want the definitive exclusion of the right to material assistance in the reception structures and a transfer of the person concerned to a closed centre. From a purely technical point of view, your amendment is not correct, because one can never give Fedasil the authority to decide on the detention in a closed centre. I can’t imagine that this could be your intention.

By the way, it is already possible to lock asylum seekers who are really misbehaving in closed centers. This is a conservation measure that is stated in the Foreigners Act of 1980 and not in the Acceptance Act of 2007. This is about the availability of the government. This procedure is also applied. Unfortunately, I have had to use them many times this year. This also happens.

You say that this system needs to be expanded. It should also be the standard procedure. This was also said by Ms. Smeyers.

I have two comments on this. First, it is not up to me to lock people in closed centers. I am not God the Father. I think discretionary is a very difficult thing to shut down people. I am not a judge. I am the Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration. I am not appointed to shut down people. This is an anachronism in a rule of law. As a conservation measure, it is sometimes absolutely necessary. This has also happened under previous governments, every year. In some cases, you can’t do otherwise, but I don’t feel comfortable with it, not at all!

Therefore, I think that it would not be a good system to always close discretionary. The existing system is much better. Your claim is correct that more capacity is needed in closed centers. I started with 410 places in the closed centers. That was a low record. There had never been so few places in closed centers in twenty years. There were also 17 000 seats in the open centers. Now there are 34 000 places in the open centers and we go to 600 to 620 places in the closed centers.

The capacity has been increased by half in one and a half years. Is that sufficient? and no. My Director-General is right that there should be at least a thousand seats in the closed centers. That is necessary. If we want to maintain support for asylum and migration policies in Western Europe, it will only be possible if we can demonstrate that people who are not recognised are actually returning. If these people eventually all remain here illegally, then there is no longer any support from the population. Then they just don’t believe us anymore.

“Voluntary as it can, coerced as it should” means that sometimes one needs the closed centers, and that therefore one also needs more capacity in the closed centers. What Mr. Roosemont says is absolutely correct, and I also support him. The government has a lot of ambition for the coming years. I feel a huge support for this from my colleagues.

You say that someone who abuses in an open center should be transferred to a closed center by default. At present, this is not possible with 610 seats. There are already dozens of people in closed centers, while their procedure is still ongoing. That costs a handful of money. Those places are then occupied by people whose procedure is still underway, while I would rather use those places for people I can expel. Those people in the procedure cannot be dismissed, because their procedure is still going on.

We must therefore maintain a good balance between places for people who misbehave during the procedure – if it really can’t be otherwise – and enough places to effectively remove out-processed people. That is obvious. The government is breaking records. In May, 168 criminals were sent back to their country of origin, 168! There have been years when that number was not even reached in a whole year! Now it was 168 in one month and June will be even better. Unfortunately, the figures in March and April were much lower due to the regrettable attack in Zaventem.

We are breaking records on expelling criminals from prison, but those people are also going to a closed center. We must therefore also ensure that we reserve enough seats for them so that we can continue to commit to a fair and correct repatriation policy, voluntarily if it can and forced if it should. However, the group from prison almost never wants to return voluntarily. One must be realistic about it: they do not want to return voluntarily, they all want to stay here, illegally if necessary. They may care very little about it.

We have to force them back. For this we need space. However, filling all closed asylum centers for illegals with asylum seekers in procedure is also not really a great solution, ⁇ not when there are so few places. We need to create more places.

Again, our proposal is, in my opinion, a good proposal that is balanced. The range of instruments will be expanded in a balanced way, internationally correct. This is happening in several countries. In France, for example, this has been possible for a long time, with guarantees for both those who are punished and for our society. Ultimately, it is especially important and even the essence that we protect our society.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, the length of your response is at the height of the discomfort that is yours. Indeed, you are aware that the device you are putting in place will not be able to answer all the questions raised in the committee, and which have been recalled today.

You have been very critical of justice. I remind you that you said that justice was not advancing fast enough and that, doing so, we could no longer proceed in the same way with regard to the reception centers.

I acknowledge that on the occasion of your replica, you stated that you cooperate with justice. But it always happens that, at first – you recalled it here today – you stated that although justice does its job, it was impossible to wait and leave the reception centers in the situation that is their current, and that new measures needed to be taken.

The measure you propose us aims to permanently exclude from the reception facilities persons who would have committed acts of serious violence or sexual acts. You said that the principle had been acted under the previous government. But what will these people become? Once a person has been permanently excluded, where will he find himself?

You mentioned figures relating to deportations in closed centers. You told us that justice is doing its job. But today, you’re going to put people out on the street. In this regard, you did not provide any response. We have already had an exchange on this issue. On this occasion, you had considered reintegration and you were committed to defining a reintegration plan for those who could be reintegrated.

In short, the measure you propose does not solve the problem. The proof of this is that you have personally recognized him on occasion of explanations, in addition, incomplete.

I expect from you, Mr. Secretary of State, that you explain to us as soon as possible how to reintegrate, in the reception centers, a certain number of excluded persons, as you committed to it in commission.

Mr. Secretary of State, I will come up with a few elements that have been cited.

The problem is indeed not new. We have also warned that the number of incidents would increase if the number of asylum seekers you begin to catch here also increases spectacularly. You could have taken measures for that.

You say that I would have said that you do not take any sanctions. I didn’t say that, you’re taking sanctions. However, my blame is that they are not strict enough. If the perpetrators – as you rightly call them yourself – of sufficiently serious cases of physical or sexual violence – this is the matter – are eventually excluded from the asylum centre, then it is indeed the perpetrators for which a conservation measure is necessary. If they pose a serious danger to the reception structure, they also pose a serious danger to society. I continue to assume the principle that those in a closed center belong. You have too little capacity. For two years, you have been telling me that there is actually too little capacity. You say there are 110 places now and there are many more to come. However, you are now at the level of 2007, when you from the opposition Wathelet suspect that this was a much too low capacity to be able to pursue a rigorous return policy. At that time, the influx was not as large as it is today. So why not a separate closed center? As far as we are concerned, these perpetrators – as you rightly call them – bite in the hand that feeds them. They pose a serious danger and must end up in a closed centre, in our case also for repatriation purposes.

I can understand that Mr. Francken thinks that we were always in the government, but in 2007 that was not the case, Mr. Francken.

Mrs De Coninck, to put it directly, the introduction of the temporary exclusion was not in 2007 but in December 2009. In 2009, he was in the government. Only in 2010?

I will be happy to see how your voting behavior was at this point.

Alleszins, Mrs. Pas, you are talking about 110 places, but there were 410 places when I started, and now 610. You say that this is the same as under Wathelet. Yes, but I also started with much less than Wathelet. We have increased capacity by 50% and we will further increase that capacity. She goes up, she goes up. In a year and a half, 50 percent of them in closed centers has never happened. The capacity has always gone down, the youngest fifteen years.

Again, is this enough? No, but the capacity is going up and will continue to go up, you can be sure. In addition, I have received 30 million extra for this policy.

Mr. Kir, you are talking about reintegration. When a person is recognized as an asylum seeker, he enters the normal circuit and can begin his reintegration anyway. If he is still permanently excluded during the procedure, it will indeed be a part of the homeless care. If he finds nothing and can prove that he has sought, Fedasil will still have to find a solution. I said this in the committee.