Proposition 54K2549

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

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

June 22, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive right of asylum appeal rights of aliens

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• David Geerts (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Sébastian Pirlot (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Peter Vanvelthoven (Vooruit) 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 ¶

Nov. 9, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs Monica De Coninck, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Several colleagues have already held a speech on the two bills.

Nov. 9, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, given the very extensive report, more than two hundred pages through the long discussion and the hearings, I refer to the written report, since I could not adequately represent all the subtleties. I will soon have an intervention.

This bill is a result of the serious crisis in the poultry sector that has plagued our country and the Netherlands since August. Both agriculture and the food sector were and are seriously affected by this crisis. A lot of damage has been done. This has also been demonstrated in the discussions in the committees. During the recession, in August, there were additional committee meetings with hearings and an exchange of views on the crisis.

So far, the damage in Belgium is estimated at 21 million euros. In the Netherlands, the damage is even greater. Our group is very pleased that the federal government responded immediately and immediately proposed a dozen measures to support the sector, after the damage it suffered.

One of the measures immediately proposed was the granting of federal compensation to the affected companies. These are now drawn up and are included in this bill. We must not forget, and we have also emphasized in the committee that the real responsible who caused this crisis and committed the fraud will have to repay the damage caused in the sector. We therefore fully support the bourgeois party-position from the government in relation to the actual responsible for the crisis. Mr. Minister, you said that the civil party formation is currently underway.

In order to implement the law, in addition to a European fiat, implementation decisions are also needed. We advocate that companies could apply for compensation through a simple procedure. I hope that this process will be implemented. The application procedure should be kept as simple as possible. There should also be good and quick communication to all interested parties so that they are properly informed and that appropriate guidance can be provided when submitting the damage files.

Thank you for the further follow-up. I hope that the compensation scheme will also be followed properly, closely and cordially at European level.

The word is to Mrs. Smeyers. We follow the order of size of the groups. It has never been different, Mrs. Temmerman.

Mr. Speaker, I did not stand to intervene, but to be put on the list, because I was not yet registered. It does not matter to me. Mr. Pivin and I will not argue about this. The faster I start, the faster it is to the others.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, it was a moment to wait before these bills could be discussed in the plenary session. I think it was a summer design, maybe even a spring design, in the committee.

The UNHCR’s opinion came only at the beginning of October and then recently another opinion on its own initiative from the Privacy Committee was delivered to the chairman of the Committee on Home Affairs. After that, of course, you had to give an additional explanation by both opinions.

Today, in the plenary session, we will transpose four directives and one regulation into domestic law. These are the Procedure Directive, the Reception Directive, the Return Directive, the Qualification Directive and the Dublin III Regulation. A whole sandwich, but these directives and the regulation have one goal, namely the pursuit of a common asylum and return policy, and that is the goal that our group has been fully supporting for a very long time.

Mr. Secretary of State, there are a number of measures in your draft that deserve our special attention. A very important obligation and a very significant improvement is the reporting obligation introduced for recognised refugees and subsidiary protected persons.

Recognised refugees will now be required to notify the municipal administration that they will leave the country and return to their country of origin. We remember the news about the refugee vacationers. Article 44 of the 2013 Directive provides that Member States may initiate an investigation to withdraw the international protection of a particular person when a new element or new findings appear to show that there are grounds to doubt the validity of that international protection or to at least re-examine it.

Sorry for the delay, but I think the agenda has been changed.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, as you know, this bill is important for the poultry sector and our companies that have suffered significant damage. Last summer, as soon as it broke out, the fipronil crisis was managed quickly and efficiently by our government. As of August 10th, a task force was set up, bringing together all the actors in the sector. Various important steps have been taken – I will not cite them otherwise Mr. Nollet will annoy me – and the industry quickly realized that we were concerned with this problem and that we were supporting it.

One of these measures obviously translated into this bill: the implementation of a compensation mechanism for affected companies. This compensation aims to enable companies to cope with the damages suffered in strict compliance with European regulations. To do this, an amount of 30 million euros was isolated from the AFSCA Reserve Fund, which amount should be sufficient. The latest estimates presented by the Minister amount to 21 million euros.

I recall that the measures adopted by the government are added to a €10 million envelope allowing farmers not to bear the cost of destroying eggs and poultry for the safety of the food chain.

It is worth providing maximum support to our companies, some of which are in a difficult, even critical situation. Other countries like Belgium have been affected by this crisis and not all react in the same way. Some do not plan to compensate their companies. Therefore, I welcome this bill.

It is in order to come quickly to help companies that my group and I will support this project.

Let’s be honest, going on a trip to the country you just fled from might be such a reason. We do not say that this is automatically a reason, but we are indeed obliged to ourselves, our administrations and our society to carefully investigate what exactly the reason for protection is if someone, shortly after receiving the status of recognised refugee or subsidiary protection, goes on a journey to his country of origin. If, then, it turns out that someone no longer needs protection, that protection could of course also be abolished. The accredited refugee is also required to deposit his valid national passport with the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons. This important reporting obligation is now also domestic law.

Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, there is ⁇ a risk of language shopping. Whether asylum seekers sometimes rightly want to change language roles, I leave in the middle. I can fully rely on my experience in Aalst. It turned out that persons who spoke perfectly Dutch and were perfectly native submitted a regularization application – it is logical that they do so at that time – in French and that is still strange, much more because they wanted to demonstrate that they were perfectly native and integrated and spoke the Dutch language. When I asked why they submitted that application in French, the honest answer was that it is a general consciousness that requests in French are easier to pass through and ⁇ enjoy a more smooth treatment. Whether this is true or not, I leave it in the middle. It may be a rumor, but it’s not good for the administration, it’s not efficient and it’s time-consuming, as people gradually change language roles.

Mr. de Lamotte was included in the discussion but is not found.

This language gap is addressed by providing that successive applications for international protection will be examined in the same language as the previous investigation. Therefore, when submitting a second or subsequent application for asylum, one no longer has the possibility to choose another language. The language of the first asylum application will remain, unless the Foreign Affairs Service decides otherwise for certain reasons. Thus, it also stops efforts to ⁇ a positive result by changing language roles, a very important achievement if we approve the draft later.

At present, it is also possible to submit a new asylum application, while the appeal procedure at the RvV is still pending. There is no need for further explanation that, of course, can lead to administrative problems. This will also be corrected.

The draft legislation also sets out – although this is very important – additional procedural safeguards for underage asylum seekers. The general interest of the child is a decisive consideration which should be guided by the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons during the examination of the application for protection. The rights of the child are central. For example, it will also be possible for the child to be heard separately from his parents. That will often not be necessary, but if the child requests it or if the researcher feels it is necessary, it can. The child may be heard separately from the parents in order to speak, for example, about his homosexual orientation, which he does not want or can express in the presence of his parents.

Colleagues, I am also very pleased that the concept of “safe third country” is added to our internal legislation with Article 46 of the bill. The term now enters into our internal law and will be able to be applied.

In addition to the changes in the functioning of the Foreign Affairs Service and the General Commissariat, there are changes concerning Fedasil. Another novelty is that Fedasil will now have the option to limit the reception based on information obtained from other asylum authorities. For example, it could be the failure to respond to a request for information from the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons.

If a candidate refugee refuses to cooperate, Fedasil is therefore given the opportunity to limit the reception. That is also logical. Acceptance is also a service. It is, of course, an obligation, which we fully support, in accordance with the Geneva Convention. But for what also belongs something. We want the candidate refugee, the asylum seeker, to cooperate in the investigation, because of course the number of shelters is not infinite and there must be room for new candidate refugees.

Since you have reversed the agenda without warning, Mr. De Lamotte is not present for his speech. He is probably occupied by one or the other meeting. Since Mr. Delizée wishes to take the floor, I ask you to wish to make him pass first, which will allow time for Mr. de Lamotte to arrive.

and OK.

To the unnecessary stretching of procedures by not cooperating and, consequently, to the unnecessary stretching of the reception by not cooperating, Fedasil can make a pile and perch.

However, I would like to point out another important point on the fight against multiple asylum applications. Also in this respect, requests due to the application, requests to extend time, will be suspended. The Foreign Affairs Service will have new and additional opportunities to repatriate an asylum seeker while the asylum application is still pending at the Commissionariat or at the Council for Foreign Affairs Disputes.

Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to reiterate that it is very important that you have created a better framework for the obligation to cooperate, focusing on the importance of the delivery of identity documents. Now comes the possibility that the Foreign Affairs Service, the General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless Persons and the Foreign Affairs Dispute Council may contain the identity documents during a procedure and the Foreign Affairs Service even after a procedure. This will make the return procedure easier for outgoing asylum seekers. After all, when the identity documents are kept in custody, the person concerned can no longer subsequently claim that he or she has forgotten where he or she came from, so that the person concerned no longer knows where he or she should be brought back.

One by one, those points in the bill that fully support our mantra on asylum and migration, namely a strict but fair asylum policy. Through this path, we continue.

Mr. Secretary of State, it is obvious that you have the support of the N-VA group when we vote on the bill later.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, we will now vote unanimously, as in a committee, on the compensation of farmers who have been affected by the fipronil crisis. I think there is no surprise to wait for the vote.

Nevertheless, I would like to add some considerations about what constituted a leaflet last summer and the months that followed. We should not consider that this crisis is behind us. It is still very current. As far as I know, Europe has not yet given its green light for compensation. It appears that elements were not transmitted by the government to the European Union. Per ⁇ the Minister will be able to explain. Farmers will receive compensation, to see when it can intervene. There is much to fear that it will still have to wait several months before it becomes effective.

The second element, which is a direct consequence of the fipronil crisis: the rise in the price of eggs. Some egg products have thus increased from 200 to 250%, putting the entire economic sector of SMEs specialising in processed products at risk. Let us also think about it.

The third element is the estimation of the damage suffered. In commission, the minister estimated these damages at 14 million euros, it appears that from now on this assessment has grown to 21 million euros. You will tell me that 30 million have been released, but we should be sure that this estimate will be sufficient.

That said, we will of course vote in favour of this project, while emphasizing that the case is not closed.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, I will not come back here on the history of the case – many of you still remember it. I would simply remind that the opposition had to fight to obtain the opinions of specialized associations or those of the High Commissioner for Refugees.

Today I will simply explain in a few words the reasons that lead the Socialist Group to resubmit an amendment and to vote against the two texts submitted to the vote of today’s plenary session.

The first is the content of the opinion of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Commission for the Protection of Privacy. These are two independent bodies that strangle the projects in the state, projects of which the majority, unfortunately, judged that they could be swept away from one side of the hand.

For us, as for these bodies, the situation of applicants should not restrict their rights or access to them. This is the basis, the substance of their criticism, especially with regard to privacy. We agree with them on this point. No, wanting to protect your privacy does not mean failing to cooperate with the authorities and therefore no, it is not, Mr Francken, a suspicion of fraud!

Together with the UNHCR, we also find it unreasonable to put the burden of proof on the shoulders of solely applicants, whose material and psychological situation is necessarily fragile. With him, we have proposed to advance the text to bring it more in line with the recommendations of the United Nations agencies in this field, more specifically with regard to the benefit of doubt, which your text leaves aside. Therefore, today we are re-apposing an amendment in this direction – we will probably come back to it soon.

The second reason is the way you carry out the transposition of European directives. You do this only with regard to the "strengthening of access conditions" section. You do it much less when it comes to the protection of applicants, the protection of political refugees, rights which include in particular the right to an effective remedy. This right, through these texts, makes it difficult, or even impossible, according to the field actors, since you reduce the deadlines significantly.

Finally, we are very concerned about the possibilities of locking applicants contained in your text. There are objective criteria as well as justification of a risk of escape and therefore of an internment, covering almost all situations in which a applicant is likely to find himself. This policy seems to us not only excessive, but above all counterproductive, since very many cases will result in recognition.

For us, a policy that aims to harmoniously integrate the persons concerned in our society cannot be based on a logic of almost systematic detention.

Of course, and this is another debate, we must continue to monitor the operation of AFSCA. There were discussions in the committee on the reduction of the allocation and the number of controls. We do not have the same numbers. According to our figures, the number of checks decreased by 6% in 2015 and by 2,5% in 2016. In short !

Should we remember that the fraud remained for months under the radar and then again for a large month and a half, in the secret of the instruction? This is part of the dossier that we have examined under all the seams. I think the case of the AFFSCA is far from being closed.

Beyond the crisis, there is the question of dependency on pesticides and other products that requires a more comprehensive reflection on the modes of production. But this is a longer-term reflection.

Dear colleagues, in conclusion, we will of course vote on compensation, but with all the elements I have just indicated in mind because the crisis is still in part ahead of us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly replicate, in order to bring some life into the debate.

I just emphasized that the possibility of Fedasil to reduce the reception if the asylum seeker does not cooperate is very important. This is the case in all branches of society. If people do not cooperate – for whatever it is – then all the services that are set up, all the facilities that are set up, nevertheless, do not have to blindly wait.

If the asylum seeker refuses to cooperate in the search for his identity, if he deliberately holds it back, then it is still normal that there is some retaliation against it. And I say "consciously", because it is also often so that he really doesn't know, but the services also feel when the identity is consciously retained. For what belongs, the asylum seeker must help himself, is himself responsible for disclosing, for finding out his identity. This is not only the responsibility of the different asylum authorities.

I can understand that there must be cooperation between the authority, the administration and the asylum seeker.

Put yourself in the place of an asylum seeker. Let’s admit that Belgium is experiencing a dramatic situation and that you had to leave the country overnight, Madame, without having time to take your personal items, without having the possibility to take your passport or identity card with you. You are welcomed by a country that has signed the Hague Convention. You are applying for asylum to the administration of that country.

With the text that is deposited by the minister, the administration will consider, tomorrow, that you are fraudulent because you are not in possession of a document and that you cannot prove it. This is what is dramatic.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, in August, we spent two full days in the "fipronil commission" and it was discussed the difficulty for a number of companies to be compensated or to survive this crisis. We also supported, in this Assembly, the urgency regarding this bill because the affected companies deserve to be helped as soon as possible. This is an important sector.

Mr. Minister, we will support the project as you have proposed it and we can put on your asset that the bill has arrived quickly to help the sector. This is obviously a good signal. If this compensation meets the needs of the agribusiness, let us nevertheless recall that it is the agribusiness that is at the source of crises and receives state support. We would like to emphasize the importance of supporting small producers who are not the source of crises and who do not receive direct state support.

We believe that AFSCA should harness its reserves to do so, including by increasing the capacity of the cell of small producers. Mr. Minister, I ask you about this and I ask you to understand this request of small producers, especially since for them – but also for the largest producers – there is an increase in the price of eggs.

There are lessons to be learned from this fipronil crisis. We will have the opportunity, during the presentation of your general policy note, to find out the proposals you will make to us regarding this aid to the sector as well as the re-filing of the ASCFA. We requested an audit from AFSCA, with the support of Minister Kris Peeters. An audit of the AFSCA, accompanied by a parliamentary control, is a step that I think is important, obvious, not to sanction but to increase its potential for improvement, to identify the malfunctions and to allow everyone to find themselves there with a plus at the level of consumer safety and a certainty for producers to know what they can or can not do. During the hearings, we discovered a number of difficulties.

Mr. Minister, we will support your project as it has been submitted because we believe that the compensation of egg producers is an important element for the sector.

Mr. Speaker, can I thank everyone for the various interventions on this important bill? I am pleased that it was unanimously approved by the Committee on Business and I hope and expect that this will also happen later.

The [...]

Let me finish, and then you can answer, Mr. Francken. This has already been discussed in the committee.

You start from the idea that a person who is not in possession of an identity document must provide proof of it. Until now, the law stipulated that the administration had to do everything for itself to prove it. That balance is now broken. This is, at least, what the High Commissioner for Refugees considers.

That is why I am presenting today an amendment aimed at meeting the request of the High Commissioner, which has developed a guide, standards, ways of working on the reception of asylum seekers, for all countries of the world.

Mr. Francken, as he did in June, refusing to listen to the remarks of the associations, arches and rejects the remarks of the High Commissioner for Refugees.

It seems to me that we were able to give ourselves the means to work very quickly.

We absolutely need to act quickly. That is your will, Mrs. Smaers, but that is also my will.

Therefore, the Government has requested at this meeting the application and obtained the procedure of high urgency. This allowed the parliamentary debate to take place within the best possible time.

Ms. Smeyers, this bill effectively marks the fair opportunities for protection in Belgium that every asylum seeker should receive. Everyone deserves a fair opportunity. The answer can be yes or no, but everyone should be given a fair opportunity.

The Secretary of State goes quite far if he even begins to question the right to receive an asylum seeker when there is no cooperation. You say it yourself: if there is no cooperation, someone can lose their place in a reception center.

What does it mean not to cooperate? From whom does it depend? Who will define it? Who will fill it?

Here we touch on the right to residence, so simple it is. We should not make the right to a roof above the head dependent on such a very vaguely defined fulfillment and application of "not cooperating".

If an asylum seeker refuses to cooperate, this can have a negative impact on the final assessment. Of course, this can be an element in the consideration, in the procedure, but should it not affect the right to reception?

The shared burden of proof is a very good principle. We should watch over that. We should sustain that. This bill does not do that. This bill puts the burden of proof more and more on the asylum seeker. Mr. Kir is right: it is not easy to prove his identity as an asylum seeker. But what does this bill say? It says that the lack of evidence is a negative indication for the asylum seeker in question. This is literally stated: the lack of evidence is a negative indication.

Only for those who can give a satisfactory explanation why they do not have evidence can this be compensated, this can be forgotten. The burden of proof is disproportionate to the applicant for asylum. That asylum seeker must be thrown into curves if he cannot immediately prove his identity.

These are immediately two examples of quite fundamental violations of the fair opportunity that every asylum seeker should actually receive in Belgium.

Naturally, the poultry sector needs quick action on our part. As I have indicated in the committee, after the vote of this bill, we will be able to forward the Royal Execution Decree to the State Council for opinion. I think we will then be able to initiate compensation proceedings at the beginning of next year, as far as the legal provisions allow us to do so.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to take the opportunity given to speak on these two projects to recall the importance and quality of the work, often difficult – especially in recent years – of agents of instances such as the CGRA, the CCE or Fedasil. The expertise of these people is recognized in Belgium but also by international bodies such as the High Commissioner’s Office. This expertise is valuable when you know that the files that are submitted to these agents need to be processed and analyzed case by case because each case is different. Those people, therefore, have to handle cases by case by case, taking into account facts that are often humanly very delicate.

Add to this difficulty the fact that we are in a transversal challenge because the management of the migratory reception can be effective only through international coordination and harmonisation.

Initiatives in this area have been taken at European level for a number of years, as the Belgian government has taken for three years to complement our reception legislation. This legislation is based – we like to recall – on a clear philosophy: a human but firm policy that respects international rules and those of our rule of law. These rules are clear and firm because we must also be able to fight abuses.

Mr. Pivin, you are talking about compliance with international rules. I would like to draw your attention to one aspect of the opinion of the Privacy Protection Commission. This notice makes it very clear that there is a negative obligation in the head of state to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation, which will apply in May 2018. The Privacy Protection Commission says that with this bill, the government puts Belgium in breach of a data protection regulation that will apply in May.

Contrary to what you say, I consider that Belgium does not respect its international commitments.

Ms. Smaers, we had to notify this draft law to the European Commission for prior notification. This happened in October after a pre-notification procedure.

This leads me to complete the answer for Mr. Delizée. Mr. Delizée, I think you are not well informed. We went so far as to pre-notify the European Commission of the arrangements we are taking for compensation in the fipronil crisis. The contacts are very close.

You may have noticed that during the committee debates, we have already been able to vote unanimously on an amendment, brought by the majority, incorporating in the draft one of the Commission’s remarks. Strictly, we naturally take care to have with the Commission all desired exchanges, so that we can work with the widest possible security margin. I really have to tell you. We have already talked about this during the committee discussions.

Mr. Delizée, the crisis is over. This is also obvious. We have come out of the fipronil crisis. We are now managing compensations to help the sector revive. I would like to join you, as well as Mrs. Cassart. But I still wanted to remind you that we did not wait for this bill to come financially in aid to the poultry sector. Based on the first reserve of €10 million, we have already been able to estimate aid of €7 million for the sector. It is about helping the sector to cover the operational costs related to the crisis. If the 7 million euros in question, estimated at the start of the 10 million euro envelope, have not yet been liquidated, we are already at close to 5 million euros.

Mr. Hellings, we might disagree if the Secretary of State had not himself spontaneously indicated that he would complete the arrangement by royal decree. Therefore, Mr. Hellings, let’s go back and talk about it in the light of the initiative that will be taken.

The projects that are being discussed seem to respond to the challenges I mentioned as an introduction. They consist of transposing directives, thus providing key answers, while taking into account – at each stage – the diversity as well as the complexity of cases and dossiers. Similarly, this transposition provides a clearer framework for the authorities responsible for our asylum policy.

The rationalization of certain procedures is in accordance with the government agreement. It also responds precisely to a priority of the Reform Movement: the guarantee of the balance between rights and duties. It was necessary to clarify the procedure and the role of the CGRA. Similarly, it was important to ensure full recognition of the protection of vulnerable persons. I think their consideration is real. I am referring more specifically to unaccompanied minors, to whom this transposition offers the possibility to submit a request in their own name as well as to be heard personally.

I also think of the text, which from now on dictates faster procedures, therefore necessarily more efficient and of better quality, whether before the Office of Foreigners, the CGRA, the Council of Litigation or during the new phases of the asylum application procedure or, finally, in the application of the Dublin procedures. In this area, I note the acceleration of the processing of certain cases, the simplification of procedures and the harmonisation of deadlines. All this is established, I am very attentive to it, ⁇ ining the right to a lawyer’s advice at every stage of the procedure and ensuring the possibility of supplementing the application files with new elements during the procedure.

The High Commissioner for Refugees recognizes some advances. However, let’s be careful, it also releases some criticisms. It formulates criticism and it is true that new issues, important issues have had to be resolved or will still be resolved through the royal decree of which I mentioned the coming in the coming months.

Thus, the burden of evidence – a subject that has been debated between us – which is challenged by the requested opinion and for which the positions are obviously settled, is not without nuance. Indeed, when reading the text, it can be seen that, if the burden appears to be placed in the head of the applicant, one cannot ignore the parts of the text which repeatedly mention the obligation for the CGRA to investigate and collect information said to be relevant regarding the credibility of the situation of the applicant for protection.

While, in theory, it can be said that the burden of proof is placed on the shoulders of the applicant for protection, in practice it is shared with the administrative bodies. The question is what is the degree of good faith of the person who presents himself in Belgium. It is not about making a trial of intent to the person but to verify his identity and the circumstances that led him to introduce a statement.

Dear colleagues, it still seems to us normal for the applicant to do everything to prove, with the services of the CGRA and with the Office of Foreigners – not against but with them – the elements of his request. I think this is also collaboration.

Can it not go through the issuance of digital personal documents to instances? Is it not possible to search for information present in a computer, in a phone? You must be able to ask the applicant to complete his file and Myria, in her latest annual report, pledges for a greater involvement of services in social media to fight human trafficking. Myria is right. It must be done in this matter and I want to say that we must be able to do it in all matters. It should not be systematic.

I recall that concrete aid has already been provided to the sector before we can provide, in a second time, the aid provided under the bill and, technically, under the inspired support key of the Health Fund. I will not go back in detail but, nevertheless, I will make a clarification: there was no change from the estimates. I read in the press and heard comments that we would have gone from 14 to 21 million... No!

Starting from the first envelope (reserve of 10 million euros), we have 7 million plus 14 million which are estimated as part of the project, for a total of 21 million. This accuracy will provide some clarity on these elements. If any changes were made, I would have informed Parliament.

I would like to reiterate that the work carried out, in collaboration with the European Commission, was also on the basis of consultation with the poultry sector and Agrofront. Through this consultation, we were able to elaborate this project and these royal orders according to the impact of the fripronil crisis as felt financially.

Mr. Delizée, you are absolutely right. It is clear that in view of the European tables on the increase in the price of eggs, increases, sometimes very significant, in the price of eggs are seen throughout Europe.

Mr. Peterson, I can hear you. The electronic search, which you are talking about, is useful in combating human trafficking. I would even say that it is useful in the fight against major tax fraud, for example. And it is also in the fight against terrorism and in the fight against major crime.

But what are we talking about here? We are talking about electronic search for asylum seekers. As far as I know, asylum seekers are obviously not Belgian citizens, nor European citizens. And they are probably not the people you would like to have on the territory. However, they remain human beings.

Electronic search involves entering an electronic device where ultra-personal data is located. This should be reserved for the most serious criminal acts, not for an asylum application. This is what the High Commissioner for Refugees says to you, this is what the Privacy Protection Commission says to you: this is contrary to the fundamental right to privacy, it is disproportionate.

You cannot make a report between the trade in human beings, the prostitution, the terrorism, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, an application for asylum. This has nothing to see. It is disproportionate.

Despite the fipronil crisis, the increase for Belgium brings us to an even lower cost than the European average. I thank you for pointing out this aspect because it allows me to point it out. In terms of the cost of eggs in Belgium, despite the fipronil crisis, we are below the European average in terms of the cost per euro for 100 kilograms of eggs.

There are also some comments regarding the AFFSCA. It is obvious that after the crisis we have encountered, an evaluation is underway. This is not a negative assessment. This is an evaluation that we carry out after each crisis. We are looking at how the crisis has been managed. In my view, it was well managed. However, we can ⁇ , on a number of axes with AFSCA, further improve the processing of certain operations. This is the will of the AFFSCA and mine. We will soon be able to look at the evaluation of the work that has been, as I have indicated, well done.

I think we must collectively recall that we are one of the only European countries that have operated control over the entire egg chain. This is a guarantee of consumer confidence. This is an element on which the poultry sector can rely to better start and, indeed, Mr. Delizée, hope in the future, depending on these constructive policies carried out by the government but also by all this assembly as part of this project, a decrease in the cost of eggs.

In any case, I thank you for the exchanges on this subject as I thank you for voting unanimously, as you have been able to do in committee, this important project for the poultry sector.

Mr Hellings, you say that the opinions given, among other things, by the Privacy Commission would say that it is disproportionate. That is not what they said. They said there needs to be a framework. The opinion of the Privacy Commission does not state that reading a mobile phone or viewing social media in the context of checking the authenticity of an asylum story or the identity of an asylum seeker is disproportionate. Show it in the text. Show that in the text of UNHCR, show that in the text of the Privacy Commission would be stated that it is disproportionate.

This is not true! They did not say that. They say that it is necessary to have a framework to retain information.

That they said. What did we decide with the majority, in consultation with the colleagues?

We come with a royal arrest.

To provide that framework.

I do not understand. In fact, you also achieved a political victory. In fact, with Mr. Hellings – I honestly admit that, I have no problem with that, I have respect for Parliament, I was also ⁇ active in Parliament – you have achieved a political victory, but you sell it as a defeat. You say it is still not good enough.

If I were you as a member of Parliament, I would say: thanks to me there has been an opinion from the Privacy Committee and thanks to me State Secretary Theo Francken – the man who depicts your youth department as a Nazi – has completely changed his course. He comes up with a royal decree that actually meets the biggest criticism I have given in the committee.

You said, you can’t just do it, or you can do it, but you must frame it. Now you sell it as a defeat. I find it incredible. Everyone has their strategy. You just do.

Mr. Pivin, I can only confirm that we have said very clearly in the majority that with the opinion of UNHCR and that of the Commission on the Protection of Privacy, it is necessary to have a framework. We will not change the law but I will come with a royal decree in a few weeks or months to establish a framework. This is the result of the opinion of the Privacy Protection Commission that you have requested individually. It is clear.

You do not really understand what is the problem here. You say that this is not far enough, that they have this that this is not correct, that we cannot do this and that it is disproportionate. They don’t have this cell. They say that we need a legal framework. I am committed in the name of the government to come with a cadre légistique in the coming weeks, and you will do it.

Congratulations, I would say.

Mr. Secretary of State, you said you would come with a royal decision to create that framework, but it is not there yet. I can imagine that you will indeed come with it, given your unrestricted power of action, but we must wait for it. We do not yet know what that framework will be.

Therefore, we have submitted an amendment to ensure that, if the data subject does not wish to give access to his mobile phone or other products to provide information, this should be recorded in the file as a finding, but not as a value judgment. If you do not give permission, it will always be registered as negative. That is the problem. In some cases, this is not correct.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I myself have been in the opposition for a while, just like the people of N-VA. It happens to all of us, and so we know: it is the duty of the opposition to oppose. I ask for a little intellectual honesty.

Ms. De Coninck, in the previous legislature, under a government in which you were minister, already happened what is now described in the law, in particular that the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless may request, for example, claims that one has passed through a certain place through the control of the gsm. This has been happening for years and is not new; it has already happened during the previous legislature in which you were minister.

The only thing that changes today is that it will be incorporated into the law. This was suddenly noticed by the Privacy Commission, but actually there is nothing new under the sun. This was done by the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons. CD&V was asked to leave that to them because we have full confidence in the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless as an independent body. It remains with them, but they do not always apply it; they see when it is needed. Sometimes, by the way, it is not asked and the asylum seeker in question presents it himself, because he sees it as evidence. In that case, it is not even asked and it is the person himself who does it.

Now this is regulated by law, but it is just writing down what happened before. Therefore, it is hypocritical that an amendment is now being demanded. It happened before, Mrs. De Coninck, and you were then part of the government. It happened under this government and under the previous ones. Please do not be too hypocritical.

Mrs. Lanjri, I am not a hypocrite.

I am even talking about the intellectual honesty you are asking for. I did not suggest that it should not be. It is true that people can use cooperation. I only ask that, if people do not want to do so, their refusal will be noted in the file. With the practice in itself that is now registered in the law, I have no problem. I just ask that a refusal not always automatically be seen as negative. It depends on the context, the content of the file.

I will give you an example.

Someone comes from a country where homosexuality is a very big problem and sometimes risks his life for that reason. There may be evidence of this on his GSM. He comes here from a certain culture and background. For him it is not obvious to testify about it because he may not know what attitude is adopted here toward homosexuality. It would be better if he would prefer not to be watched in his GSM. That is human. While, if he allowed to be viewed in his mobile phone, allowing him to provide evidence, his file might be in order much faster. In that case, that person cannot be accused of bad faith. Therefore, I ask you to carefully deal with the appreciation of non-cooperation in such a case.

Mr. De Coninck, we have already held this debate in the committee. At that time, we have already said very clearly that the fact that someone does not cooperate and does not want to be seen in their GSM does not automatically lead to a refusal. It has always been said that it is one of the elements. For example, if the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons already has a lot of other elements that allow us to conclude that lies or fraud is occurring, this could be an additional element. However, the benefit of doubt will always be given; it has happened in the past and it will happen now.

Ms. De Coninck, homosexuality is one of the most delicate issues when it comes to asylum applications and is ⁇ difficult to prove. According to our protection officers at the CGVS, in the asylum service, in the cell Homosexuality, these are the most difficult profiles. This is so in every European country. Some European countries have even been convicted in Strasbourg for dishonest and disrespectful handling of the burden of proof. Belgium has never been convicted. It also remains so. The recognition rate for homosexuals, especially from black Africa and the Arab world, is ⁇ high in Belgium. We also have a lot of requests. We deal with this in a ⁇ conscientious way.

I can understand you and the example you cited, I find a ⁇ striking and correct example. I understand that it is not easy for someone who is homosexual and who has fled from a black African country — I do not mention countries, because then there will be another diplomatic incident from — that it does not take so close with gay rights. If the person concerned is only here for a few hours or days, then it is not easy to show certain personal photos in his first interview. Everyone may realize that such a thing doesn’t feel good. The person concerned asks why he should do so, for a person he does not know. He may be assisted by a lawyer, but he does not know that lawyer, and no one understands his language. He asks himself where he is and why he should show his personal relationship photos, with possibly another man in a black African country. I understand that this is indeed very difficult.

I also understand that at that time — so the law allows it, Mrs. De Coninck — the CGVS or the protection officer must not immediately say that the person concerned refused to show his photographs and access to his personal affairs during his first interview. First of all, the protection officer must already express doubts about the grounding. If someone then, when asked to see the photos, answers that he does not really feel easy in doing so, that such something is private, that he does not do it and that one has no affairs with it, then it is obvious that the CGVS considers it as an element, but not necessarily as a negative element, as Ms. Lanjri said at the time.

I repeat, as Ms. Lanjri has already said, that this practice has been applied de facto for years by our independent asylum service CGVS, also for homosexuals. This is very sensitive. In Belgium, we always try to be ⁇ progressive in terms of gay rights and stand on the barricades. This is done in a very conscientious way by our people on the ground. There are no abuses. I will not be the secretary of state who says that anyone who has not wanted to show his personal photos will not receive asylum. So I will not be so.

There will be a royal decision, Mr. Hellings. Congratulations to! I will therefore submit a royal decree and we will be able to further debate its content in this Parliament.

If I understand it correctly, then we actually agree. For all clarity, I am not intellectually unfair, Mrs. Lanjri.

I vind however dat men dat dan evengoed in de texts zou kunnen opnemen, because it is exactly of bedoeling dat men wetten maakt die praktijken die vandaag bestaan, verwerken in de regelgeving. Men would therefore perfect can say that it is just genoteerd is, that it is an element is in the overweging, but that it is not by definition negative is as it is denied. The point.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary to take into account the opening in a committee on the report of the Commission for the Protection of Privacy, at the initiative of our colleague Benoît Hellings. However, it is Theo Francken who holds the pen. We must be very cautious, because he is late on the transposition of European directives, he comes with a text of 4 to 500 pages, he leaves us barely a few days to get acquainted with it... The texts were received at the weekend to be debated on the next Tuesday. In a committee, the opposition asked for a deadline to be able to work.

At first, Mr. Minister, you refused to listen to civil society. It has not even been consulted in advance. You submitted a founding text on asylum policy, with elements that shake everything, without consultation with civil society. Are you challenging it? This is because the opposition has requested hearings or opinions. And after the vote – because the majority wanted to vote – we got the opinion of the High Commissioner for Refugees (HCR).

What does this opinion say? He says that "the text contains four principles: protection, simplification of procedures, anti-abuse and return policy." For UNHCR, "the last two parts largely take the step over the other two considerations." They say very clearly that "your text is not balanced in terms of protection of asylum seekers and it gives the step in terms of return policy and anti-abuse." UNHCR Representative Vanessa Saenen says well that "you put forward objective criteria, but they are vague."

I’m happy when – I hope this will be included in the report – you say that “if the interested party doesn’t want us to have access to their GSM, we won’t go.”

The UNHCR says that “the criteria are so vague that almost all applicants can find themselves there and be considered not cooperating.”

In case of lack of cooperation, what does your text provide? The imprisonment in closed centers and therefore, an aggravation of the situation of asylum seekers! I would like to perceive an opening, but basically, the text is not at all balanced.

Mr. Secretary of State, just recently you tried to get me to say that the text of the Commission for the Protection of Privacy did not mention the word "disproportionate". If this is quite true, it clearly shows that there is a disproportion. I will return to the extraction in question regarding consent.

When one wants to have access to a tool that shows the content of privacy, it is completely respecting the principle protected by the privacy protection law in case of consent. What does the Commission say? "The person concerned," the asylum applicant, "is therefore in a situation of submission, where the request of the CGRA employee to access the smartphone or private information of his Facebook page, will be quickly considered by the latter as an injunction and an obligation." This perception of the asylum seeker will be strengthened by the fact that it is communicated to the asylum seeker that “in the absence of satisfactory explanations for his refusal to give access to his digital information systems, it will be considered to be a breach of the obligation of cooperation”. And the commission concludes: “This lack of cooperation can be considered as a negative element in the examination of the application for international protection.” (Pages 34 to 36 of the Exposure of Motives). It follows that this consent is not dissociated from the obligation to cooperate in the head of the asylum seeker. This, Mr. Pivin, this, Mr. Secretary of State, is indeed disproportionate.

Mr. Secretary of State, you actually say that the current bill has its flaws, but that you will repair it with a royal decree. That it has its shortcomings is clear, because otherwise there would have been no negative opinion from the Privacy Commission.

You try to reassure us and say that you will do so cautiously, that you will not associate too severe consequences if in certain cases an asylum seeker refuses access to, for example, his smartphone, which you will reasonably overcome.

You are asking a lot from us now. The Privacy Commission says the following in point 18:

Guarantees must be provided against arbitrary measures and decisions. This is not the case in this case.”

In other words, a good law should provide guarantees against arbitrariness and abuse. I think we all agree on this, including Mr. Pivin.

Mr. Pivin, the Privacy Commission says that these guarantees are not provided with the bill of your Secretary of State. Will you really approve this bill as a member of Parliament?

The Secretary of State says that everything will be settled in a royal decree.

Mr. Secretary of State, if you want to provide guarantees against abuse and arbitrariness, you simply regulate that in the bill itself. Why didn’t you amend your bill? There was enough inspiration to do so, because we have presented you in the committee enough arguments. However, the legislation was not amended. You are asking for a blanco cheque. You are asking us to approve a bad bill with the promise that you will fix the bill with a royal decree that will be approved by you in the coming weeks and months. Per ⁇ we can then, through a verbal question about that royal decree, discuss something with you in the committee. You ask very much. We will not approve this.

Mr Pivin, you are on the floor as a member of Parliament. I ask you not to just give a blanco cheque to the executive power. I ask you not to approve a bad bill that may need to be repaired later. Come on, what are we doing? I thought we should focus on good legislative work. We will here, hopefully, not approve bad bills.

I am not asking for a blanco cheque. You are voting against, which we now know. There is no blanco cheque given to the parties of the majority.

The parties to the majority, including Ms. Lanjri and Mr. Pivin, have argued that we should conscientiously take into account the opinion of UNHCR and the opinion of the Privacy Committee. A royal decree will be issued in the government. As with everything I have submitted here over the past three years, and also before in my capacity as a member of Parliament, that royal decree will be in line with European law, with international legal rules and with the basic principles of our Belgian Constitution.

So in a few months we will know what the legal practice will be in the transposition of the European Asylum Directive – because that is what it ultimately is about. I can only say that the State Council did not make any comments. Like all other draft laws I submit, my royal decree will be examined by the majority.

By the way, I also don’t think I’ll just get a blank check, don’t you, Mrs. Lanjri? That will be difficult. I also do not make illusions about this. Everything is very well discussed and viewed from all sides. It is correct in international law.

I just want to say that all the matters I have submitted to the House so far, including as a member of Parliament together with Ms. Lanjri and others, all are based on constitutional and international law foundations and have easily passed the legal test. with ease.

We will see, Mr. The Friend. The non-governmental organizations may again file a complaint. I wish them good luck, but we will always try to defend that well. We will wait to see what European law says about this.

Colleagues of the majority, the Secretary of State confirms what I just said, namely that a bad bill is approved and that we will see "what the KB brings us". I don’t want to see that, I want to approve good bills.

Convince me, give me the content of your KB. What will be in that KB? Then we want to consider approving your KB. What will be in your KB? You cannot tell me. You can’t even tell Mr. Pivin. The difference is that we will not approve this and Mr. Pivin will.

Mr. Speaker, I really have the impression of reviving the debates we have lived in committees, with the difference that they are here more serene. Without wanting to break this serenity, I must say that I will never agree with those who consider it disproportionate that an asylum seeker must collaborate in his identification or in the constitution of his file.

I can never agree with those who consider it disproportionate. The reason for this is that I consider, Mr. Hellings, that this cooperation is the least of things and that if Belgium is a land of asylum, it is above all a rule of law.

To put it again, according to the way in which you interpelled me by telling me that “these are people you probably don’t want to see,” for my part, Mr. Hellings, I am honored to welcome them on my territory – I don’t think you target me personally – and also to be a citizen of a country whose rules allow me to verify that the person has the right to be on my territory and does not pose a risk to public order. That is the meaning of my words.

I will conclude my speech with the following accuracy that will not surprise anyone. Within the MR group, we believe that these projects allow for better European harmonisation through clear and more effective procedures, which is good for both the State, its administrative services but also for asylum seekers.

Therefore, our group will support these two projects.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it has already been said, today two draft laws are being discussed, which are very large and which have been requested by Europe, namely the draft laws transposing the Asylum Procedure Directive and the Reception Directive.

We discussed the texts before the summer in the committee and then approved them well. However, since both UNHCR and the Privacy Committee recently issued opinions, it was rightly decided a few weeks ago to review the opinions in the committee thoroughly and give extra time for the texts.

Mr Kir, it is true that the directive should have been transposed before June 2016, as also agreed in the government agreement. We are pleased that the text in question, although with delay, can finally now be approved in Parliament.

The above-mentioned projects are really important. They are important because the directives contribute to the development of a common European asylum policy. We have always been in favour of harmonisation at European level. Otherwise, there will be an offer between the different countries. One country is doing one thing; the other is doing another thing on top of it, with a suction effect and displacement of asylum seekers from one country to another.

The European directives ensure that a number of minimum standards must be met everywhere, including in the reception. The reception must be human-worthy, wherever one is received, whether it is with us or in another Member State. There should be a minimum everywhere. That is important. After all, we do not live in the world alone, we live in a European context anyway, and therefore this harmonization is important.

What we are doing in these two projects is the following. First, we do what we are obliged to do. Second, we take advantage of the possibilities offered by the Directive – which is not mandatory, but must. Third, we have some critical comments from the European Commission.

We didn’t work hard, as it was claimed. This has been debated in the government for a long time, very long. It is also an important issue. Then the text came to Parliament. It is true that there have also been long discussions in the government, including about reading out GSMs and whose job is that. Mrs De Coninck, as I just pointed out, this is already done by the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons and that competence will remain with the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons in the future. We did not agree with any possible extension to DVZ. We felt that everything should continue to work in the same way and possibly be incorporated into the law.

After a long discussion in the government, the text has been submitted to Parliament. In Parliament, we have, ⁇ rightly, addressed the question of the opposition to hearings with the sector. Many organizations in the field have chosen to provide their advice in writing, rather than attending the hearings and engaging in dialogue.

UNHCR said it was struggling with a staff shortage, which allowed it to give its advice only after the summer. This was also expected. That was right, because the agency gave an important advice. After the recession, we were confronted with the new advice of UNHCR. Following a question from Mr. Hellings, there was also an opinion from the Privacy Committee. This, by the way, surprised me somewhat, since the Privacy Commission had never had a problem with those existing practices in previous years and suddenly did.

We find it not bad at all that everything is now done transparently and that it is defined in the legislation. If the Privacy Commission considers that this should actually have been communicated earlier, then we must now correct the evil and we must prepare a KB to clarify everything. I assume that the KB will primarily describe how it happens today.

Why do we put that in a KB and not in a law? Social media is extremely volatile. Everything changes extremely quickly. Instagram is not five years old. Snapchat was in for a while and now it is no longer. By using a KB, it is easier to follow developments closely and adjust texts if necessary, if one finds that something does not or does not work properly. CD&V will ensure that such things are done correctly.

Mrs Lanjri, Mr De Vriendt asks for the word.

Mrs. Lanjri, you are making a caricature of it. It’s not about the fact that social media is evolving very quickly and about whether we should legalize Snapchat and what comes after.

No, the Privacy Commission calls for a legal framework on many more fundamental issues. I want to present it to you. It is about who will then conduct the investigation, with what formation, about the fact that the employee of the Commissioner-General has very much freedom, that there are too few guarantees how far the access to the private data can go, how they get access, how the data is ultimately stored, who translates and interprets the data and how the authenticity is guaranteed.

The Privacy Commission concludes that the legal framework is seriously insufficient. It happens regularly that a royal decree follows a draft law and a law, but the legal framework must be sufficiently strong.

The Privacy Commission considers that this is clearly not the case here. I wanted to improve that. This is not about WhatsApp, Snapchat.

Mr. De Vriendt, it is right that the Privacy Commission asks these questions, because apparently she was not aware of the fact that this happened before.

It has been expressly stated in the committee that the royal decree will be drafted and that it will also be delivered to the Privacy Commission. If there is something missing, he may even make comments about it.

That gives us more legal certainty than when we throw something into a law and then determine that we still need to adjust something. A royal decree is also a legislative framework. It is important that it is well elaborated.

Now there is something in the law, which was not the case before. In the past, there was nothing in the law, and yet it was done. Now the law contains a framework and that framework will be specified in a royal decree. The advantage of a royal decree is that, if necessary, we can adjust it in all directions after evaluation.

In addition to the Royal Decree, which comes before the Privacy Commission, there is another Royal Decree to respond to a request from UNHCR. I am pleased that this advice has been taken into account.

UNHCR had noted that if an adult who has submitted an asylum application dies, the asylum application for the minor could come to expire. This problem is now being addressed. A royal decree will clarify that it is not intended that the case of the minor is not continued. This is also a good thing, because we must assume the protection of the weakest, which minors are sure of.

The draft proposals will introduce clear, fast, efficient and high-quality asylum procedures. This also applies to reception.

What is important for us is that specific measures are also taken to protect vulnerable persons. This has always been a battle point for us. Those who need protection should also get it. For those who are not eligible for protection, a return policy should be worked out. However, this must always be done with the necessary safeguards and with respect for fundamental rights. By the way, it could not be otherwise. The European Directive does not allow this.

Mrs. Lanjri, Mr. De Vriendt has been asking for an interruption for a while.

Mrs. Lanjri, I will return to the KB for a moment.

If I understand it correctly, CD&V will here approve a bill that carries a much too vague general legal framework and that has received a negative opinion from the Privacy Commission. Then you say that this is not a single problem and that the KB will solve all that. The only difference is, of course, that a law requires a majority in Parliament. Therefore, the control over the creation of a law is much stricter. It is carried much wider than a KB, which can or cannot be modified. So you will here approve a bill that gives the secretary of state a lot of freedom, including a secretary of state of a next government. One can then at KB, without the interference of Parliament, do what one wants with that far too wide legal framework. That is a very heavy responsibility, which you as a government party bear. You give a freelance that you transfer to the executive power.

Mr. De Vriendt, I have already answered your question twice, I will not do so a third time. I go on.

As mentioned, the asylum procedure is being adjusted on several points. For us, it is especially important that adequate attention is given to vulnerable people. In the design we find several examples of this. Thus, it will be systematically identified whether someone needs an adapted procedure. For example, a female interpreter may be requested for someone who has been mutilated genitalia or the victim of rape. There may also be an on-site hearing of the asylum seeker as a result of illness or adapted methodologies may be used.

Second, the importance of the child will always be taken as a starting point. New is also that accompanied minors can be heard themselves in the procedure.

The possibilities of detaining asylum seekers, merely because they have applied for asylum, are limited. The definition of vulnerability in the context of reception is expanded. It also clarifies that when the reception is withdrawn, there should always be medical guidance and that a decent standard of living should be guaranteed.

Mr. Secretary of State, I have asked you about this in the past. I am pleased that this is now further clarified in the law. I also count on you to be careful, especially in the concrete application, that when people are removed from the reception for some reason, there is always a look at their vulnerability, and that they are always entitled to medical advice and to a dignified standard of living.

Asylum applications will be processed in two phases. First there is the registration, then the application is submitted within a maximum period of 30 days. There was criticism that this period was too long. For all clarity, this is a maximum period. You can submit the application if you want to already much earlier. Positive is that it is clearly stated in the law that a decision must be made within six months. The entire route must be completed. We again advocate for quick procedures of up to six months.

It is important that the principle "within six months" is included in it. In addition, an accelerated procedure is possible for specific files, such as those with multiple applications or those coming from safe countries.

It is also important that from now on all asylum seekers are guaranteed a personal interview. They must be heard at least once by the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons. In the past, this did not always happen with accompanied minors.

The obligation to cooperate is also clarified. It is based on the principle that the asylum seeker shall provide the necessary elements himself. We conducted the discussion. It is possible that the asylum seeker himself shows his gsm or Facebook account. This can be done on your own initiative, this can be done on request. He can also refuse. This has been said in the committee and it has been said again today. For all clarity: this is not the only element. You always have the advantage of doubt. It is important that this ⁇ will not automatically lead to a rejection.

Sometimes people are placed in detention because they are at risk of hiding. This is now clearly defined in the law. There are twelve criteria agreed upon, but it is not that if one meets one of those criteria, one is automatically placed in detention. The risk of hiding must always be actual and real. This means that DVZ must also always individually motivate why someone is placed in detention. It is not possible that after the list has been finalised and the person concerned has met one of the criteria, he is placed in detention. Thus it cannot be so.

What is also important and, by the way, very often requested by the sector, is that from now on the Council for Foreign Disputes can be referred to all appeals against a decision of the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless. They will be considered in full jurisdiction. This means that the Council for Foreign Disputes can confirm, cancel or reform them. That full jurisdiction was previously – I have been in Parliament for thirteen years – very often requested by the sector. I am glad that it is now implemented everywhere, because there were many exceptions in the past.

The bill also introduces a number of new concepts, such as the safe third country, which is not the same as the safe country of origin. For example, for safe countries of origin, we have a list that comes up on the advice of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons. There will be no work with a list. The Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons will always check whether someone is still entitled to apply for asylum and whether they could possibly have obtained protection in the safe third country. Passing through a safe third country does not automatically lead to the rejection of an asylum application. These safeguards are very important to us.

There is also an effective return policy. That is ⁇ the most difficult part. We had discussions about this in Parliament a while ago. However, every asylum and migration policy needs a closing point and that closing point is the return policy. However, it must always be correct and humane. The previous and current governments have always said that the return policy should be based on the principle "voluntary as it can, forced as it should". This is also what we go for. Within that framework, we agreed to the proposed amendments.

The draft law includes a number of new provisions to prevent the misuse of multiple applications. There is also a carousel clause that prevents people from submitting new applications over and over again, only to prevent a deletion. For all clarity, everyone remains entitled to submit a second, third or even fourth application if there are new elements, if that is permissible. Against abuse, if one only wants to prevent being expelled from the country, one must, of course, act.

During the last committee meeting a few weeks ago, following the UNHCR opinion, I expressed my concern about the fact that some matters are described in the memorandum of explanation but may be better described in the legislation. I have asked questions about the burden of proof and the cooperation obligation applicable to the CGVS. The Secretary of State assured us that the explanation in the memorandum of explanation is sufficient, that it is not necessary to include it in the legislative text itself. With this we can live.

The two draft laws form a balanced whole for us. We are ⁇ satisfied with the additional protection measures for vulnerable persons and the guarantees for the proper handling of asylum applications, as also provided in the European Procedure and Reception Directives. We can only apply this way.

We will approve these two bills, as we have done in the committee.

I close the meeting for a small technical break.