Proposition 54K3014

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

March 29, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive work migrant worker rights of aliens

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PVDA | PTB PP

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

∉

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

May 3, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not allowing me to register in advance on the speaker list. I will keep my discussion brief and focus on the extreme importance of this bill.

Mr. Secretary of State, this bill deals with the cooperation agreement concluded with a view to transposing a European directive. This cooperation agreement deals with the principles of the permission unique. Although the directive should have been transposed for a long time, we have now reached an agreement to introduce the single permit or permission unique. There is still no short and powerful Dutch term for it.

This system is important in our goal of making active migration the main form of migration. We cannot emphasize enough the importance of active migration, not only for the newcomer himself but also for those who are already here. It is of utmost importance for the integration of the newcomer, for his/her well-being and for his/her active contribution to society in general. I think that the N-VA group is not the only one who wants to emphasize its importance.

As I just said, this European directive had to be transposed for a while, at the latest on 25 December 2013. However, the Directive was only partially transposed so that the European Commission opened an infringement procedure. However, this procedure has not yet been fully implemented. There is a penalty over our heads, but if we approve this bill later then I assume that the penalty expires. Therefore, there is a threat of a fine if we do not transpose the directive quickly.

We live in a complex country. The cooperation agreement is not a light sense; it is a very difficult procedure. The necessary agreements of all state counties must be reached. Mr. Secretary of State, I can therefore give some understanding that it took a little longer. However, we can be pleased that we can vote here today on the present draft and the conversion.

I will further limit myself to focusing on Article 4, which concerns a third-country national who holds the status of long-term resident in another Member State and who must apply for the single permit or the permis unique if he wishes to engage in an employment activity in Belgium and wishes to come to work there. The State Council focused on that article 4, but you answered that there is no problem and that the newcomer or migrant in question is treated in all respects at least as favourably as before. There is also no problem in this area.

The path is open for talks and cooperation agreements to facilitate this very good form of active migration. Mr. Secretary of State, we have long insisted, even when we were still together in the opposition, that active migration, labour migration and labour migration must be fully facilitated. This is something that we can only welcome, which I and my group can only welcome. The bill was unanimously approved in the committee. The members share our opinions, for which I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, of course we support this draft. These were indeed not easy negotiations, which were initiated a few years ago.

However, I would like to warn you for the following.

Colleague Smeyers, I hear you very strongly defend migration, you talk about active migration. I have emphasized several times in the committee that it is necessary to make good arrangements with the regions in order to control especially the active in this form of migration. One must be careful that one will not use the single permit to enter the country and obtain residence documents, work here for a very short time and then simply stay here. I would like to have closing agreements with colleagues at a different policy level on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mrs. Smeyers, I thank you very much for your support. You have been a loyal ally in this Chamber for many years in the field of migration. I appreciate that enormously.

Mrs. De Coninck, I ⁇ understand your concern about fraud. You are consistent when it comes to fraud, whether it is social fraud, tax fraud or migration fraud; that I have to tell you. In this regard, the Flemish Social Democrats are very consistent and I appreciate that.

You definitely have a point. In any case, it should not be intended that with easier access to the labour market for non-Europeans through this new permit-unique scheme, a fraud channel will be opened. In that sense, I am ⁇ willing, together with my colleagues at the regional level, to establish a good monitoring so that abuse or possible fraud — one must always speak in two words — is properly monitored and that we keep a close eye on this.

On the one hand, we will check with the Social Inspectorate that the working conditions are good. On the other hand, there is, of course, also the residence story, where it is a number of people to do. This must ⁇ be carefully observed. I take that with me, Mrs. De Coninck.

April 26, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Benoît Piedboeuf, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

I was expecting the Minister to be present at the meeting. Indeed, when we discussed the bill, the members of the commission supported the need to identify criteria that objectively distribute the subsidies to the couples of environmental defense associations, and we asked her about the criteria that will be included in the royal decree concerning the granting of these subsidies. She replied to us that the aforementioned arrest was being drafted and that it would be taken in a few weeks. Since then, a month has passed.

Today, I would have wanted to question her so that she can confirm that the decision has been taken correctly and that she can tell us the list of these criteria. In fact, the latter are taken into account when it is for us to appreciate the text.

The Minister is not present, which I can understand since the draft was adopted unanimously. In addition, the government is represented as a minister and a secretary of state are present in this hall.

You could, of course, suspend the plenary session, but you did not make a request in this direction.

Their presence would be desirable to address my concern. But I am the only one who makes this request, which is a bit unfortunate.

In any case, it would be interesting to have this information. In the committee, Mr. Senesael also asked a question in this regard. The minister said that she would give us the information we were asking for, which is not the case.

We can postpone the point or we can decide to wait 10 minutes to allow him to join us. In any case, there is no urgency. It also has the possibility to transmit the information to Minister Reynders.

The objectives were unanimously shared by the members of the committee. The Minister undertook, during the committee, to give us in plenary session the content of the decision. It seems to me that it would be logical that, during the consideration of the other points on the agenda, the content of this decree should be communicated to us through a representative of the government. But his presence is always appreciated, of course, within this assembly.

It is obvious, knowing the Minister, that the criteria are objective. There is no other possible qualification. I think this already responds to Mr. Nollet’s concerns. To answer Mrs. Gerkens, it is true that between a few weeks and a month, there is a possible appreciation. If we are six weeks away, we are beyond the month. That being said, we will actually ask the question of whether other information can be communicated. Since the Secretary of State is present, we will ask that this can be done through his channel.

Does it suit you if the Secretary of State promises to deliver us the answers to the questions? He will contact Minister Marghem.

Mr. Speaker, I will contact Mrs. Marghem to give her the question and ask her to inform the Chamber.

Do you want this to happen now?

Let us be clear. Does anyone ask for the presence of the Minister?

I will contact the Cabinet of the Minister. We will suspend the meeting.

Colleagues, we were continuing to stick to a number of questions that were asked with a draft of Minister Marghem. She told me that Secretary of State De Crem has the answers.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister informed me that the text had been voted unanimously in the committee and that she had suggested that the criteria be fixed later by royal decree, thus in due time. So she asked me to repeat this message in the plenary session.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, this is what I explained to you: in a committee, the minister had indicated that she would specify the criteria in a decree, which would be ready a few weeks later, in particular for the plenary session.

Therefore, my question is not whether criteria will be included in a decision. This was stated in the committee. Our question was related to the content of the arrests: what are the criteria in terms of organization, coupole, etc.? I can invent you 50,000 kinds of “objective” criteria, some being sensible and others, not.

In short, I suppose that means that the arrest has not yet been taken.

In order for the session to proceed, I propose to postpone the vote.

It is the government that asks for it.

In fact, it comes down to the fact that, if we approach the State Secretary’s suggestion, we simply take the point out of the agenda and discuss it at another time.

Can everyone agree with this? (Acceptance of consent)

So it is decided.