26 February 2024

Urgent question posed by François Benoy

Like many of my fellow citizens, including the Chair of the Consultative Committee on Human Rights, I am utterly outraged at the inhuman, racist, anti-minority, anti-European and populist statements made by Alderwoman Beissel in her "Riicht eraus" programme that was broadcast on apart TV on 23 January 2024 and on YouTube. On 21 February, on RTL, she went even further in expressing her views on the restriction of freedom, which is contrary to the right to free movement within the European Union.

Given that "Riicht eraus" is an independently produced programme that is prepared and approved for broadcast in advance, the excuse that she said what she did in the heat of the moment is totally lacking in credibility. It was only after the Chair of the DP party had intervened (RTL, 21/02/24) that Alderwoman Beissel issued a not very convincing apology, saying: "I apologise, and I do because it is assumed that I must." (Radio 100.7, 20/02/24).

Let me put this question to you, Madam Mayor, and to all the other members of the College of Aldermen: Do you agree with these statements? If so, to what extent?

Do you, and the other members of the College of Aldermen, not agree with me that such statements by a member of the City of Luxembourg's College of Aldermen are totally unacceptable?

Did you speak with Alderwoman Beissel to let her know that her behaviour was unacceptable?

Can the College of Aldermen guarantee that such statements will not be repeated by one of its members, bearing in mind that what is at stake here is the image of the City and its political representatives?

What conclusions can the College of Aldermen draw from this matter?

Response provided by Mayor Lydie Polfer

I had a discussion with Alderwoman Beissel on the very day that she issued her apology. I have known her for a very long time, and am convinced that her apology was sincere. Since Alderwoman Beissel was not speaking on behalf of the College of Aldermen, or on behalf of the City, I considered the matter closed, as far as the manner in which the statements were made were concerned.

As for the substance of the matter, we have already discussed the existing situation on several occasions, as it has been a source of concern for many years. We are very pleased to announce that we have just received some assistance from the national authorities, even though it has been long in coming. No one can deny that this problem exists. In 2015, a well-known lawyer spoke out on the subject, and his statements were just as objectionable, if not more so. At the ensuing trial, the court noted that "the investigation conducted at the hearing on 1 October 2021 revealed that the issue of organised begging in Luxembourg City dates back to 2010". A high-ranking police officer "noted in particular that this is organised begging, involving collectors at the lowest level, then their bosses, who operate out of camps in France, close to the Luxembourg border, and then the real ringleaders, who are elsewhere." He explained that "the problem could not be stamped out on the ground in Luxembourg since the people that are here are sent by the real ringleaders and immediately replaced, if necessary." Another person added that "since as early as 2008 and 2009, Luxembourg City has been submerged by a wave of beggars, manifesting itself in the form of aggressive begging".

Speaking on this subject a few weeks ago, Ms Negrini, the Chair of the Grand Ducal Police Union, said: "I think there is a lot of evidence that proves that this type of offence [aggravated begging] exists. Those who are sent to Luxembourg City must collect a certain amount of money, otherwise they risk being further mistreated. This may also explain why some of them are so aggressive".

I can only hope that, together, we can reach an understanding on what can be done to combat organised begging and thus human trafficking. At the next meeting of the Municipal Prevention Committee (Comité de prévention communal), we will get a chance to discuss the difficulties that the Prosecutor's Office and the Grand Ducal Police are facing with representatives from those institutions. However, I would like to point out that in 2021, a court in Nancy successfully convicted ten people on the charge of human trafficking. So, I can only hope that all the relevant institutions will be able to work together to find a better way of dealing with this problem which, unfortunately, is a reality.

I cannot guarantee that no member of the College of Aldermen or the Municipal Council will ever make statements that others may find shocking. I would like to point out that the lawyer who was prosecuted for his remarks was acquitted in both the first and second instance. I hope that all the members of this assembly are always aware of what their colleagues are doing. I would like to remind you that the Criminal Code prohibits false testimony. Before making public statements, we should always ask ourselves whether we are at risk of prosecution under the Criminal Code and the Civil Code.

"Madam Mayor,

Given the urgency of the question, owing to the topical and far-reaching nature of the statements, we kindly ask that you add our questions to the urgent questions on the agenda for the next Municipal Council meeting, in accordance with Article 9 of the Municipal Council's internal rules and regulations.

Four weeks ago, on her own televised programme, "Riicht eraus", DP Alderwoman Simone Beissel made a number of racist, anti-Romani, discriminatory and inaccurate statements. Her statements sparked widespread outrage on social media, and Ms Beissel subsequently apologised on Facebook. However, in her apology, she only acknowledged that she had chosen the wrong tone, adding that her words could have been construed as inappropriate, and that she had made the statements "in the heat of the moment".

It is obvious – at least since the interview on RTL the following day – that her apology did not encompass the underlying problem of her xenophobic, discriminatory and dehumanising statements.

In fact, in her "apology", Ms Beissel displayed neither remorse nor discernment in stooping so low as to judge Romanian nationals based on their appearance: "Madamm Lemmer, Dir gitt jo bestëmmt och duerch d’Stad, Dir gesitt op 30 Meter, wat fir e Genre Leit do um Buedem setzen, wéi déi sech behuelen a wéi se ebe sinn." (Ms Lemmer, you certainly also walk through the city and can see from 30 m away what kind of people sit on the ground there, how they behave and how they are.)

Then came her very disturbing views on the deprivation of liberties and, above all, her point of view on the free movement of Europeans and the opening of borders within the EU, and all of this as the Vice-Chair of Committee of Regions: "De Problem ass just, dass mir keng Infrastrukture méi hunn, wann si (d'Police) de Leit soen, hei, dir musst hei fortgoen; fréier hate mir an all Kommissariat Zelle wou se provisoresch mol eng Stonn hibruecht konnte ginn, fir dass emol kéint kucken… an déi Kommissariater hu mir net méi genuch, där ginn elo neigemaach... an da muss ee kucke, setze mir se op d'Grenz, a vu dass d'Grenzen op sinn ass de Problem, dass se erëm direkt do sinn." (The problem is that we do not have the infrastructure, when they [the police] tell people they need to leave; in the past, we had cells at each police station where you could hold people temporarily to check their status... we do not have enough police stations anymore, new ones are being built... and then you have to decide what to do, do we escort them to the border, but as the borders are open that is a problem, because they can come straight back.)

As we are more than alarmed by these statements coming from an alderwoman on the City's Municipal Council, we would like to ask you the following questions:

• Does the College of Aldermen support these statements made by one of its members? Both those made during the "Riicht eraus" programme, and those made during the RTL interview?

• Does the College of Aldermen believe that we could or should be allowed to put someone in a cell just for sitting somewhere where they are not welcome?

• Does the College of Aldermen share the view that a certain group of people can be defined by and reduced to a certain type of behaviour?

• Does the College of Aldermen believe that EU citizens who beg should be deported, without any other formalities, if they are standing or sitting in front of the entrance to a building? Does the College of Aldermen believe that open borders within the EU are meant for certain Europeans only?

Yours sincerely,

Antonia Afonso, Gabriel Boisanté, Maxime Miltgen – Stater Sozialisten

Nathalie Oberweis – déi Lénk Stad"

Question posed by Maxime Miltgen

A lot has happened and a lot has been said since mid-December. Unfortunately, the focus has shifted away from the underlying problem – namely, the rising level of poverty. The proposed solutions show a growing tendency in the use of populist rhetoric, and range from the provocative to the authoritarian, developing narratives based on the idea of "Us versus them" or "What we are versus what is foreign to us". In a Facebook post, Colette Mart pointed out these narratives could compromise our chances of finding solutions to the existing problems. It is no longer simply a question of banning begging, but rather the fact that, as a society, we risk going down a dangerous path. In the prevailing political discourse, we are hearing words and statements that would have been unthinkable ten years ago, and which are starting to become the norm. Some centrist politicians are discreetly adopting a narrative that, a few years ago, was promoted exclusively by extremist parties. Why? Because such rhetoric is guaranteed to arouse emotions, divide society and, above all, divert attention away from the real problems that our parties – including the LSAP party – have failed to resolve. In terms of political rhetoric, we are going down a dangerous path, and we are doing so because we want to conceal our inability to deal with many very real problems, such as the lack of affordable housing, rising levels of poverty (the term "working poor" applies to 20% of working people), the gap between the rich and the poor, overconsumption of natural resources, climate change, etc. And that is why, more and more, we find ourselves focussing on imaginary problems.

In the debate, we accept the fact that the underlying problems are still unresolved, and that social cohesion is gradually breaking down, to the point of collapse. That is why it is important to ask the right questions and take a clear stand. Because, even with without malicious intent, certain statements – such as those made on the "Riicht eraus" programme and in an RTL interview (among others, there was mention of the term "duerchfidderen", and it was said that "from 30 metres away, you can see what kind of people are sitting on the ground, how they behave and 'wéi se ebe sinn'") – can undermine the rule of law in our country, be hurtful and discriminatory, and promote the development of dangerous political forces.

Question posed by Nathalie Oberweis

The city belongs to everyone. Like the people who cross the border into Luxembourg every day, the people sitting in the street are also part of the city and, in a sense, they too are cross-border commuters. The contemptuous statements made by one of the City of Luxembourg's policymakers are unacceptable. What's more, the statements made by some people can no longer be qualified as subtle. I also think that Alderwoman Beissel's apology was rather half-hearted. The problem lies in the underlying racist views: saying that a certain group of people possesses certain traits and behaves in a certain way is the very definition of racism. I was shocked, as were many other people. We want the College of Aldermen to tell us whether it distances itself from these racist views. I can't help wondering whether certain decisions, such as banning begging, are also based on such racist views. This really worries me.

Response provided by Mayor Lydie Polfer

Let me respond right away to the accusation that the rhetoric around begging could be based on racist considerations. I propose that the opposition, and especially our friends in the déi Gréng group, ask the former Minister of Police, François Bausch, what his reasons were when he tabled a draft bill on security on 23 October 2023. The expression of concern is quite legitimate, because it is true that this city belongs to a lot of people. But it also belongs to people who don't want to be afraid to walk in the street. The draft bill I mentioned concerns security, public order and video-surveillance on trains, buses and tram cars. Article 7 of the draft bill stipulates that "the Minister may only consider administrative sanctions for the following acts: […] 14. The act of begging." So it is not about organised or aggressive begging, but begging in general. When Mr Bausch was Minister of Police, we had a very good working relationship and, through his efforts, the bill allowing the police to intervene when people are found sleeping in the entrance to a building was passed in July 2022. The law is extremely clear, but implementing it, less so. The measures do not single out a specific group of people. They are based on facts: at least two kilograms of documents and photographs in connection with claims have been forwarded to me. The only parties that can deal with this situation effectively – because we will probably never be able to handle it ourselves – are our national institutions. And for that, we have laws. The College of Aldermen and the mayor do not have the power to put someone in a cell temporarily. Only the police can do so, in the following cases: "The police may place in administrative detention any person of legal age who breaches public order, or who is a danger to themselves or others, and shall immediately inform the Minister or their deputy." – Art. 14 of the Law of 18 July 2018 on the Grand Ducal Police (loi du 18 juillet 2018 sur la Police grand-ducale).

Regarding the question as to whether the College of Aldermen agrees that it should be possible to deport people: it is not up to the municipality to decide whether a person is in Luxembourg legally or not. Article 6 of the Law of 29 August 2008 on the free movement of people and immigration (Loi du 29 août 2008 portant sur la libre circulation des personnes et l'immigration) states: "(1) Any citizen of the Union has the right to stay in Luxembourg for more than three months, provided they satisfy one of the following conditions:

1. They have a salaried job or are self-employed;

2. They have sufficient resources for themselves and the members of their family, as provided for in Article 12, so as not to become a burden for the social welfare system, as well as health insurance […]". As I said, this law dates back to 2008, so it is not very old. Article 25 of the same law states: "(1) In the event of failure to comply with the conditions specified in Article 24, sections (1) and (2), or in the event of abuse of rights or fraud, the citizen of the Union and the members of their family may be subject to a decision to refuse the right of stay, refuse the issuance or renewal of a residence permit, or to withdraw the residence permit and, where applicable, a decision to remove them." That is the legal situation.

I would also like to add that no other municipality in the country does as much as the City of Luxembourg to help homeless people, or people experiencing financial or personal hardship. Two examples come to mind: the "Bistrot Courage" in Bonnevoie, and the "Bistrot social" in Rue Willy Goergen. In both cases, the original idea came from the City, and it was the City that took the initiative to get them up and running. It was the City that provided premises for the associations that manage these facilities, and it is the City that pays their staff. Unfortunately, it is often assumed that these services originate with the respective associations. The City has launched a number of projects to help the homeless. So we cannot be accused of inaction. We will continue doing everything we can to ensure that situations that have degenerated are better managed.

Question posed by Christa Brömmel

For some years now, rumours have been circulating that the City of Luxembourg forbids its approved partners to speak openly to journalists, or to take a stand on political issues. I was astonished when, in a report on the impact of the ban on begging on homeless people, broadcast on Radio 100.7 at 8:22 on 22 January, the journalist said, "I'm not allowed to talk to him [i.e., the caseworker, Mr Vujovic] alone. Mr Christopher [Christof] Mann and Ms Corinne Cahen are present. We remain seated indoors because, as a journalist, I am not allowed to accompany street workers in the field. This is supposedly to protect people's privacy. The atmosphere in the room is tense, and by the time I place my microphone on the table, you can feel the thickness of the air. Now, no one wants to say anything bad."

No one doubts the need to protect the privacy of vulnerable people and their relationship with the professionals who work in the Service Streetwork (Streetwork Department). However, the exchange between the journalist and the professional, even in the presence of a representative from the department concerned, or the Service presse (Press Department), seems to be entirely legitimate for a journalist. The presence of an alderperson or a head of department may be perceived by the participants as a form of intimidation or obstruction, or a restriction on the free expression of those concerned and on the independence of the press.

• Can the College of Aldermen confirm that the City refused to allow the journalist to speak with the caseworker employed by the association InterActions alone?
• If so, do you believe that this refusal is consistent with the principle of press freedom?
• Do the agreements governing the relationship between the City and non-State actors in the social-welfare sector contain a clause prohibiting them from speaking to the press, or are these actors asked, formally or informally, not to speak to journalists or other categories of people?
• What about other areas in which the City has signed agreements with associations (culture, sports, education, etc.)? And what about the City officials and employees?
• Does the College of Aldermen intend to put an end to this practice, which prevents the press from fulfilling its role and is contrary to the spirit of Article 23 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and press freedom?

Response provided by Alderwoman Corinne Cahen

I was surprised by the content of this report, because I didn't get the impression that the atmosphere was heavy. I would like to add that the director of InterActions also attended this interview. It was a perfectly normal discussion. The Service Communication et Relations publiques (Communications and Public Relations Department) told me that they believed that the presence of a City official was necessary in case a question of a political nature was asked. As a former journalist, I fully understand your concern. I told the relevant department that, in future, I would only be present if my presence was expressly requested by the journalist. Councillor Brömmel rightly pointed out that fieldwork is a very sensitive issue. It was a concern of ours when I was Minister for the Family, and it still is. No journalist is forbidden to speak with street workers. We have only asked street workers not to make their rounds in the company of a journalist, as doing so could seriously undermine the relationship of trust between the client and the street worker, which often takes quite a while to build.

Question posed by Maxime Miltgen

Poverty and homelessness are on the rise in Luxembourg City. The City is faced with the sad reality that more and more people are forced to live in the streets. As Mayor Polfer said: "There are solutions that are far more respectful than leaving people out in the streets". Mayor Polfer also added that "our service offering is substantial; we have a large number of facilities, but there are a number of people who need psychiatric and medical care, and yet there are still beds available every night. We are ready to help people, but they must also be willing to accept it." And to quote her again: "Some of the people we are dealing with don't want to be helped."

When asked about statements of this kind, many of those concerned said there were many reasons why they didn't want to go to an emergency shelter. As an example, I can mention what Michelle said on RTL. Speaking on her own behalf and on behalf of her friends, she explained why they preferred to sleep in the streets, rather than in a Wanteraktioun shelter: "(...) Some are a little cleaner, others are really quite disgusting. We really don't want to have anything to do with anyone there. And then there are people who are heavily dependent on drugs, people who really don't give a damn about anything at all, and that's really unpleasant for the others. That's exactly what happens in places like that. And I try to keep far away from all of that."

The mayor's findings and the testimonials of the people concerned could lead some to conclude that the existing support structures are not appropriate for all the people concerned.

That was also the conclusion of a European Commission summary report on the Housing First programme, which states that "traditional approaches for dealing with chronically homeless people have proved to be less effective." The Housing First group reported a high rate of retention in housing after one year (93%).

• Since the European Commission summary report shows that various pilot projects throughout the EU are working and have very high rates of retention in housing, that the Finnish model is highly successful, and that this model is perfectly in keeping with Mayor Polfer's claim that there are "solutions that are far more respectful than leaving people out in the streets", does the City wish to implement the Housing First model on a large scale?
• Does the City already have its own Housing First programme and, if it does, how many housing units are available?
• If not, are similar projects being planned, and if so, when can we expect them to be presented to us?
• If not, are there any projects in Luxembourg City that are part of the Ministry of Family Affairs' Housing First programme, and do the municipality and the ministry work together on this matter? Would it be possible to work simultaneously on our own projects so that the precarious situation that many people find themselves in can be resolved more quickly?

Response provided by Alderwoman Corinne Cahen

Councillor Miltgen rightly pointed out that the most important thing for homeless people is to have a home. The City and its partners in the social-welfare sector already offer a very broad and varied range of housing. Some of these units meet all the criteria of the "housing first" approach. Others meet most of the criteria, with the only difference being that some buildings have a shared kitchen.

I would like to remind you that housing-first accommodation is offered to homeless people – who need not satisfy any conditions other than being entitled to social welfare in Luxembourg – without them being asked to stop using drugs or alcohol, or to seek help for their psychiatric problems.

There is a facility, managed by the National Committee for Social Protection (Comité national de défense sociale – CNDS), which provides housing-first accommodation only. A survey revealed that the clients' addiction issues declined sharply when they lived in that type of accommodation.

Councillor Miltgen rightly mentioned the Finnish model, which is held up as a model and which the City should look to for inspiration.

The City has a hundred or so rooms; for example, it has 105 furnished rooms, housing units provided through the "Les niches" project, around 60 beds through Caritas's "Les chronifiés" project, etc.

There are different types of housing-first units. Some people no longer need support at all, while others need the support of a caseworker or a social worker. As part of the "Les niches" project, the association "Jugend- an Drogenhëllef" manages a hundred or so housing units catering to former drug users, people who still use drugs, and people in a methadone programme, and who need support.

The College of Aldermen is clearly determined to open up more housing-first units throughout the city – most notably as part of major construction projects – to facilitate the social inclusion of homeless people.

I have known the person that Councillor Miltgen mentioned for a long time, and I have a good relationship with her. She did not want to stay overnight at a Wanteraktioun facility because of the rules imposed on beneficiaries. The City of Luxembourg has managed to find a solution for her and her three friends. They now live in a building that we provided, on the condition that the neighbours are never given cause to complain. We decided to take a chance with this project, because we know that the people concerned also want to live in peace without being disturbed.

There is also good news about a man who slept for years in a bus shelter near the cathedral. It took years for him to accept the street workers' help, but in the end, he was persuaded to move in to a housing-first unit. He is now totally independent.

Response provided by Mayor Lydie Polfer

We will come back to this subject as part of the framework of the Commission for Social Action, Inclusion and Elderly People (Commission de l'action sociale, de l'inclusion et des personnes âgées). As for the question about the procedures that apply to City officials when they are questioned by the press, we have never had any problems with this. As you know, the City has a large Service Communication et relations publiques, and if they receive requests for information from journalists, they will get the required information from the relevant departments and forward it to them as quickly as possible. For questions concerning political issues, the College of Aldermen will decide what position to take, because they are politically accountable. We also field a wide range of questions from journalists at our monthly City Breakfast meetings.