On the one hand is the dispersal law, which must distribute asylum seekers fairly across the country. On the other hand, new municipal authorities clearly state in coalition agreements that they do not want to receive asylum seekers. And in between is the mayor. VNG chairman Sharon Dijksma is concerned. “Mayors and councilors can find themselves in a very unpleasant situation.”
HK
In Maassluis, mayor and former CDA spin doctor Jack de Vries had a crisis of conscience when he read the coalition agreement. ‘Zero asylum seekers’, Leefbaar Maessluys and the VVD wrote in it. De Vries believes that his municipality should also implement the dispersal law.
And he is not alone. In possibly dozens of municipalities new coalitions agree not to receive asylum seekers at all. While the oath of office requires mayors to comply with the law, and therefore also with the distribution law.
Chairman Sharon Dijksma of the municipal umbrella organization VNG is closely monitoring the situation in the rest of the country. “We see that this could be the case in more places. And I must honestly say that it worries me. Mayors and councilors could find themselves in a very unpleasant situation.”
An ‘alderman’ must adhere to the law
According to Dijksma, himself mayor of Utrecht, the position of mayors and aldermen is ‘completely clear’. “The word ‘alderman’ says it all: he or she must adhere to the law. You cannot simply avoid that. If we as a local authority no longer do that, how can we explain to our residents that they do have to adhere to the rules?”
King’s Commissioner Wouter Kolff calls mayors ‘the guardians of the rule of law’. “They ensure that their colleges comply with the law.” Kolff is a commissioner in South Holland, but coordinates asylum policy on behalf of his eleven colleagues. “There are municipalities in all provinces that say: we want to do more about shelter. And it is written in council agreements: we are not going to do anything.”
According to Mayor Mark Boumans of Doetinchem, such agreements can be made ‘just in a few dozen municipalities’. Boumans is responsible for asylum on behalf of the VNG. “Sometimes it is explicitly stated that they are not going to implement the law, sometimes it is somewhat hidden. But the intention is the same.”
Topic of discussion among mayors
According to Boumans, how the mayors of those municipalities then deal with this will differ. “That will undoubtedly become a topic of discussion after Jack de Vries’ intervention. Is not wanting to implement the law contrary to the mayor’s oath of office? That question is of course legitimate from a constitutional law point of view.” In this oath of office, a mayor declares or promises that he or she will ‘abide by the laws’. Aldermen and councilors also take such an oath.
But now that parties have won after the municipal elections with the message ‘no asylum reception’, there is tension between that wish and the oath. “With a case like Maassluis, every colleague thinks: how would I have dealt with that?”, says Mayor Alexander Pechtold of Delft, who has not had to deal with it in his municipality. “It is becoming a pattern: you see it with Jack de Vries, you see it with the resigned mayor of Terneuzen.”
In that Zeeland city, the mayor resigned at the end of last year after a conflict with the municipal council. Due to the dispersal law, there were plans for an asylum seekers’ center in the municipality, but the municipal council backtracked on this. When the aldermen also agreed, the mayor resigned.
In Maassluis, the collision course between the coalition and the mayor fizzled out on Thursday evening. The municipal council adopted a motion: if the minister decides on the basis of the dispersal law that there should be asylum reception in Maassluis, the municipality will simply implement that decision. But: the new coalition of Leefbaar Maessluys and the VVD is still aiming for zero asylum seekers.
Based on the dispersal law, Maassluis should receive 169 asylum seekers next year. That may also be zero, but then neighboring municipalities must be prepared to take over Maassluis’ share.
Municipalities can get into problems
Dijksma thinks it is ‘fine’ if municipalities look among themselves to see which type of shelter fits best where. “On balance, the region must simply comply with what the law requires. If too many municipalities shirk their responsibility, others will get into enormous problems.”
Commissioner Kolff understands that municipal councils previously delayed implementing the dispersal law, because the previous cabinet wanted to repeal that law. That is different with this cabinet. “In a constitutional state, we have to adhere to the law. We cannot place all the burden on Ter Apel. That is what the dispersal law is for, to spread asylum seekers fairly across the country.”
Dijksma points out that the municipal authorities themselves have asked for a dispersal law in 2022 and that the VNG still supports it ‘by a large majority’. Dijksma does want to see where the concerns lie. “There is a difference between the unwilling and the unable.”
According to the VNG chairman, some municipalities do not have enough civil servants to make plans for an asylum seekers’ center. “How can we help and support them more? But that is something different than just not wanting it.”
When new council agreements state that ‘zero’ asylum seekers will be accommodated, Kolff raises his eyebrows. “I would also like to pay little tax, but it would be something if a council said: VAT no longer applies in our shops! Decisions do not always lead to cheers. You have to paint a fair picture to your residents. The gap with the voter only widens if you propose something to voters that is not possible.”
Is that also his advice to Richard de Mos of Hart for The Hague, who also wants zero asylum seekers? “That is my advice to all municipalities.”
WATCH ALSO to these videos about politics: