The crisis with the asylum reception was caused by the cabinet itself. There is a ‘chronic lack’ of foresight and a ‘tight hold’ to a certain financing.
The division of tasks between central government, municipalities and implementers does not work. As a result, the quality of the reception drops ‘because of a humanitarian lower limit’ and social support is crumbling.
The Advisory Committee for Immigration Affairs (ACVZ) and the Council for Public Administration draw these conclusions in a recommendation to the cabinet.
“Time and again the next sudden increase in the number of asylum seekers is awaited,” the advisory councils outline in their report. Then there are panic measures to avert the crisis. “That is precisely the problem,” says ACVZ director Wolf Mannens. “It has been a crisis in the asylum reception for seven years. But you can’t stay in crisis mode forever. The cabinet should not treat asylum migration as a crisis, but as a social problem.”
Distribution
With a fair distribution of asylum seekers among municipalities, stable financing and the maintenance of a buffer of reception places, the cabinet can avert the crisis in asylum reception. That is the opinion of the Advisory Committee for Immigration Affairs (ACVZ) and the Council for Public Administration (ROB).
“It is a crisis that is created and maintained by a chronic lack of preparation and a frenzied adherence to a financing system and an administrative structure that does not work.” The words of advisory councils do not lie. As a result of a panic policy, promising asylum seekers in the Netherlands get a false start, there is resentment between the government and municipalities and there is less and less support for the reception of refugees.
benevolence
Implementing organizations such as the COA, responsible for reception, and the Immigration Service IND, are financed on the basis of the expected number of asylum seekers and the number of reception places that are in use. The result is that the organizations have to scale up and down constantly and are invariably understaffed when the need arises. Moreover, the reception depends on the goodwill of municipalities. “As a result, it often takes far too long to find reception locations that are available for a longer period of time.”
The first thing that needs to happen according to the ACVZ and the ROB: stable funding for the IND and COA based on the number of beds available, plus a buffer of reception places. Municipalities should also reserve some capacity for emergency shelter. According to the advisory councils, this is cheaper than scaling up and down each time. In periods with a lower intake, the buffer could be used for other target groups that need shelter quickly, such as so-called emergency seekers. The advisory councils also argue in favor of distributing asylum seekers equally among municipalities, in proportion to the number of inhabitants.
Asylum seekers’ centers must also become smaller. After all: “Seven out of ten citizens are against the arrival of a large asylum seekers center. In the case of a small-scale centre, however, only three in ten are against it.” In addition, a sharp distinction should be made in reception between asylum seekers who have a good chance of being allowed to stay and underprivileged asylum seekers from, for example, safe countries. According to the advisory councils, the latter group should no longer fall under the responsibility of the municipalities.
Canadian model
After the summer, the Advisory Committee on Immigration Affairs will issue a recommendation for the cabinet to set target numbers for immigration. According to ACVZ director Wolf Mannens, it is ‘certainly possible in parts’ to determine in advance figures based on the Australian or Canadian model what society needs and can bear.