Advisory councils: Asylum shelter can be better and 1 billion cheaper

Minister of Asylum and Migration Marjolein Faber (PVV) can save an estimated 1 billion euros if she is better organizing asylum reception in the Netherlands. The Council for Public Administration (ROM) and Advisory Board Migration (AM) write this on Wednesday evening in an unsolicited advisory crapaddressed to Minister Faber.

The advisory bodies pass a hard judgment on the current asylum policy. The Netherlands sinks ‘repeatedly’ due to the ‘humane lower limit’. Because measures are constantly being taken into ‘crisis atmosphere’, the government incurs ‘unnecessary’ high costs, according to the advisory councils.

For example, due to a lack of structural financing and « neglect » according to the advisory bodies, in recent years it has become too much dependent on relatively expensive emergency locations. In addition, cooperation between the government and lower authorities is not established and there is unrest among citizens due to current policy.

‘Rich cultivates a crisis atmosphere’

The government has created this situation itself, write the ROM and AM. After all, the empire ‘cultivates’ a crisis atmosphere, creating the image that there is no grip on migration.

In a sober consideration of the asylum reception, the solution lies, the authors advise. By seeing the asylum shelter as a ‘normal social task’, the crisis atmosphere can be filled in. Specifically, the proposal is made to replace expensive emergency reception locations with regular reception places and to work with ‘realistic, multi -year budget’ for implementing organizations in the asylum chain. More agreements must also be made between the government a local governments about, for example, the distribution of asylum seekers.

Whether the government will take over these advice is the question. The current plans of the cabinet regarding asylum shelter are increasing the problems, according to the advisory bodies. Among other things, the report mentions the plan to withdraw the Spreading Act as an example.

The plan to no longer oblige municipalities to give status holders priority for social rental housing and to work with ‘sober flow locations’ instead is ‘naive’, according to the advisory bodies. After all, status holders will have to be housed in the long term, otherwise the flow locations will describe according to the authors into ‘dense sludge locations’.

To share

Mail the editors