What does NRC think | Fortunately, the Spreading Act has not yet been completely lost, but the citizen deserves better governance

When the Senate agreed in January 2024 to the Spreading Act of the then outgoing cabinet-Rutte IV, there was a law that nobody really made it happy. It was a complicated compromise, constitutional and legally wrong with it. Proponents of a better distribution of asylum places throughout the country saw too little coercion. Opponents found the law too strict for unwilling municipalities, and feared (without evidence) that more asylum seekers would come to the Netherlands if the reception were better arranged here. Anyway, the law was allowed to see life, and to many astonishment, the spread of asylum spots turned out to work relatively well. The law offered peace and clarity, exactly what municipalities and provinces asked. It was therefore disappointing that the four negotiators of PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB last year decided to withdraw the Spreading Act – a deep wish of the PVV, but also of the others. The law was devised to prevent the harrowing situations in Ter Apel and Budel, where people had to sleep outside because there was no room anymore. Relocating a law that works well without offering an alternative is improper management. The fact that there was no real plan was yet apparent because of the solo of Minister Marjolein Faber (asylum and migration, PVV). She said she was working on withdrawal of the Spreading Act in recent months. She would be opposed by Prime Minister Schoof, who did not want to put her policy memorandum on the agenda of the Council of Ministers.

Now her (very generally formulated) policy memorandum is there, and the outside world can assess whether the big words about the withdrawal of the outline agreement are substantiated. That turns out very much. First: the law, if it is up to the cabinet, will only be abolished from February 2026. And that while 2024 was once the intention. Moreover, the core of the Spreading Act remains intact: The Hague says what the distribution of shelters per province and the municipality can look like. Then it is up to municipalities to arrange this together. The only difference is that any coercion or obligation disappears. The Spreading Act is therefore more or less continued, but then less decisive, and less based on polder than on decisiveness. Although this Spreading Act 2.0 is certainly not an improvement, it is wise that the principle of spread is maintained. Everyone who applies for asylum in the Netherlands deserves to be taken care of with regard to it. Ter Apel and Budel deserve that other municipalities participate in the distribution of reception places. And the Netherlands deserves a cabinet that really solves problems and does not do symbolism. Only a solidarity and fair system of distribution can contribute to this.

It is worrying that in several municipalities (severe) protests broke out during participation evenings and meetings of the city council about the placement of asylum seekers’ centers. Not for the protest itself, that is allowed outside the council chamber. But for the effect: municipalities are becoming more reluctant, and so the goal of this year (115,000 reception spots on January 1, 2026) is in danger of being achieved. Mayors see a connection with the flared discussion about the Spreading Act: citizens think that that spread would come to an end. Moreover, Marjolein Faber and Geert Wilders, in particular, fuel the dissatisfaction with their rhetoric. A government party has the duty to promote good governance, not to work against.

To share

Mail the editors