(If you have a Twitter-account, check this tweet=> 3 topics on Dutch news, bilingual. SOS 100%)
In this Public letter, the Inspectorate for Justice and Security and the Inspectorate for Health Care and Youth are asking for attention for the welfare and safety of children in the asylum reception centres as a result of the continuing problems in the asylum reception centres.
Translation of the content by Cora Westerink (1965, Sprang-Capelle)
Dear Mr Van der Burg,
In this letter, the Inspectorate for Justice and Security and the Inspectorate for Health Care and Youth (hereinafter referred to as: the Inspectorates) ask your attention for the welfare and safety of children in asylum seekers as a result of the continuing problems in problems in the asylum reception centres.
Background
The Inspectorates have taken note of the continuing and increasing pressure on the reception of asylum seekers provided by the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (hereinafter referred to as: COA). An important cause of this pressure is the capacity problems that have arisen due to impediments to outflow, caused by, among other things, municipalities not meeting their statutory task of housing status holders. On 30 May 2022, 14201 status holders were waiting in COA locations for accommodation in a municipality.
COA took several measures in order to be able to cope with the capacity problems. Additional beds were created, the placement system was abandoned and emergency accommodation and crisis accommodation was organised. These measures put a heavy burden on the employees and have a negative effect on the quality of the reception and guidance. On 22 April 2022, COA indicated to you that the quality of the reception had fallen below the quality of life and safety and that the human dimension was no longer guaranteed for the residents of COA, but also for the employees.1
1 Letter from COA to State Secretary of Justice and Security, dated 22 April 2022 regarding
Structural solutions needed’.
Page 1 of 7
COA requested a structural solution in the short term and an acceleration in the development of a stable reception system.
Prior to this letter, the Inspectorates considered the added value of supervisory activities by the State Inspectorates in relation to the reception issue. The urgency of the reception issue is already widely known to you, to the House of Representatives, to (international) non-governmental organisations, to the Security Council and to society at large. The Cabinet’s deployment of additional measures has not, however, so far led to solutions, but to the situation that the standards for reception and deportation applicable to the COA have been put under too much pressure. 2 There is as yet no concrete prospect of a lasting improvement to the situation in the foreseeable future.
The fact that it is no longer possible to work in accordance with the applicable standards causes a high burden on the employees of COA in particular and generally entails a risk for asylum seekers. Within this already vulnerable group, there is an additional vulnerable category: the children in families, children who are accompanied by a family member and unaccompanied minor foreign nationals. A total of 8801 accompanied children and 1450 unaccompanied foreign minors are staying in the asylum reception centres. Of the accompanied children and unaccompanied foreign minors, 4175 (47%) and 131 (almost 10%), respectively, are status holders.3 The ultimate term within which a status holder must be able to move into a house is 14 weeks, but even then 2395 children with a permit have been waiting longer than these 14 weeks, and hundreds of them for more than a year.4
Because of the seriousness and persistence of the signals and reports, the Inspectorates decided to form a more specific picture of the situation of children and unaccompanied foreign minors in asylum reception.
2 Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection.
3 Target date 25 May 2022. The number excludes Ukrainian refugees in the municipal reception centres in Ukraine, Afghan evacuees in defence centres, the acute emergency accommodation managed by municipalities and the
emergency accommodation managed by municipalities and the crisis emergency accommodation organised by the
safety regions.
4 Within two weeks after the residence permit has been granted, the COA coordinator links the status holder to the municipality. The municipality then has ten weeks to look for a house. After that the status holder has two weeks to move into the house. This period applies to families with children. Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers are placed with their families within two weeks. If family reunification is not possible, Nidos provides suitable small-scale reception.
Page 2 of 7
Findings
Through site visits to various types of reception locations, interviews and study of documentation and figures, the Inspectorates judge that the asylum reception is in a state of crisis and that the functioning of the asylum reception system has been seriously disrupted. 5 The applicable reception standards are being abandoned due to short-term emergency solutions. As a result, the quality of life in the COA reception facilities is below standard and the rights and safety of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers and other children cannot be guaranteed.
Just like everyone who applies for asylum at the application centre in Ter Apel, children in families must also go through the regular identification and registration process of the Aliens Police Identification and Trafficking Department (AVIM) and the IND. 6 This is often not possible on the day of registration, as a result of which the families with children also stay at the night shelter. They get up early in the morning because the night shelter closes at 6:00. Then they have to wait until it is their turn for the identification and registration process. Children in families regularly have to spend up to ten days in the night centre before they can be placed in COA’s regular central reception location.7 The capacity of the night centre is also limited, which is why COA now transports unregistered asylum seekers to the municipal reception facilities organised by the safety regions. Among them are also children in families. Exact figures on the number of children cannot be given, however, because there is no insight into this at the moment. This is because they have not yet been registered by AVIM and the IND.
In principle, each step in the asylum process determines the form of reception. Once the identification and registration process has been completed, they will stay at the central reception location in Ter Apel for the duration of the IND registration process. Under normal circumstances this is three to ten days, but now asylum seekers, including families with children and unaccompanied minor foreign nationals, stay at the central reception location for weeks and sometimes months longer. As a result, the children have no access to education, there is no medical intake by youth health care and the government vaccination programme cannot start either, because these facilities only start after the completion of the application process. Due to the high occupancy rate in Ter Apel, COA employees have no room for individual attention. For the single/ unaccompanied minor asylum seekers
5 Because the Inspectorate considers the citizen’s perspective – in which the child in asylum reception is a vulnerable citizen – the Inspectorate also talked to interest groups such as interest groups such as Defence for Children, Dutch Counsel for Refugees, the UN organisation Unicef and the working group Child in AZC. Several organisations and institutions such as the Children’s Ombudswoman, UNICEF and the Dutch Council for Refugees signals about the situation of children in asylum seekers’ centres.
6 Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers require separate reception and a separate identification and registration process. They are therefore not included in the night-time reception, for example.
7 After registration, this placement can be at the central reception location in Ter Apel, but also the central reception location in Budel is possible.
Page 3 of 7
this means that the intakes are no longer individual but in groups, room inspections are no longer frequent so that hygiene deteriorates, and meals are no longer taken together because the dining room is not suitable for the large group. There is regular nuisance and a restless atmosphere between different groups of minors. The majority of the minors that do not ask for attention, stay out of sight and there is no good overview of the safety of the minors.
Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers are assigned a guardian by the guardianship organisation Nidos. The guardian is the legal representative, is responsible for their welfare and has the task to protect the youngsters. A consequence of the overcrowding in Ter Apel is that the interests of these minors can no longer be promoted. During the inspection visit, the central reception location for unaccompanied minor foreign nationals was overcrowded by 115 minors. Instead of 55, 170 minors were staying there. Where a guardian of Nidos normally has to look after the interests of about 27 minors, he or she now does so for 85. 8 This is not possible. There is a lack of time and continuity in the supervision. This while these minors are extra vulnerable. Some cannot stand up for themselves, are robbed or threatened, with all the consequences that this entails.
In principle, the asylum seeker moves to a process reception centre after completing the application process. COA took several measures due to the capacity problems. For instance, the so-called ‘promising’ unaccompanied minor asylum seekers were transferred to the reception facility of Nidos, which normally only accommodates minors with a permit. Also at the regular process reception locations, the pressure of placement results in a mixing of target groups, as a result of which, on the one hand, the provided assistance does not match the phase of the asylum process anymore and on the other hand, friction arises between the different groups. Another consequence of the overcrowding is that the reception locations have little room for manoeuvre. Families are preferably placed alone in a unit. This means that if a unit can accommodate eight people and the family consists of five people, not all the beds can be occupied. COA therefore aims for a bed occupancy rate of 93%, but due to capacity pressures this is now 100%. This means that others, strangers to the family, can now be placed with the families. This creates unrest.
Another measure due to the capacity pressure is that COA has started up (crisis) emergency reception locations. These locations accommodate the children of families and unaccompanied minor foreign nationals who are awaiting the application or follow-up hearing. or further hearing. 9 At these locations, children sometimes have to wait a long time for
8 The inspectorates observed this overloading at at least one other reception location.
9 Unaccompanied minor foreign nationals are not placed in a crisis emergency location.
Page 4 of 7
education and limited youth health care is available. The (crisis) emergency reception locations are of a temporary nature, resulting in continuous transfers. The result of these transfers between COA locations is an interrupted continuous learning line and no continuity in the supervision and care. The situation in the emergency accommodation in Leeuwarden is distressing. This emergency reception location is a massive hall on an industrial estate, where rooms have been built using small walls without ceilings and doors. There is no daylight in the hall, sanitary facilities are shared and residents have no privacy. Children sleep badly because of all the commotion at night, so they have little concentration at school. There are no unaccompanied minor asylum seekers staying here, but there are children staying with their parent(s) and children who are being supervised by a family member who is involved with Nidos. The employees indicate that the location is unsuitable for children who have to stay there for a long time. The reception location is suitable for stays of a maximum of a few weeks, not for longer periods of time. However, stays of seven months occur regularly. Residents are frustrated by the lack of perspective. Because of this, Nidos and COA are not able to provide guidance. They are mainly occupied with answering questions about transfer to another COA location.
Another consequence of the increase in capacity is that more and more employees are hired who must then be trained by the permanent employees. The inspectorates observed that at emergency reception centres, mainly self-employed people offer the reception and guidance where a COA employee coordinates. The unpleasant thing about this is that if the outflow of status holders were to improve, there would be no need to find, train and supervise new employees. After all, status holders who settle in municipalities do not need COA guidance. To a large extent, the reception centre is still operational due to the enormous efforts and enthusiasm of the employees. However, the pressure on COA employees is increasing due to the inability to work in accordance with the applicable standards and the lack of prospects for a structural solution. This must change.
Considerations
The Inspectorates believe it is important, taking into account the findings and past experience of an increased influx of asylum seekers in the summer, that the situation of children must be improved quickly. The longer this situation lasts, the more detrimental it can be to their development, as is also shown by scientific research. 10 In her letter to the President of the Lower House of Parliament of 6 May on activating emergency state law for the reception of aliens, the Minister of Justice and Security indicated that there is no room for the activation of emergency state law for the improvement of the reception of asylum seekers. According to the Minister, extraordinary circumstances, in the sense of state emergency law, do not exist when it concerns problems of a structural nature, such as the bottlenecks
10 Van Os, C., Zijlstra, E., Knorth, E., Post, E. & Kalverboer, M. (2019): Het belang van het gevluchte kind in kaart gebracht.
Page 5 of 7
in ‘the regular reception of aliens’.11 The Cabinet decided earlier to activate the state emergency right for the reception of Ukrainian refugees, because it was not possible to offer them (emergency) reception within the structures, so that reception places could be organised in municipalities. As the Minister and the State Secretary for Justice and Security indicated in the Parliamentary Letter of 15 March 2022, the provisions and rights for the Ukrainian refugees should, as much as possible, be equivalent to the rights and provisions for persons received through the regular asylum process.12
It is noteworthy that in practice and in accordance with the law, a distinction is made between the reception of asylum seekers on the one hand, and the reception of foreigners who have fled the situation in Ukraine and who must also apply for asylum on the other. Of these reception places for refugees from Ukraine, thousands are now empty. On the other hand, persons in the regular asylum process have to wait for access to all forms of reception locations and the occupancy rate of the reception locations often exceeds 100%. As a result, both the reception staff and the occupants, especially the vulnerable group of children, are seriously constrained, with real risks for their physical and mental well-being.
With the exception of the emergency places that the security regions currently make available, the empty places for Ukrainians are hardly made available by municipalities for the reception of other aliens – not even for status holders – due to ‘a lack of local support’. This while timely and proper integration of these children into society is not only a right in the here and now, but also in the interest of society in a broad sense in the longer term. The Inspectorates wonder what justifies the distinction that municipalities actually make between the reception of Ukrainians and other foreign nationals who have fled their country.
The Inspectorates cannot follow or endorse this unequal treatment of, in a material sense, the same groups of people, namely refugees. After all, refugees from Ukraine also have to apply for asylum in order to obtain the protected status. 13 In addition, the measures that are currently being taken for regular asylum reception do not provide for any powers of perseverance and direction on the part of the State to transfer at least the children with a residence status to reception in the municipality. Either by making use of reception locations that were initially developed for refugees from Ukraine or by giving priority to housing.
11 Parliamentary letter dated 6 May 2022 from the Minister and State Secretary for Justice and Security about state emergency reception of Ukrainians.
12 Parliamentary letter dated 15 March 2022 from the Minister and State Secretary for Justice and Security about the approach to the reception of refugees from the Ukraine.
13 Parliamentary letter dated 30 March 2022 on the approach to the reception of displaced persons from the Ukrainehttps://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2022/03/30/tk-aanpakopvang-ontheemden-uit-oekraine
Page 6 of 7
The inspectorates question whether the distinction, which is now made in the treatment of asylum seekers whereby state emergency law applies to one group and not to the other, can be objectively justified. In particular, they point to the obligation of the Netherlands to respect and guarantee the rights from the Convention on the Rights of the Child – including Article 22 CRC – without discrimination of any kind, including on grounds of national, ethnic or social origin (Article 2 CRC).
The Inspectorates therefore urgently recommend to consider whether the answer to this question could lead to the Cabinet’s decision to also take the lead in realising stability with regard to reception locations and the accelerated removal of status holders, in particular families with (minor) children. In the opinion of the Inspectorates, the risks to which children and young people are currently exposed in regular asylum reception centres due to the capacity problems no longer make it possible to wait for the possible outcomes of the current ‘joint responsibility’ of national, regional and local authorities to arrive at a solution.
If desired, we are of course willing to provide further explanation of the above.
Yours faithfully, On behalf of the Health Care and Youth Inspectorate,
H.C. Faber Chief Inspector for Legal Protection and Execution wnd. Enforcement and Migration Inspectorate Justice and Safety
Page 7 of 7
