On May 14, 2025, OpenEmbassy submitted OpenEmbassy response to the internet consultation on the repeal of the Distribution Act. In our role as a knowledge organization connecting newcomers, policymakers, and practitioners, we are concerned about the possible consequences of repealing this law.
Not only because abolition would have immediate consequences for reception capacity, but also because of what this would mean for newcomers, municipalities, and society as a whole.
By: Femke Brand
Distribution and capacity of reception centers
The Distribution Act the basis for the fair distribution of reception places across municipalities. Without this legal basis, municipalities may be forced to abandon their plans, which according to the COA could lead to the loss of 2,000 to 2,500 reception places. This would put additional pressure on locations that are already overburdened, such as Ter Apel. The result is an increased risk of human rights violations, especially for vulnerable groups such as children. They are at risk of developmental damage if they stay in large-scale, remote (emergency) shelters for long periods of time, without stability or proper support.
Longer waiting times and barriers to participation
But the consequences of abolishing the law extend beyond reception capacity alone. Scrapping the law would also mean an increase in regional inequality. Municipalities that are already doing a lot would then be burdened even more, while others would drop out. Longer waiting times would result, meaning that status holders would be able to start their integration process much later. This is frustrating and demotivating. The asylum chain would also become congested, because status holders would be forced to remain in reception centers, leaving no room for new asylum seekers.
Small-scale initiatives and trust
In addition, we risk losing valuable initiatives. In many municipalities, the law has created scope for small-scale, innovative forms of shelter in which residents are involved from day one. These ensure faster contact with the neighborhood, greater participation, and lower costs than large-scale emergency shelters. If the law disappears, we will also lose this progress.
Municipalities themselves also indicate that they need consistent policy and long-term certainty. The current uncertainty undermines confidence in the government and makes it difficult to make sustainable investments in reception facilities. Finally, if childcare is concentrated in a few regions and emergency childcare becomes the norm, the pressure on facilities will increase. This will heighten tensions and reduce public support, which is exactly the opposite of what an inclusive and resilient model of society needs.
Why the Distribution Act is Distribution Act
The Distribution Act to keep reception humane, fair, and workable. It provides peace of mind, structure, and a good basis for participation from day one. We are not alone in this. The Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG), the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA), the Dutch Council for Refugees (VluchtelingenWerk Nederland), the United Arab Emirates Foundation (UAF), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Circle of King's Commissioners, and the Netherlands Bar Association (Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten) have also called for the Distribution Act to be retained in their responses.
Download our response
Response to consultation on Distribution Act OpenEmbassy
View all responses
Webpage Consultation Distribution Act
