Senate discusses abolishing asylum penalty payments
A majority for the proposal appears possible, but the definitive vote has yet to take place.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The Senate is considering bills today that would, among other things, abolish court-imposed penalty payments for late decisions on asylum applications. The vote is scheduled after the debate; at 11:26, the outcome was not yet known.
The proposals concern returns and immigration detention, as well as an accompanying amending bill. The amendment provides that the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) will no longer have to pay a court-imposed penalty when an asylum procedure takes too long. The Senate previously decided to consider the proposals today and vote immediately afterwards.
The measure is intended to remove financial incentives in procedures that take longer than the statutory decision period. The government and supporters say the IND is under pressure because of staff shortages, high inflows and backlogs. According to ministry responses, abolishing court-imposed penalty payments is part of broader legislation intended to ease pressure on the asylum system.
Opponents, by contrast, see an important means disappearing by which applicants can compel the government to make timely decisions. They fear that legal protection will diminish when there is no financial consequence for exceeding deadlines. The debate is therefore not only about costs, but also about the relationship between implementation problems and individual rights.
Last week, the Senate approved a procedure allowing an immediate vote after today’s debate. The report shows that CDA, VVD, PVV, JA21, BBB, SGP and 50PLUS, among others, voted in favour of that accelerated timetable. Other groups voted against it or expressed reservations.
This does not necessarily mean that there is a majority for abolishing the payments themselves. Senators are also assessing the proposals in terms of feasibility, legality and the consequences for ongoing proceedings. The cabinet has previously said that transitional provisions will still be needed for cases in which a claim to a penalty payment has already been made.
The decision is relevant to the IND, asylum seekers and the administrative courts. If the Senate approves it, the financial incentive for the IND will change once the law enters into force. Precisely when that will happen and how ongoing cases will be handled depends on the final text and its further implementation.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Senate is considering legislation today on returns and immigration detention.
- The proposals provide for abolishing court-imposed penalty payments for late decisions on asylum applications.
- The Senate can vote on the same day after the debate.
- The vote had not yet been completed at 11:26.
Left
Arguments The government must comply with statutory deadlines. If the financial incentive disappears, the IND could allow backlogs to continue without individual applicants having an effective remedy.
Values Legal protection, human dignity and oversight of government power.
Consequences Abolition could lead to longer uncertainty for applicants and greater pressure on courts and lawyers to seek other forms of appeal.
Centre
Arguments The implementation problems must be addressed, but the disappearance of penalty payments must be accompanied by clear deadlines, transparent reporting and transitional provisions for ongoing cases.
Values Feasibility, the rule of law and administrative reliability.
Consequences A compromise could limit financial incentives while preserving oversight and access to the courts, but would require additional capacity and monitoring.
Right
Arguments According to this approach, penalty payments mainly reward a system in which procedures grind to a halt because of high inflows and excessive legalisation. The IND should be given room to assess applications on their merits without incurring additional expenditure of millions.
Values Controlling migration, administrative capacity to act and efficiency.
Consequences The measure could reduce costs for the government, but places greater responsibility for delays on the applicant.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The procedure, content of the proposal and earlier decision-making are based on parliamentary sources. The expected majority is described cautiously because the vote had not yet taken place.
- confirmed On 13 October 2026, the Senate is considering proposals on returns, immigration detention and abolishing court-imposed penalty payments. — Mentioned in the report of the Senate dated 6 October 2026. source
- confirmed Under the proposal, the IND can no longer owe a court-imposed penalty for late asylum decisions. — Described in the minister’s answers to the Lower House. source
- confirmed The Senate previously decided that an immediate vote could take place after the debate. — The procedural motion for a vote on the same day appears in the official report. source
- uncertain A majority for abolishing the payments themselves is possible but not certain. — This is a current political expectation; the result was not yet known at publication. source
Editor's note
It is certain that the Senate is debating the matter today and can vote immediately afterwards. The definitive result and the precise majority were not yet available at 11:26.Sources
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „eerste kamer”
- De Telegraaf — „eerste kamer”
- AD — „eerste kamer”