The House is deeply concerned about the closed youth care system, but sees little interest in yet another survey

It was clear in advance that the debate on closed youth care in the House of Representatives on Thursday would be charged. Earlier this month, youth care expert Jason Bhugwandass published a report with testimonies from closed youth care, where young people end up who pose a direct danger to themselves. The examples were so extreme that municipalities decided immediately to no longer send young people to such institutions.

Young people said that counselors use violence, humiliate them and that there is even sexual abuse. They are also often locked up for far too long. On Thursday, the House was able to consider these painful conclusions for the first time. Bhugwandass, himself admitted to such a closed institution in 2015, sat in the public gallery.

The report did not stand alone. In 2019, research by the De Winter Committee showed that overall youth care was unable to protect children against physical, psychological and sexual violence. The Health Care and Youth Inspectorate (IGJ) also reported several times with worrying signals. In the meantime, the sector is struggling with a staff shortage and additional cutbacks are on the way.

For GroenLinks-PvdA and NSC it was reason to put the House on edge on Thursday with a proposal for a ‘brief parliamentary inquiry’ into the abuses. According to MPs Lisa Westerveld (GL-PvdA) and Faith Bruyning (NSC), politicians must ‘do self-reflection’ and find out how it is possible that ‘despite several signals and reports’ the abuses continued.

But the use of one of the strongest parliamentary instruments is sensitive. The criticism is often heard that parliament is too quick to resort to the remedy. Three surveys have already been conducted in the last three years. In a fragmented House, it also becomes more difficult to free up MPs for intensive work.

That criticism was also heard on Thursday. When PVV MP Patrick Crijns was asked by Westerveld about support for the survey, he replied that he had ‘double feelings’. “It is a very heavy political instrument,” he said. “You go straight to gear four.”

According to Westerveld, the heavy drug is necessary because everything has been tried. ‘We have had independent investigations, the De Winter committee (…) The instruments apparently are not sufficient.’ SP MP Sarah Dobbe was also ‘surprised’ by Crijns’ attitude. ‘Doesn’t the PVV want to see how things could have gone so wrong?’

But Crijns thinks that a survey will not solve anything. ‘You’re going to get the same story again that everything is wrong. You will receive another report and then more advice will be given,” he said.

The PVV member received support from, among others, VVD MP Judith Tielen. She emphasized that the problems in youth care are already known. “With a parliamentary inquiry you can uncover things you never suspected, I don’t think that’s happening here,” she said. ‘Young people who are currently in departments or have just left them will not benefit much if we keep talking about it for a year and a half.’ A majority in favor of a survey therefore seems far away.

The question then is what is of use to young people. After all, attempts are already being made to tackle closed youth care, but practice appears to be difficult. For example, two years ago, outgoing State Secretary Maarten van Ooijen (Public Health) announced that he would reduce the number of closed places in order to completely eliminate them by 2030. The number is indeed declining, but because there are insufficient alternative places, young people are in danger of finding themselves in a pinch. Van Ooijen emphasized that there is ‘no one hundred percent guarantee’ that there will be zero closed places in 2030.

Thursday showed how persistent the problems are. In her closing speech, Westerveld pointed out that she felt as if she were back to her first debate on the subject in 2017. ‘Motions are being submitted that have been submitted for a long time about problems that have been known for a long time. (…) But if we say: let’s really look at the pattern, how decision-making is going here in the House, then I am told that looking back is not necessary.’