Chamber divided over recommendations of fraud policy inquiry committee: PVV’s position is crucial for the right

This became apparent on Tuesday evening during the debate in Parliament on the report of the Fraud Policy and Services Inquiry Committee. MPs considered for the first time the hard conclusions that were presented at the end of February. According to the committee, people were ‘crushed’ in the system and cabinets, the House of Representatives and the judiciary were ‘blind’ to the consequences. “It could happen again tomorrow,” was the warning aftertaste.

To prevent this, according to the committee, the House must adopt the nineteen recommendations: ranging from testing laws against the Constitution and revising enforcement policy to splitting up the Council of State and abolishing the benefits system.

That list of proposals was the most important point of discussion on Tuesday evening. As a rule, the majority of the recommendations of a parliamentary inquiry are adopted, as the House itself sets up such a committee and the members come from its ranks. But prior to the debate it became clear that not all parties were convinced of the entire list.

‘The room must first be aligned’

To put things on edge, the left part of the House in particular immediately insisted on adopting the recommendations in full. GroenLinks-PvdA MP Luc Stultiens emphasized that the ‘patterns’ of the benefits scandal still exist and that he therefore expected ‘this entire Chamber from left to right’ to adopt the list. SP leader Jimmy Dijk made a similar argument and was already ahead of the opposition. ‘If other parties do not want that, the SP finds that incomprehensible.’

The fact that not every party wants to adopt the recommendations without further ado became clear from the input of NSC MP Nicolien van Vroonhoven. Although her party is ‘solidly behind’ the proposals, she kept her distance. For example, she believes it is important to ‘get the entire House on the same page’ and arrive at a motion together.

For this she also explicitly looks at the PVV. It soon became clear that that party does not like all the recommendations. For PVV MP Edgar Mulder, ‘a lot depends on the concrete implementation’. For example, he wanted to know from the committee which investigative methods were still permitted to tackle real fraud. Part of the House reacted strongly. PvdD MP Ines Kostic thought that Mulder ‘ignored’ the victims of the benefits affair.

Van Vroonhoven also received fierce criticism. Think leader Stephan van Baarle accused her of ‘slapping hands’ with the PVV. SP member Dijk wanted to know whether NSC was willing to ‘make concessions’ if the PVV did not agree with some of the committee’s proposals.

‘Double cap’

But more parties are hesitant. For example, VVD MP Roelien Kamminga also did not express his intention to adopt the recommendations unchanged. She felt that MPs who then accused her of not taking the report seriously were sketching a ‘caricature’. According to her, adopting the recommendations without a fight does ‘no justice’ to the work of the committee.

As an example, Kamminga mentioned the committee’s proposal to split the Council of State into a judicial and advisory body because of a ‘double hat’. The VVD has ‘never been against this in principle, but we do have a number of questions about whether it is the solution to the problem’. A point that was also made by SGP, D66 and BBB.

Christian Union MP Don Ceder acknowledged that ‘some options still have to be worked out’, but that through all recommendations the House can indicate that it shares the committee’s principles. GroenLinks-PvdA member Stultiens also called adopting the proposals a ‘starting point’.

The disagreement over the recommendations clearly exposed that despite five years of discussion about the benefits scandal and two years of surveys, there is still no consensus on the solutions. The committee itself will have its say in the second part of the debate on Thursday. It will then become clear whether the divided House will succeed in coming up with a joint proposal.