Senators struggle with giving up their secondary positions: ‘Should I also report something like this?’

TDuring the budget discussion of the Ministry of Agriculture, on March 12 in the Senate, something unusual happened. Gert-Jan Oplaat, as agricultural spokesperson for the BBB, the largest faction, was the first to speak. He had just started writing his fifteen-page text and had casually suggested dissolving ‘the Ministry of Nature and Nitrogen’ when he was already interrupted.

It was Ingrid Visseren-Hamakers from the Party for the Animals. She inquired whether Mr Oplaat was still chairman of the Association of the Dutch Poultry Processing Industry, Nepluvi, and of the European umbrella organization, the Association of Poultry Processors and Poultry Trade, Avec. She then wanted to know why the BBB had chosen to have a lobbyist speak in the Senate on his own topic.

That is an internal choice of the BBB, Oplaat thought.

Visseren-Hamakers said that this was contrary to the Code of Conduct for Integrity of the Senate, which states that Senate members must avoid all appearance of a conflict of interest.

Oplaat dismissed the comment as ‘a regurgitation on the part of the Party for the Animals’ and wanted to continue his argument. But Saskia Kluit from GroenLinks-PvdA took over. She wanted to know whether Oplaat ‘has not been involved at all, in any project or process that is currently financed through these budgets’. This was categorically denied by Oplaat: ‘There is no money in the budget that has anything to do with my work.’

Visseren-Hamakers did not leave it at that: ‘We cannot afford to give lobbyists the floor on one of the most important dossiers in the heart of our democracy.’ Her suggestion to have another BBB faction member speak was rejected.

It is rare that conflicts of interest are discussed so openly in the Senate. The subject is alive, as several senators confirm. But conversations about it are preferably conducted privately.

Society

The Senate and conflicts of interest are, in a sense, a pleonasm. Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate functions partly as a society, where prominent members of different parties meet. The atmosphere is more friendly and less politically charged. The Senate membership is a part-time job for one day a week, the senator has his main activities elsewhere. He is expected to bring the knowledge and experience he gains there to the Senate; Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate does not impose sanctions – such as a reprimand or suspension – for MPs who violate the integrity rules.

In 2014, the House of Representatives and the Senate were firmly reprimanded by Greco (Group of States Against Corruption), the integrity watchdog of the Council of Europe. In response, the Senate came up with new Rules of Order in 2019 and, above all, a Code of Conduct for Integrity. It states that a member who has oral or written input in a debate must declare his interests. He must also report his main activities, which are referred to as ‘ancillary functions’, on the website of the Senate, so that his interests become visible.

Because the Senate is based on self-regulation, this is all done on the basis of personal responsibility. The Member of Parliament fills in his functions on the website himself, there is no authority that monitors this. However, after Greco insisted on this in 2021, there is an annual training meeting on integrity for members of the Senate. There is also an external confidential counselor – since December last year it has been Milène Junius – who can function as a sounding board for senators.

In the past, this appearance of a conflict of interest sometimes caused hassle. That was the case with Paul Rosenmöller, who was leader of the GroenLinks faction but also chairman of the secondary education council, and therefore an education lobbyist. Senator Anne-Wil Duthler had to leave the VVD faction in 2019 due to a conflict of interest. She had collaborated with her consultancy company on a law that she later voted for as a member of the Senate. It was also surprising that CDA member Niek Jan van Kesteren combined his senatorship for a while with the director’s position at the employers’ organization VNO-NCW.

Significant differences

“The clerk and chairman always remind members that they must report additional positions,” says a spokesperson for the Senate. ‘You do see differences. There are members who report absolutely everything, others are more sober.’

Together with the Open State Foundation, an NGO committed to a transparent and accountable democracy de Volkskrant investigation into the additional functions of the members of the Senate. To this end, the additional functions as listed on the Senate’s website were compared with the data from the Trade Register of the Chamber of Commerce (KvK). That study revealed significant differences. Some senators wrote down their complete resume, others limited themselves to the minimum necessary. Financial data, such as assets, assets and shares, were not taken into account. A member of the Senate does not have to make this public.

Open State insists on uniformity and concludes that citizens have little or no insight into the additional functions of their representatives, because the Chamber of Commerce can only be searched via a commercial party (CompanyInfo) and therefore for a fee. For 29 of the 75 members of the Senate, there appeared to be differences between the secondary function register and the Trade Register of the Chamber of Commerce. In some cases, this concerns unreported positions at organizations that are, for example, affiliated with the party, or that arise from a main activity that has been reported. There are also unspecified features that raise more questions. has about that de Volkskrant information was obtained from the relevant MPs.

‘Have I failed?’

In many cases, the positions not specified concern legal entities that do not engage in direct activities. For example, Oplaat – who lists an impressive list of additional positions – has not given up the additional positions that arise from his chairmanship of Nepluvi. For example, he is a director at VNO-NCW, a director of the Voluntary Early Retirement Foundation for the Poultry Processing Industry, the Fund for Collective Interests Foundation for the Poultry Processing Industry and Avined. As far as he is concerned, none of this needs to be reported separately, because it stems directly from Nepluvi: ‘That all falls under that umbrella. You have to have integrity within yourself,” he says. ‘You can’t capture that in rules.’

Niko Koffeman of the Party for the Animals is missing ‘Director of the Shared Vegan Interest Administratiekantoor Foundation’ and three holding companies on the list. “That is nothing more than the administration office for shares,” he says. ‘There’s no activity there at all.’ He says he does not know whether such information should also be stated. ‘I’m going to ask the counselor about that.’

“We have an annual integrity meeting in the Senate,” Koffeman adds. ‘I have the feeling that little is done with the results. It does not lead to improvements.’ Koffeman hopes that the confidential counselor will also provide unsolicited advice if she has doubts about a conflict of interest.

Artie Ramsodit (GroenLinks-PvdA) is a member of the supervisory board of Zorg en Zekerheid. She did not report two other directorships that resulted from this. ‘Should that be? Have I failed?’ she asks. ‘As a commissioner, I receive compensation for those three entities together, because they are one organization. If I mention them separately it might increase the confusion.’

More senators appear to have doubts about which additional positions must be reported. Greet Prins (CDA) is missing five supervisory directorships, which, according to her, all stem from her supervisory directorship at CZ Zorgverzekeringen. ‘It feels logical not to report this separately. But maybe it would be good to have another conversation about that.’

‘Clear guidelines needed’

Bart Kroon (BBB) ​​is an interim director by profession. His interim positions at the Rossum and De Zandberg brick factories are not listed. ‘Such a contract is finite. Do you have to give up a temporary position? “I don’t know, I asked and was told nothing like that needed to be mentioned.” Kroon also says: ‘Transparency is good. But if you want more control, you also need clear guidelines.’

Theo Rietkerk (CDA) has not listed a handful of chairman positions at educational institutions in the Zwolle and Kampen region in the secondary position register. All these positions stem from his position as chairman of the executive board of the Landstede Group, an umbrella organization for schools. ‘Will my role become clearer when all this is put on the site? This question makes me think. The Senate is a less political body than the House of Representatives. You are wanted because of your expertise. Then it is an advantage if you come out of the field.’

‘Also share ownership’

While it Volkskrant/ Open State investigation was ongoing, the registry of the Senate has once again called on members to be careful and complete when reporting additional positions and to immediately post any changes on the site.

Serv Wiemers, director of Open State, calls on senators to report all their positions and to expand the integrity rules in such a way that share ownership must also be reported: ‘If in doubt, give up!’ If the rules are not complied with, sanctions must follow, as is already the case in the House of Representatives, is his plea.

Research recently showed that Follow The Money and News hour that transparency in the House of Representatives about secondary activities is also incomplete and unclear. Open State also believes that the Chamber of Commerce trade register should be freely searchable, as is the case in other European countries. Only in this way can citizens check any conflicts of interest of representatives.

In the meantime, senators Visseren-Hamakers and Oplaat remain convinced of their own right. Visseren-Hamakers: ‘Oplaat is an agricultural lobbyist, he is paid to represent interests. After only ten minutes, he argued in favor of more meat production, that’s what I call lobbying. He can speak on almost all files. But not in the agricultural budget.’

Oplaat sees it very differently: ‘I am not from the farmers but from the slaughterhouses. They receive zero euros from the agricultural budget. There is no conflict of interest here, but substantive knowledge. The Party for the Animals plays on the person. I’m putting this aside.’

The research into the additional functions of members of the Senate of Open State Foundation was conducted by Charlotte Kroese.