Majority of House supports recommendations of Fraud Policy Inquiry Committee, PVV refuses

Last Tuesday, when the first part of the debate took place, it became apparent that several parties were hesitant to adopt all nineteen recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry committee on Fraud Policy and Services. These ranged from testing laws against the Constitution and revising enforcement policy to splitting up the Council of State and abolition of the benefits system.

After a parliamentary inquiry, it is customary for the House to endorse the recommendations with a joint motion. After all, the committee was established by the House itself; its members come from among its members. But in this case that turned out to be a no-brainer. VVD MP Roelien Kamminga did not want to simply accept the recommendations because it would ‘do no justice’ to the work of the committee and she still had questions. BBB MP Mona Keijzer also had objections and thought it was important to first put the recommendations to the test.

‘Recommendations too vague’

The biggest doubts were expressed by PVV MP Edgar Mulder. He called the benefits scandal a ‘great shame’, but thought the recommendations were too vague. According to him, ‘a lot depended on the concrete implementation’. Moreover, Mulder emphasized that ‘real fraudsters simply need to be tackled’ and that he saw little point in more leniency in legislation and regulations.

Mulder referred, among other things, to possible organized fraud with benefits from Bulgaria that came to light last week. In that light, he wanted to know from the committee what investigative methods are still permitted to combat fraud. “I have the feeling that we should not go too far,” Mulder added on Thursday. ‘How do we ensure that the pendulum does not swing the other way?’

Committee chairman Michiel van Nispen (SP) tried to reassure the PVV member by emphasizing that, according to the committee, real fraud still needs to be tackled and investigation is necessary. “But don’t go too far, as has been done in the past,” he said. ‘Tackling real fraudsters and not people who have made a mistake.’

‘Missed opportunity’

The PVV’s position was important for the rest of the House. After a parliamentary inquiry, it is customary for the initiative for a proposal to lie with the largest party. NSC MP Nicolien van Vroonhoven also made an explicit offer on Tuesday. Although she said she supported all the committee’s proposals ‘solidly’, she kept the door open to get the ‘entire House on the same page’.

But it turned out not to be enough to get the PVV on board. Instead, GroenLinks-PvdA submitted a motion as the second party on behalf of the rest of the House. Only PVV and Forum for Democracy were missing. Mulder was criticized for the refusal. “I think it is a great shame and a missed opportunity that you do not support this motion because you, as the largest party, have a responsibility,” Van Vroonhoven said.

Major differences of opinion

The fact that a large majority now supports the conclusions and recommendations does not mean that the committee’s proposals will automatically be implemented. The widely supported motion still leaves room for debate about the ‘further elaboration’ and ‘political choices’.

This formulation suits critical MPs. For example, several parties pointed out that there are major differences of opinion about how the benefits system should be abolished and replaced. Not all parties also agreed with the committee’s proposal to split the Council of State into a judicial and advisory body. An extensive debate on this will probably follow.

Committee chairman Van Nispen was nevertheless pleased with the broad support for the report. “We think it is an impressive motion,” he said. ‘That also gives us confidence that this report will not disappear into a drawer.’