Parliamentary inquiry into corona policy has had a difficult start due to disagreements and personnel changes

Even before the public hearings start this Friday, the parliamentary Corona inquiry committee has more retired members than active members. Nine (former) MPs have served on the committee for a shorter or longer period of time over the past two years, but have since left it. “I have seen three go and two come. And one that did both,” says Anita Pijpelink (GroenLinks-PvdA). She herself did not return to Parliament after the last parliamentary elections in October (she was in 26th place on the list and that turned out to be too low) – much to her regret. Pijpelink was vice-chairman of the committee.

The committee now has five members again. Starting Friday, she will begin questioning 47 people under oath, three days a week. The interrogations will last until September 10, with a break in the summer. Themes include: the closure of schools, the corona admission ticket and the role of the House of Representatives. At 32 months, the survey is the longest survey since the one into government policy in the Second World War, which lasted from 1947 to 1956.

The House considered research into the corona period so important that it unanimously approved the survey at the end of 2021. But then the unanimity quickly ended. When a temporary committee developed the research proposal, the parties appeared to disagree on the themes. They also thought the investigation was too extensive and feared a settlement with cabinet members.

There was also fuss about members Pepijn van Houwelingen (FVD) and Wybren van Haga (Groep Van Haga), who repeatedly spoke out publicly about corona, while committee members usually exercise restraint. Chairman also stepped down Khadija Arib (PvdA) after two anonymous letters were received about her attitude and behavior during her time as Speaker of the House, reporting, among other things, “abuse of power” and “an unsafe working environment”.

In May 2023, the temporary committee was finally able to deliver its – amended – research proposal. Only four parties (PVV, FVD, Groep Van Haga and Fractie Den Haan) registered to participate in the final inquiry committee. Other parties wanted it first third report of the Dutch Safety Board on tackling the corona crisis. The survey was then postponed.

Persistent rumbling

Almost a year later, in February 2024, the committee finally got to work – but even now things remained uneasy, mainly due to the many personnel changes. After a few months, BBB member Claudia van Zanten left the committee again, after her group had new MPs and she was needed there. Rosanne Hertzberger (NSC, after the departure of NSC State Secretary Nora Achahbar) and Van Houwelingen (FVD, due to paternity leave) followed in November.

In December, Sander van Waveren (NSC) joined the committee, in May 2025 BBB with Mariska Rikkers and FVD with Gideon van Meijeren also returned, after which Van Meijeren resigned two weeks later. In his own words, because he was not allowed to ask the questions he wanted and was not allowed to view all the documents – something that is denied by committee chairman Daan de Kort (VVD).

The big blow came at the end of October during the House of Representatives elections, when four members were not re-elected. Chairman De Kort was the only survivor, narrowly: he was in 20th place and the VVD obtained 22 seats. At the end of December and February (this year) the committee was supplemented with four newcomers from GroenLinks-PvdA, CDA, Groep Markuszower and D66. Henk-Jan Oosterhuis resigned from the latter party after two months, because he took over the Finance and Tax portfolio. However, he was immediately replaced, which put an end to the musical chairs for the time being.

Professor of parliamentary history Ronald Kroeze (Radboud University), specialized in parliamentary surveys, calls the many changes “remarkable”. “The chairman was almost not re-elected, then the entire committee would have disappeared. That would have been unique.” It makes this committee “special,” says Kroeze. “There are four members who had to catch up on a lot of overdue knowledge.”

Disagreement is undesirable

What is complicated, says former committee member Sander van Waveren, “is that the new committee members did not speak to the people who were being interrogated in the closed preliminary interview. So they do not know how they react, how cooperative they are, what they were difficult about, what they did not respond to and what information they would rather not tell.” The role of the chairman is therefore very important, says Van Waveren. “He is the only one who experienced the entire journey.”

Van Waveren points out that official support has remained stable. The ‘old’ committee also continued to work during the summer and election recess to complete all 87 closed preliminary discussions and to prepare a transition file. In addition, the old committee members updated the new ones. Members can also always have witnesses come a second time or invite new people.

Yet, “all these personnel changes and vicissitudes do not promote the functioning of the committee,” says Bert van den Braak, emeritus professor of parliamentary history. Both Kroeze and Van den Braak point out the unity that the committee must form: the members must let go of their party colors and be able to trust each other completely. There has been little time for that. “Success depends on that,” says Van den Braak. Kroeze: “You always have to get used to each other. With politically sensitive questions, when things get tense, you have to be able to rely on each other. You also have to support the conclusions together. There should be no disagreement.”

‘Collective trauma processing’

It is the fourteenth survey since the 1980s – previous ones revolved around, for example, Groningen gas extraction, the Surcharge Affair, construction fraud and the financial system. Eight surveys were conducted in the nineteenth century, and one more immediately after the Second World War. Then it remained quiet for decades.

Even during the previous surveys, things were not always smooth sailing. During the investigation into the bankruptcy of shipbuilding group Rijn-Schelde-Verolme (RSV) – the first survey conducted on television was broadcast – two VVD committee members, Theo Joekes and Benk Korthals, faced each other. Joekes supported the committee in its harsh assessment of VVD minister Gijs van Aardenne, but Korthals did not. The latter eventually had his minority position added to the final report.

Unity of the committee is especially important during the corona survey. The handling of the pandemic caused polarization in society and politics. Scientists, healthcare workers, journalists and politicians were threatened. Due to the sensitivity of the subject, ‘learning lessons’ from that time is “more prominent than before in the research proposal,” says Professor Kroeze: “So look ahead. It is not about condemning people and drawing political consequences from them. The emphasis is not on that. The political sensitivity is pushed down in advance.” De Kort emphasized in a press conference last Thursday that all committee members “will have to take off their party hats.”

Yet Van den Braak expects that political settlements will soon follow. “It always quickly becomes about who made mistakes and who is to blame. That chance is even greater with such a polarized topic as corona policy, where groups of people were against the policy and had a clear opinion about it.”

Chairman De Kort said in an interview last summer NRC that the survey should also contribute to “collective trauma processing. It was a drastic and very intensive period. Most people quickly got on with their lives afterwards, but not everyone has processed it yet.”

In the press conference last week, he warned that the consequences are still having an impact: “There is a chance of new unrest. Corona has led to a lot of tensions and emotions in society.”

Give a gift





Part





Email the editor