National inspections fear for their independence through new law: “This is a big step back”

For the first time, the independence of national inspections is legally laid down – according to the cabinet a “strengthening of the democratic institutions”. But in crucial components, this bill by Minister Judith Uitermark (Home Affairs, NSC) leads to my independence, the heads of two inspections say to NRC.

“Ministers can really start inspections on the content,” says Theodor Kockelkoren, Inspector General of the State Supervision on the Mines. “As far as we are concerned, that is really a step back.”

Ministers may reject intended research programs and impose new investigations, the draft law stated that Uitermark published at the beginning of this year. The inspections are ‘surprised and disappointed’ about this, says Bart Snels, inspector-general taxes, allowances and customs.

It shows that great crises such as Groningen and the allowance affair gradually disappear from consciousness

The fact that ministers can interfere considerably with inspections have shown several times in recent years. For example, the Justice and Security Inspectorate withdrew a critical report in 2020 on the failure control of weapon permits, after intervention of senior officials from the Ministry of Justice and Security. And in 2022, education minister Dennis Wiersma (VVD) claimed that the Education Inspectorate would assess at least 10 percent of the schools as ‘insufficient’.

Pieter Omtzigt

With its bill, Uitermark is “wide open for improper influence,” wrote the inspection council, in which the eleven national inspections work together, at the beginning of this month in a response to the draft law.

This criticism is extra sensitive because Pieter Omtzigt, the party leader of Uitermark, rather advocated much more independent inspections. In 2022, Omtzigt made proposals, then as a partyless Member of Parliament, in a so -called initiative memorandum. One of those proposals was exactly what the inspections are advocating: Ministers should never reject the inspection research program for substantive reasons.

Uitermark does want to keep that option open. Ultimately, every inspection falls under the responsibility of a minister, she writes in her draft law. The House of Representatives must be able to address the minister for the inspections of the inspections, and how they spend government money. That is why ministers here, under certain conditions, should also have something to say about it.

The inspections believe that Uitermark is going too far. Snels: “Let us decide what we supervise and what priorities we set.” Minister Uitermark does not want to respond to the criticism yet. She only does that after all the responses to her concept law are inside, says her spokesperson.

Allowance affair

The desire to legally record the independence of inspections has been in The Hague for years. The urgency was mainly felt in the aftermath of the allowance affair and the damage caused by the Groningen gas extraction. In 2021, after the resignation of Rutte III because of the allowance affair, the House of Representatives spoke a lot about citizens who were put in trouble by the government. And that ‘counterpower’ is therefore needed, and strong supervisors.

‘Sverting’ is a difficult concept to be interpreted. A minister who wants to intervene will soon find the reasons important

The Snels Inspectorate benefited from that sentiment, which was founded in 2022. His inspection taxes, allowances and customs became much more independent than the existing inspections. “We determine the timing of our reports,” says Snels. “He has to send the minister directly to the Lower House. And politics wanted us to have a physical distance from our Ministry of Finance, that is why we are in the Ministry of Education.”

And what the joint inspections are asking for Uitermark is already reality for Snels: ministers have no substantive control over the research program of the taxes, allowances and customs inspection. For Snels, the new law is “a big step back in independence,” he says.

What does it say that now, three years after your foundation, there is a bill that is less far -reaching?

Snels: “It shows that great crises such as Groningen and the allowance affair gradually disappear from consciousness. In addition, inspections often arouse resistance. Our conclusions are not always popular with ministers and the House of Representatives.”

Kockelkoren: “This is the time to anchor the lessons of Groningen and the allowance affair. The model of the Inspection Taxes, Surcharges and Customs shows how it can be done. That should be the starting point.”

You are more on the line of Omtzigt than that of Minister Uitermark?

Snels: “The proposals from Pieter Omtzigt were all about good governance and independence. You should not set up supervisors. We must be able to look everywhere, to see what is happening in society.

“Suppose our inspection had already existed in 2013 and this bill would already apply. If we had gained insight into very high recovery of the childcare allowance, we would write it down in our work program: we want to know everything about this. Then I think the minister would give us a mission to shift attention to the Bulgarian fraud.

Yet this example also feels uncomfortable, because politics has a democratic mandate. Does the inspection have to be able to ignore those wishes?

Kockelkoren: “If there is a lot of political and social fuss about something, supervisors also want to investigate this in practice. The question is then: to what extent? A minister who demands a large -scale investigation on one subject can completely push other themes off the road.”

Can ministers take responsibility after critical parliamentary questions about ‘their’ inspection if they have nothing to say?

Kockelkoren: “Certainly. Certainly. A minister who gets signals that an inspection is doing weird things can discuss this with an independent ‘advice committee’. The bill regulates that every inspection is given such a committee to critically monitor the functioning of the inspection.”

Ministers are not allowed to intervene, it says in the cabinet proposal. They need ‘compelling reasons’ to reject a research program and must also make it public.

Kockelkoren: “” Subject “is a difficult concept. A minister who wants to intervene, will soon find the reasons important. And the fact that a minister is allowed can already influence the dynamics if an inspection draws up her work program. Because everyone can reject the minister.”

That already changes the power relationship.

Kockelkoren: “And transparency is important, certainly. But if this information is hidden in a long parliamentary letter full of other topics, the question is whether the House of Representatives will see it.”

Positive points

The inspectors also see positive points. In this way they get the legal right to make their research findings public themselves. And if the House of Representatives asks the head of an inspection to explain, he does not have to ask the minister permission. “The contact with the room is becoming more accessible,” says Kockelkoren.

Yet the concerns of the inspections are great. Also about their financing. They fear that a cabinet can give inspections too little money, without this being clearly visible to the House of Representatives. Inspections must therefore, they think, get their own chapter on the budget of their ministry.

Your own budget chapter? Then the minister can still give too little money?

Kockelkoren: “Yes, and what an inspection requires does not always have to be delivered. But it must be crystal clear to the House of Representatives.”

Snel: “And if a ministry has to cut back, it must also be clear to the House of Representatives how much of it ends up with the inspection.”

Why don’t you want to leave ministries completely? Isn’t that the ultimate independence?

Snels: “It also has advantages to fall under a ministry. If you want to have an impact, it helps to constantly have conversations within the department. We don’t want to be a report factory: something has to happen to our findings.”

Kockelkoren: “If the distance between inspection and the ministry is greater, you also have to work harder to bridge it.”

Ultimately, their criticism is not only about the relationship between the cabinet and inspections, Snels says, but also about the relationship between citizens and government. “The government is constantly troubling citizens, just as it happened in Groningen and with the allowance affair. That is intolerable and we have to play our role there.”

“I sometimes hear that people say that this is a technical or Hague discussion,” says Kockelkoren. “But for the people who have come into trouble, this is reality. They wonder: where is the regulator who can help me? That’s why I hope that this subject will get the attention it deserves.”

To share





Mail the editors