Crushed human lives are not left or right. When SP MP Michiel van Nispen, the chairman of the parliamentary inquiry committee on Fraud Policy, notes on Monday that the government was “blind to people and law” when dealing with people who made mistakes with benefits or allowances, his VVD colleague Thierry Aartsen stands by him nodding in agreement. Speaker of the House Martin Bosma (PVV) says a little later that the committee draws “hard conclusions” that “touch the essence of our constitutional state.”
There is great political consensus about the excessive fraud hunt that resulted in the Benefits Scandal. The government’s attitude must be different, less distrustful of citizens, with more attention to ‘the human dimension’. Nevertheless, the parliamentary inquiry committee concludes that the patterns underlying the tough fraud policy “have not yet been broken to this day.” She warns: “Without the right measures, changes and safeguards, the next scandal could easily happen again.”
The call to politicians is therefore clear: change policy policy and quickly work on a different political culture. But how realistic is it that the new House of Representatives and a subsequent cabinet will succeed?
In the fraud report, the committee once again notes that a number of the current potential right-wing coalition partners, led by the PVV and VVD, were at the origin of the strict fraud policy. It was the Rutte I cabinet (VVD-CDA, with tolerable support from the PVV) that opted for a “repressive” policy according to the committee and set a financial target of 180 million euros for combating fraud that had to be achieved.
PVV MP Roland van Vliet is quoted, who in 2013 called on the cabinet to ensure that “our benefits fund is not plundered.” In those years, the PVV came up with stigmatizing terms such as ‘Poland hotline’ and frequently made the connection in Parliament between fraud and Dutch people with a migration background, a political discourse that would have an impact on the institutional racism in the Benefits Scandal.
The PVV has not changed its position when it comes to tackling fraud. Where the party writes in its latest election manifesto that it is against an “almighty government that crushes people as in the Benefits Scandal”, it states a few sentences further: “We will no longer be fooled by fraudsters. Benefit fraud and abuse of our social security are being tackled harshly.”
The VVD’s election manifesto had a different tone. The liberals want to “promote the human dimension” in legislation and regulations and also write: “People who unintentionally make a mistake should not immediately be labeled as fraudsters.” Those nice words do not rhyme with the decisiveness of VVD State Secretary Aukje de Vries, in the outgoing cabinet responsible for the recovery operation Toeslagen. Inspector General Bart Snels said last year NRC that the recovery operation is too complex, with too little attention to what victims need. “Once again, victims have to find their way through the labyrinth like a kind of guinea pig.”
The creation of Pieter Omtzigt’s New Social Contract literally stems from the Benefits Scandal. As a Member of Parliament, Omtzigt fought for the victims for years, and noted in his election manifesto that “the way of doing politics and the existing government parties” no longer offered solutions.
Omtzigt has included concrete points for improvement in its program, such as more room for mediation and opportunities for reassessment. Other spearheads are long-term projects, such as the establishment of a Constitutional Court. This requires a constitutional amendment, a complex and years-long legislative process in advance. The Court therefore, if at all, does not offer solutions for vulnerable citizens in the short term.
Fundamental rights
Crucial to the new political culture that NSC advocates is respect for fundamental rights and more time for legislation, matters that the inquiry committee also fervently advocates. Collaboration with the PVV is sensitive for NSC precisely because of fundamental rights. In the first formation round, the four forming parties drew up a ‘baseline’ in which they promise that their plans remain within the boundaries of the democratic constitutional state and that court decisions are respected.
The fact that the drafting of this text was necessary at all is a bad sign in view of the fraud report, because the committee says that “more attention is needed for fundamental rights, legal principles and the rule of law, both in places where legislation is drawn up and in the implementing organizations”. In other words, the minimum of the formulated baseline seems far from sufficient. And a new, milder political culture is no closer given the tweets of PVV leader Geert Wilders, who continues to lash out at people with a migration background.
Whether there is a right-wing coalition or a different cabinet, one of the major political challenges that still remains is the future of the benefits system. The committee of inquiry notes that both the House of Representatives and the cabinet “have failed to address and solve the fundamental flaws in the benefits system to this day.” The current outgoing cabinet has not dared to undertake reform in recent years, and the next cabinet will certainly have to make a decision about it.
In the House of Representatives, parties from left to right are “in the long term” in favor of abolishing the benefits system. The VVD first advocates simplification and then abolition. NSC proposes in the program that a special parliamentary committee will ‘prepare’ the reform. It all sounds hesitant, even though there are already so many reports. At the beginning of this month, the outgoing cabinet sent a scenario study to Parliament with numerous alternatives to the allowances.
The parties at the formation table may just need some encouragement. Or as the committee of inquiry writes: “Show political courage and abolish the benefits system.”