When the Ministry of Health sent a letter to the chairman of the Dutch Safety Board on 10 December last year, signatory Hugo de Jonge knew that he would not return as a minister in his department. It was in the final period of the formation, the talks about the ministerial posts were in the concluding phase. That his ‘corona ministership’ would end a month later was not a coincidence, nor was it the result of a negotiation in which the CDA had drawn the short straw. The party did not want to supply the Minister of Health again. De Jonge was disappointed about that, but he did want to continue.
A month earlier, in November, the Ministry of Health had received an inspection version of the first study that the Dutch Safety Board (OVV) had conducted into the approach to the corona crisis until September 2020. The council draws on the basis of research and discussions with those involved. lessons that also deal with Hugo de Jonge’s actions.
Also read the analysis: Corona report shows powerless and unwilling government
man on the moon-strategy
Thus, the so-called man on the moonDe Jonge’s strategy has been criticized: it happened several times that he made big promises publicly, despite the executives warning him beforehand that it would not work. For example, De Jonge promised in May 2020 that anyone with complaints could be tested at the GGD from 1 June. That health service considered that an “unachievable task”. The date was taken off the table, but on the same day De Jonge announced in a corona press conference that large-scale testing would start on June 1.
Hugo de Jonge needed six full pages for his response in December, in which he contradicts many of the findings of the Dutch Safety Board. Contrary to the council’s opinion, for example, he believes that at the start of the crisis “the seriousness and impact of infectious diseases had indeed been assessed on the basis of (scientific) knowledge at the time”.
The council establishes a connection between declining public confidence in the crisis approach and the periods ‘when the connection between policy and implementation faltered’ and the ‘promises and expectations expressed by the government proved unattainable in practice’. De Jonge notes that chapters in the report ‘do not contain examples of concrete decisions, substantiation or promises that the government has not fulfilled, making it difficult to provide concrete comments’.
In a hall in the House of Representatives building, with behind him screens where the corona debate was broadcast, Hugo de Jonge did not want to respond substantively to the letter he wrote two months ago. “It will be responded to by the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport, on behalf of the cabinet, but not by me. I am now Minister for Housing. It’s not my wallet anymore.”
wronged
De Jonge also pointed out that his response was to the draft report. Apart from the amendment proposals made by VWS, this does not differ significantly from the final report.
The authorities involved had been given the opportunity by the OVV to submit amendment proposals – and they also made use of this. In addition to VWS, also the Ministry of General Affairs of Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) and RIVM, where Jaap van Dissel is director of infectious disease control. Only Hugo de Jonge decided to send a letter in addition.
“Remarkable”, said OVV chairman Jeroen Dijsselbloem on Wednesday when he presented his research report. “The inspection procedure is actually intended to indicate very factually what is incorrect on which page, and why. This letter stands out.” He repeated the qualification of a journalist who had called Hugo de Jonge’s tone “wronged” in his letter. And: “We look at it purely factually. I’m afraid most of it was refutable. Everyone can find what they want, we check if it’s right. If not, it will remain as it is.”
De Jonge’s letter also casts a shadow on the government response that is expected in the course of March. The current Minister of Health, Ernst Kuipers (D66), will have to do something with the reaction of his predecessor: take over or distance himself from it. On Wednesday, after the report was presented, Kuipers did neither. He only said that “Hugo de Jonge has made use of the adversarial procedure”.
Responsibility
“Kuipers bears no responsibility for that letter from De Jonge,” says parliamentary historian Bert van den Braak. “He is responsible for the government response that is yet to come.”
In that regard, Van den Braak thinks that De Jonge has mainly made it difficult for himself. “De Jonge will have to agree with the government response. If he doesn’t, there will be a problem. Such a response must be unanimously determined by the Council of Ministers.” Since De Jonge’s criticism has not been taken up by the OVV, a situation may arise in which De Jonge, as Minister for Housing, now agrees with a reaction with which Hugo de Jonge, as Minister of Health, would previously disagree.
The second part of the OVV investigation is expected around the summer. For that follow-up study, interviews are currently being conducted with, among others, Hugo de Jonge.