Tom van der Lee (GroenLinks) is chairman of the parliamentary committee of inquiry into gas production in Groningen. After two years of intensive research, he and his six fellow committee members presented a tough final report. An interview.
The report states that the possible criminal prosecution of NAM, Shell and ExxonMobil has been a real game changer. How do you see that?
“This was completely new to me during the interrogations. I knew that the Groninger Soil Movement wanted to start a criminal case, but it caused a major change in thinking among the oils. That as a director of such a large multinational as Shell or NAM you could be prosecuted. Yes, that is felt in the board room. So a real game changer, because the oil companies wanted to get rid of the responsibility. And then phase it out as quickly as possible.”
Were there more moments like that for you?
“Well, Huizinge and that State Supervision of Mines drew up a report that gas extraction should be reduced as quickly and realistically as possible. And that the only official at the Ministry of Economic Affairs with some geological knowledge also says: SodM is right. We must apply the precautionary principle to prevent irreversible damage in Groningen. But he was not listened to. And when you hear that in the same period there was the possibility to make 20 billion cubic meters of pseudo-Groningen gas, so that less gas was needed from Groningen, and that that information is hardly passed on. Not even the minister. And so colored that it is not taken seriously.”
What did you do during the research?
“Conversations with victims. During the public interrogations, but also at people’s homes in Groningen. Some interrogations with victims… When you hear a mother tell during the interrogations that she has failed her children due to all the misery. For example, I visited Jan and Liefke Munneke at that beautiful farm in Krewerd. Their shed had completely destroyed the house due to the earthquake. There were cracks from top to bottom. Jan and Liefke have had a very tough fight. Shortly after I visited them, she was diagnosed as terminally ill. Stuff like that really hits you. As a committee you want to find the truth, so you have to remain objective and not let emotions dominate. But I, and I am sure the rest of the committee, was most touched by those individual stories.”
The title of the report ‘Groningers above gas’ refers to the province’s slogan ‘there is nothing above Groningen’. Is that conscious?
“This slogan of the province has played a role. But it was important to us that we didn’t want to put the molecules on top, but the people of Groningen. It may also be an appeal that it is time for the interests of Groningen citizens to count above the gas.”
It is a solid report with clear judgments about errors that have been made. How easy was it to make such strong statements about the protagonists such as Mark Rutte, Henk Kamp and Jeroen Dijsselbloem?
“Our judgments are based on two years of research in which we made the entire reconstruction over sixty years of gas extraction. It’s not so much about the tone or aftertaste, but finding the truth was our priority. We have, I think, come to this together through substantive discussions. And that happened in good harmony. I also think it’s great that party political boundaries disappeared in such a process. At a certain point you discover things together.”
What will the Groningen people gain from this?
Recognition and recognition are important. This applies not only to the report, but also to the working visits and certainly also to the interrogations. We have put the story in a way that already recognizes the suffering that has been done in Groningen. At the same time, it is also important to come to terms with the history of 60 years of gas extraction. And based on that you try to sketch a new perspective for the future. The claims handling and reinforcement must be improved, but we also think that there is a real debt of honor to Groningen.”
Apologies have been made several times, by directors of Shell, the NAM and not least by Prime Minister Rutte himself, but no follow-up has been given. What would be different now?
“The weight of the survey will hopefully have a greater impact. This committee of inquiry consists of seven members from seven political groups that together have 103 seats in parliament. That also adds weight. We do not have consultations with our groups, that is not possible and is not allowed. But if there is a convincing report, it can have an extra impact. Parliament has never been the one to enforce a reduction in gas production. It was others. So in that sense, parliament can now take a step. But the government may also find the report so convincing that it will take steps itself. We also address not only the cabinet, but also explicitly Shell and ExxonMobil.”
Many residents of Groningen hoped for a recommendation from your committee that the gas tap should be closed this year. But you also hold back: this year and possibly next year. Why?
“Well, we also appreciate the fact that the cabinet sticks to the message: we are going to close the gas tap in 2023 and 2024 at the latest. Within the difficult geopolitical context, that is something, of course. And then, frankly, it doesn’t matter for a few months. It is also not the most productive contribution of the committee of inquiry when we say: it must necessarily go a little faster. But it should be clear that our report shows that we believe that gas extraction should be stopped.”
The report mentions the word disastrous. Has there been a lot of discussion about this, because to what extent is it a disaster when you compare it to the earthquakes in Turkey and Syria?
“We talked about that word for a long time. Look, I’m from the developing world myself. There you have the difference between a ‘slow on set disaster’ and a ‘disaster’, say the acute disaster that is visible to everyone. But in Groningen things went so slowly. And then in a region that is not easily seen by the rest of the country. Then it feels like constant ignorance.
And then another element comes into play: the duration of the disaster. And the duration of the disaster in Groningen is enormous. And then the nuisance, the stress, the consequences for life choices… These are often even greater than the impact of an acute disaster. You can repair a wall. You can build a house, but if you have been in uncertainty for years. If that has consequences for your family, your psychological health, your physical health.
We spoke to children during our working visit to a secondary school who say to us: We do not look beyond secondary school. Who don’t dare to leave because they think they should support their parents. If you add it all up, I think we can use the word disastrous.”
One of the recommendations is that extra money should go to the province and municipalities in the region, for a longer period of time. Will the money reach the citizens?
“Yes, that is clearly stated. We write that the claims handling and reinforcement must be improved and less legal attention is needed. That means more needs to be done for individual people. Local administrators must do sensible things with the extra money to the municipal and provincial funds. We are not going to determine that, that is up to the city council and the people themselves. That makes it democratically controlled.”
Is the wait for Groningen now over?
“This report certainly does not solve everything. Restoring trust is not part of our assignment. But we are convinced that our recommendations can lead to real improvements.”