A good parliamentary committee of inquiry prepares its research proposal in silence, does not comment on the subject to be investigated in the meantime and puts aside party political differences – both in the preparatory phase and during the interrogations.
These are important principles that made surveys successful in the past, says Dirk Jan Wolffram (University of Groningen) professor of the history of governance and politics in the modern era. And it is precisely the things that do not seem to be going well with the committee that is currently preparing the survey into corona policy. “This committee has yet to find a well-functioning mode.”
In the corona committee, which currently consists of nine MPs, unrest broke out last week. Some members complained NRC about the behavior of MPs Wybren van Haga (BVNL) and Pepijn van Houwelingen (FVD), both of whom are known to be very corona-skeptical. It has long irritated many committee members that, despite their work in the committee, they continue to speak sharply about corona policy in public.
In a parliamentary debate last week, Van Haga called the policy “nonsensical” and “totalitarian” while other committee members had deliberately refrained from participating in it. Van Houwelingen continued to get angry by suggesting in an online interview that the vaccination policy might be “the crime of the century”.
Constructive conversations
After hours of meeting in a crisis atmosphere, the committee decided on Monday to continue with Van Haga and Van Houwelingen for the time being. According to acting committee chair Mariëlle Paul (VVD), “constructive talks” had been held, but firm new agreements do not seem to have been made. Sources around the committee say that Van Haga continues to refuse to refrain from participating in corona debates. Van Houwelingen says in a response: “I will just keep doing what I always do, not much will change.”
I’ll just keep doing what I always do, not much will change that Pepijn van Houwelingen
Professor Wolffram calls it “inevitable” that MPs with dissenting opinions are also included in the committee of inquiry. “Those sounds also sounded in society during the corona crisis, so it is good in that respect.” Wolffram did see, however, that committees of inquiry could operate effectively in the past when ‘partisan political contradictions’, for example in public interrogations, faded into the background and committee members complemented each other. “As committee members you don’t have to agree on the quality of the policy, but you do have to agree on the nature of the problem to be investigated. That seems difficult if MPs such as Van Haga and Van Houwelingen deny that a pandemic has occurred.”
Surprisingly enough, the committee is actually positive about the substantive progress. The irritation of some members is really about the profiling of Van Haga and Van Houwelingen to the outside world, the internal atmosphere at the weekly meetings on Monday is generally said to be ‘good’. Committee members expect that the research proposal, containing the questions to be researched, can be presented within a few weeks.
What research questions does a committee come up with that looks at corona policy so differently? On the committee’s website states that themes such as the provision of information to the House of Representatives, the organization of the crisis organization and the legal basis for the measures taken must be discussed in the survey. The committee has also decided that the survey should be ‘a supplement’ to the investigation by the Dutch Safety Board (OVV). The OVV has already published two thick reports on the crisis, a third will be published later this year.
Read also: Jeroen Dijsselbloem: ‘You cannot speak as firmly as you have done about a virus that you do not know’
The first two OVV reports, for example, already discussed the high death toll in nursing homes, the slow start of the vaccination campaign and the lack of clarity about the exact effectiveness of the various measures.
It is inevitable that the committee of inquiry will again partially touch on these themes, sources close to the committee say, for example when it comes to the precise timing and results of the lockdowns. Proponents and opponents of the phenomenon of lockdowns could investigate this, it is heard. After all, the answer to the question of whether they were effective can vary: from ‘the lockdowns were introduced too late and not strict enough’ to ‘they were not proven to be effective and did lead to a demonstrable amount of social damage’.
Face mask deal
The committee also has several questions about the mouth mask policy. Part of the committee would especially like to know whether the Netherlands could not have arranged more protective equipment for, for example, nursing homes earlier, while other members would like to remove the last ambiguity about the precise role of former minister Hugo de Jonge (CDA) in the controversial face mask deal with Sywert van Lienden.
The question is whether the Committee can come to similar conclusions and recommendations with such different perspectives. A solution to this could be for MPs such as Van Haga and Van Houwelingen to include in the final report not to endorse all of the committee’s conclusions.
Another solution to the division could be that the composition of the committee changes. Normally, the members of the preparatory committee also take place in the committee that then conducts the interrogations. The current committee includes many members of small factions, such as Van Haga, but also the one-person Liane den Haan and Pieter Omtzigt. Doing the entire survey is a lot of work for them and it has the disadvantage that they will not be very visible in debates in the House of Representatives for a short time.
MPs like Van Haga would then really take a step back themselves, because the committee has no options to expel members. There will also be a vacancy for the chairmanship: VVD member Paul has previously indicated that she does not want to remain chairman because she is a member of a coalition party that shaped the corona policy.