Outgoing Minister Mariëlle Paul (Social Affairs, VVD) received criticism from almost all parties on Thursday. The SP called it “a gross scandal” how it announced a drastic change of course on labor migration one day after the elections and submitted a motion of no confidence. The PVV found it “democratically indefensible”. Even her own VVD felt “surprised”, said fellow party member and MP.
Yet Minister Paul can be satisfied after the House of Representatives debate in which she was called to account. Because in terms of content, she gets her way: temporary employment agencies may continue to deduct a quarter of the minimum wage from migrant workers for their housing for the time being.
Paul’s predecessor Eddy van Hijum (NSC) wanted to phase out this option over five years from January 1, to make migrants less dependent on them. Two weeks after she took office, Paul canceled this plan. Another five weeks later she reported this to the House of Representatives, the day after the elections.
MPs were particularly critical of this. Paul’s communication to the House of Representatives consisted of two paragraphs. “Why does it have to take five weeks?” asked Mariëtte Patijn (GroenLinks-PvdA). “Would the minister have found it difficult if this had come back in the election campaign?”
A decision was made about this a long time ago
As a dual outgoing minister, Paul has gone too far, many MPs said, by suddenly changing course on such a sensitive subject, which has been extensively discussed in Parliament. “A decision was made about this a long time ago,” said D66 member Stephan Neijenhuis.
But Mariëlle Paul “did not come to sign the cross,” she said. Based on the same advice and reports on which her predecessor based his decision, she has come to a different conclusion: if temporary employment agencies are no longer allowed to deduct rent from the minimum wage, this will, according to her, “currently lead to too great adverse consequences for migrant workers.”
If employment agencies are no longer allowed to automatically deduct rent, Paul fears that they will stop offering housing to migrant workers. And where should they live? Paul also believes that other laws must first prove themselves. Such as the law that sets stricter admission requirements for employment agencies and should come into effect soon. And a law that is still being worked on should prevent that short stayconstructions, normally intended for holiday homes, are abused to deny migrant workers regular rental protection. As a result, they can suddenly be evicted from their home.
Criticism from left and right
“It really has nothing to do with that,” said Paul. Afterwards she also finds it an “awkward day” but she still maintains that it was not possible earlier. Its officials had to consult with another ministry about the letter to Parliament and that was only completed the day before. “Maybe I should have kept him another week.”
Strikingly enough, the substantive criticism of Paul’s withdrawal also came from both the left and the right. Only Forum for Democracy was fully in favor of retaining the withholding arrangement. FVD MP Pepijn van Houwelingen thought it was positive that migrant workers who lose their jobs are immediately put on the street, because then there is a greater chance that they will return to their country of origin.
PVV and JA21 emphasized that, according to the Labor Inspectorate, the withholding scheme is an “incentive scheme” that encourages labor migration. Because employers can make money from housing migrant workers, but not from employees who already have a house in the Netherlands. The minister wants to keep it worthwhile, said PVV member Maikel Boon, “to attract more and more migrant workers.”
Many parties pointed to the influential committee led by former SP leader Emile Roemer. Five years ago, he urged that migrant workers be made less dependent on their employers. “How does the minister reconcile her decision with that recommendation?” asked Don Ceder (Christian Union). VVD member Claire Martens also “has concerns,” she said, “about that dependency.”
Worked out well
But at the end of the debate it became clear that Mariëlle Paul’s intervention worked out well for her: the House of Representatives does not immediately want to reverse its decision. D66, CDA, VVD and ChristenUnie decided to go along with Paul’s wish to first give other new laws a chance to prove themselves.
The four parties called on the minister, in two different parliamentary motions, to continue preparing for the abolition of the withholding arrangement. But the effective date should coincide with the entry into force of the law against abuse short staycontracts. It is still uncertain when that will be. Officials are still writing that law.
Also read
The Netherlands is becoming less and less popular with migrant workers
NEW: Give this item as a gift
As an NRC subscriber you can subscribe every month 10 items give as a gift to someone without an NRC subscription. The recipient can read the article directly, without a paywall.
Why you can trust NRC