Hugo de Jonge (CDA) may be housing minister, but the legacy of his period as corona minister continues to haunt him and the rest of the cabinet. Wednesday turned out from reporting from de Volkskrant that De Jonge was involved in the mask deal that the Ministry of Health concluded in 2020 with his then party colleague Sywert van Lienden. Requested documents show that De Jonge had urged a senior official to speak with Van Lienden, because he made a lot of fuss about the pace at which the ministry bought face masks. There was a lot of criticism and a call for clarification from the House of Representatives on Wednesday. De Jonge himself refused to comment on the matter on Wednesday.
It is not the first time that De Jonge has been asked questions about his performance in his previous role. In February it turned out that as corona minister, he had sent a long letter to the Dutch Safety Board, which had investigated the first months of the fight against the corona virus. The council had been very critical, and De Jonge had contradicted many of the conclusions. He did not want to react afterwards either – after all, he is no longer responsible for the file. For example, the list of issues for which Hugo de Jonge was responsible, but for which his successors Ernst Kuipers (D66) and Conny Helder (VVD) must be held accountable, is getting longer.
The deal with Van Lienden turned out to be a deception: Van Lienden supplied 100 million euros worth of largely defective mouth caps and earned millions with it, while he claimed to do everything ‘for free’ out of love for care. Last month, the Public Prosecution Service launched a criminal investigation into the foundation of Van Lienden and his business partners Bernd Damme and Camille van Gestel.
Released apps
De Jonge’s exact involvement in the deal has remained unclear until now. Arranging face masks was formally the responsibility of De Jonge’s then colleague Martin van Rijn and De Jonge claimed last year that he had had no involvement in the agreement. Released apps now show something different. For example, De Jonge asked top official Bas van den Dungen to contact Van Lienden just before Easter. When Van den Dungen had arranged a call with Van Lienden, he texted: “Really a good idea.”
He later wrote to Van den Dungen that he liked to bring in Van Lienden to get rid of his critical tweets to the ministry. „You better that Sywert inside pissing out then have outside pissing in. With a little bit of forbearance it should work. Really hope it works.” The lobbying by De Jonge is remarkable, because officials of the National Tools Consortium were already hesitant about a deal with Van Lienden and warned the ministers. His offer seemedtoo good to be true”, appended Van Den Dungen, for example.
De Jonge’s involvement was not necessarily wrong, says special professor of public affairs Arco Timmermans (Leiden University). “I don’t see a direct conflict of interest here and I can imagine that a minister uses his own network in such a crisis.” Timmermans finds it reprehensible that De Jonge ignored the advice of his own officials. “If you go against the advice of officials, you have to know what you are doing. The deal has turned out to be an embarrassment. That makes this even more painful.”
On Wednesday, De Jonge didn’t want to say much. De Jonge called it “uncomfortable” and said he couldn’t really respond. He did speak of “suggestions” in de Volkskrant “which are not correct”, but went on to say that he first wants to wait for an investigation ordered by the Ministry of Health. That investigation by Deloitte is expected before the summer at the earliest.
The House of Representatives does not want to wait for this and is already demanding clarification in the short term. A majority wants a statement of facts from the ministry before Monday. Attje Kuiken (PvdA) believes that “the bottom stone must be brought out, especially now that it seems that the then minister played a crucial role in these malpractices”. GroenLinks leader Jesse Klaver says he understands that in this crisis “whatever it takes was to solve problems”, but that the department has to admit mistakes. “If you are not honest about what role you have played, you damage trust in politics. That is serious.”
The opposition also wants a quick debate, the House will decide on this next week. It will be interesting to see who will speak on behalf of the cabinet. As far as Kuiken is concerned, De Jonge will also be held accountable.
Constitutional unique
If a majority were to emerge for a debate with De Jonge, that would be unique. The Constitution, says Jon Schilder, professor at the Free University, contains only one important rule: the king is inviolable, the ministers are responsible for their department, and also for the actions of their predecessors. That would now be Ernst Kuipers. “It is irrelevant that Hugo de Jonge is now back in the cabinet in a different role. Under constitutional law, it is about the office, not about the person.” Schilder believes that there is no valid reason to deviate from this system of division of responsibility. But he also agrees that the rules of the game in the relationship between the cabinet and the House are largely determined by them. “In that sense, it is not impossible for the House to call De Jonge to account.”
In the past, however, attempts were made to establish that former ministers would have to answer for themselves at a later date, recalls professor of parliamentary history Bert van der Braak. “In 1921, the Social Democrats in the House of Representatives tried that with a private member’s bill. That didn’t make it. So I would say that it still applies that a former minister cannot be held accountable, even if he holds another cabinet post.”
On Wednesday Hugo de Jonge did answer one question. Does he now think, a journalist asked, ‘if only I had never contacted Sywert van Lienden’? “Certainly not,” said De Jonge. “Everything was done with the right intentions, everything was done in the context of that moment.”
Read also This profile of Sywert van Lienden