Well. Not. Or again? The parliamentary inquiry into the approach to the corona crisis seems to be getting a new chance, now that the House of Representatives on Wednesday supported a motion by the PVV for a restart. Have all the stumbling blocks suddenly disappeared?
At the end of 2021, the House of Representatives voted unanimously, 150 to 0, in favor of a survey. A temporary preparatory committee got to work and came up with a proposal in May of this year. But then it turned out that support in Parliament had disappeared. Only the PVV, FVD, Wybren van Haga, JA21, Pieter Omtzigt and Liane den Haan wanted to delegate MPs. The other factions waited or did not want to; The formal reason given was that the third – and final – report of the Dutch Safety Board (OVV) on the government’s corona approach had to be awaited.
There was much more going on informally. There has been fuss ever since the preparatory committee started its work. The parties appeared to disagree about which questions and topics should be investigated. The committee included corona-sceptic MPs such as Pepijn van Houwelingen (FVD) and Wybren van Haga, who criticized the corona approach in media appearances and debates, and MPs who wondered whether the measures had gone far enough.
Adjust proposal
So an impasse. Until last Wednesday evening. Then the House turned out to be as unanimous as before. Within four weeks, the parties must – if they wish – appoint an MP for the committee. The pressure is high: research into corona policy has already been conducted in many other countries – or it is still ongoing, such as in the United Kingdom.
The question is: what has changed since the criticism in May? The answer: little. Although the OVV’s third, extensive research report has now been presented and Van Houwelingen and Van Haga have disappeared from Parliament (although the FVD can delegate another Member of Parliament), the research proposal itself remains unchanged. However, political relations have changed after the elections. Parties such as the PVV, BBB and NSC, which are in favor of investigation, won significantly.
In order to also gain support from other parties, the PVV included in its motion that “limited changes/reductions to the research proposal” can be discussed. The big question is how different parties interpret this. Are these minor changes or does the proposal need to be significantly rewritten? Should it be expanded?
Some parties fear that research based on the current proposal will become “just a settlement with the cabinet” and want significant adjustments. Yet there is “no longer a good argument for not doing a survey,” says MP Pieter Grinwis of the Christian Union. “Look carefully at how exactly you are going to complete the assignment and then just let it happen.”
Also read
Critical report accuses the government of a one-sided view during the corona crisis: only the IC beds counted
Cut it up
The survey will be discussed further at the procedural meeting of the House Committee on Healthcare next Wednesday. One of the options is to split it up: first see how and where the research proposal needs to be adjusted, then appoint people to the real inquiry committee. But that takes a lot of time, while PVV, NSC and BBB want to speed things up. NSC has even explicitly included in its election manifesto that “the parliamentary inquiry into corona will start quickly”.
Even if that works, there is still a problem: a survey will take a lot of time and many factions are small. The question is which factions have enough people to delegate someone. The Christian Union (three seats), Grinwis says, will in any case miss out.
Reading list