In compensating the victims of the Supplementary Affair, many administrative conventions are being overhauled. Or they just get a kick.
This was also evident last week, when the highest administrative court the cabinet and the House of Representatives accused of having made ‘very consciously’ unattainable promises to the victims. Namely, that every objection or appeal is decided within three months – a period that is so often not met that the court in Utrecht only extended it to twelve months. Especially to limit the accumulation of penalty payments, which must be paid to the petitioner if deadlines are exceeded.
The Council of State rejected that extension of the decision periods last week in principle. The legislature should resolve this itself, not the court, was the conclusion.
This automatically placed outgoing State Secretary Aukje de Vries (Finance, VVD) in the spotlight. If only she wanted to end the large-scale leakage of penalty payments.
‘Unprecedented injustice’
The cabinet has been going for a while all out with people, resources and procedures to compensate the benefit parents. The Supplementary Affair arose roughly from 2017 with false suspicions of fraud from several tens of thousands of parents, often based on ethnic prejudices at the tax authorities, followed by a harsh recovery policy. The parliamentary inquiry committee summed up the affair in the title of its report; Unprecedented injustice.
Also read this article: The government pays more than 9 million for the slow handling of the benefits affair
The recovery operation is now starting to show features of the Supplementary Affair itself. With proliferation as the central theme – of penalty payments, but also of compensation schemes with accompanying expanding civil service organisations. The cabinet has budgeted around 60 million euros for penalty payments alone in the coming years; to citizens who have to wait too long for a decision on compensation.
The Progress Report of the State Secretary, published in June, shows that the number of parents who believe they are entitled to compensation will probably rise to over 68,000 this year, 5,000 more than expected last year. After an initial official test, 70 percent dropped out again this year: they turned out not to be entitled to it. In the meantime, it cannot be ruled out that there were many ‘calculating’ citizens among them – those who know that they are not entitled to anything, but are aiming for a penalty for ‘failing to make a decision in time’. Such ‘casino litigation’ is on the rise in administrative law, often fueled by professional appeal agencies.
Also read this article: Restoration operation Benefit affair ready at the end of 2026? Cabinet is back again
On average, half of the applicants appear to be eligible for compensation. So far, this has involved a total of approximately 29,500 parents. The last Spring Memorandum is 1.3 billion euros additional earmarked for the recovery operation, the total cost is now estimated at a staggering 7.1 billion.
Of that amount, about 5.1 billion is earmarked for direct compensation to the victims, an amount that must be distributed fairly. Implementation costs are rising. In the first two years of the recovery operation, 2021 and 2022, 18 percent and 23 percent of the recovery budget respectively went to the civil service: personnel and accommodation. That has now grown to 30 percent, partly due to the efforts of external organisations.
Tight labor market
The number of recovery officers, initially estimated at 1,700, should reach 2,350 next year. Almost four times as many employees as the entire Education Inspectorate. The objections and appeals departments must grow from 300 to 660 jobs. However, this expansion is lagging behind ‘because of a tight labor market’. The last objections from parents should be completed by the end of 2026.
State Secretary De Vries writes to the House that she wants to accelerate and improve via “alternative routes”. For example, prefer mediation and (civil) settlement agreements to administrative law procedures. With such a civil agreement, the parent should be given ‘more control’, she hopes. Moreover, she expects to gain time: no appeal can be lodged against such an agreement.
She also promises that the government will sooner assume ‘causality’ between the damage and the benefits incident. Adverse financial consequences for parents of court decisions are limited as much as possible. If the state wins and is allowed to recover money, it will be waived.
The State Secretary also proposes more ‘additional routes’, outside the courts, also with external guidance, intended to lower the threshold and increase speed. But she also sees a disadvantage: “The effect may be that more parents than expected register, which has an effect on the speed with which everyone is helped.”
Every offer therefore provokes demand – and thus more applicants. Which then need to be re-evaluated.