Bosma wrote on Friday that ‘new research will not produce relevant facts’, but a chamber majority thinks that such research is needed to ‘get the bottom stone above’ and therefore wants Bosma to map the options for a possible follow -up research.

NSC and BBB necessarily want a follow -up investigation, they let them know in a debate about the functioning of the House of Representatives. “This issue does not let anyone go,” says Marieke Wijen-Nass (BBB) ​​about the Affaire-Art that has been occupying the room for three years now. According to Jesse Six Dijkstra (NSC), there is therefore ‘every reason to conduct a follow-up exam’. “I have great difficulty following this. There is an image of leaks and withholding of information.”

GL/PvdA, VVD, SP and CU are slightly more reserved. They also think that more should be done than what Bosma proposes itself, but for the time being do not know what steps they take after Bosma’s answer. The Chamber President says he wants to map out the options for next steps prior to a larger debate in September, but continues the responsible person at the Chamber. “If the room wants it, she has to do it herself.”

ARB-SAR

After the summer recess, an extensive parliamentary debate will take place anyway about the case that started three years ago with the investigation into cross -border behavior of former Chamber President Khadija Arib (PvdA). That research was started in 2022 on the initiative of the then Presidium, the daily management of the Lower House of which Aribs successor Vera Bergkamp (D66) was the chairman at the time.

Before Arib knew about it, the existence of the investigation leaked into NRC. Earlier, the National Criminal Investigation Research also showed that Bergkamp played a dubious role in the ‘case-Arub’. For example, she knew information in order to evade the law. During a recent lawsuit against an official who is suspected of leaking confidential information from that investigation, the OM explicitly hinted that there is still much unclear about the state of affairs concerning the fall of Arib.

The Public Prosecution Service cannot conduct this research itself because it may be Poltics. Their behavior can only be investigated by the Supreme Court on behalf of the House of Representatives. This is how it is regulated by law, Chamber President Martin Bosman emphasizes. For example, the Chamber can ask the Attorney General at the Supreme Court to start an investigation when there are indications of an official crime by a parliamentarian. “The presidency does not play a role in that,” says Bosma. “If the room wants it, she can do it. A procedure to the Supreme Court is long and heavy, but this is pure to the room.”

Room wants more clarification for further steps

The House of Representatives has doubts about further steps in the STA. Many parties want the presidency to clarify more that it has been done lately. For example, Pieter Grinwis (CU) says that he expects more information from the presidum, because the daily parliament has more information than a single Member of Parliament. Barbara Kathmann (GL/PvdA) wants maximum information to be able to weigh such a decision.

According to Bosma, research is superfluous in addition to that of the National Criminal Investigation Department. “This is about the mother of all investigations,” as he describes the work of the specialized investigation service that conducts research into such matters at the government. “I don’t know if we can make a contribution to that as a Chamber.”

So far, Bosma has been forced to map the possibilities for such a follow -up research. A proposal from Marieke Wijen-Nass (BBB) ​​to inform the Chamber shortly after recess about ‘all the ways in which further investigation can take place’ can count on a majority of the Chamber. In addition to BBB, the motion is also supported by GL/PvdA, VVD, NSC, SP and CU. Bosma has also promised to do this.

ttn-2