A majority of the Senate wants to be able to participate in decisions in the future about corona measures that the cabinet wants to take. Ten opposition factions (41 out of 75 seats) have sent a letter to Minister Ernst Kuipers (Public Health, D66) in which they demand that the new, permanent corona law states that the Senate may also participate in the decision-making process about what corona measures should look like. . The letter, about what Fidelity Saturday publishedis in the hands of NRC.
The cabinet is currently working on a new corona law. In fact, it is a legislative amendment to the Public Health Act (Wpg) and the cabinet wants to obtain permanent powers to take measures that limit fundamental rights in the event of the coronavirus flaring up again. Previously, this was always done in the Temporary Covid-19 Measures Act, but because the Senate voted against a fifth extension in May, it expired on 1 June. The curfew is not included as a possible measure in the new corona law, but it is, for example, the mouth cap obligation, the distance rule and the closing of public places.
Criticism
The Upper House, the letter states, “has always insisted” that it can also participate in decisions about “granting and putting into effect and keeping” powers with which the cabinet can institute corona measures. The House also wants to have a say in the ‘content of the measures’ that can then be taken. The current proposal does not meet those requirements, according to the letter writers.
The Party for the Animals has taken the initiative for the letter and it has been signed by all opposition groups, except by the SGP: the SP, PvdA, GroenLinks, Fractie-Nanninga, Fractie-Otten, PVV, 50PLUS, Forum for Democracy and Fractie- frentrop. Because the bill must be approved by the Senate, there is little chance that the new corona law will pass without amendments, since the cabinet does not have a majority in the Senate.
Criticism
Various groups were already critical of the law, including the Dutch Association of Mayors, the Association of Dutch Municipalities, the Security Council and the GGDs. They criticized the drafting of the amendment to the law – mayors and aldermen had wanted to be involved. There is also substantive criticism: the Council of State previously advised that a law should be drawn up to deal with crises in general, while the amendment of the law is very focused on the corona virus.
There is also criticism from Bert van den Braak, professor of parliamentary history and parliamentary system at Maastricht University and researcher at the Montesquieu Institute, on the initiative of the Senate fractions. In a column mentions Van den Braak the proposal to take into account the wish of the Senate ‘unconstitutional’.
The professor states that if Minister Kuipers complies with the requirement, the Senate can from now on determine “what the legislation that it will receive after it has been accepted by the House of Representatives should look like”. Van den Braak describes this state of affairs as ‘the reversed constitutional world’.
Also read: Who is still behind the new corona law?