The House of Representatives debated for hours on Wednesday about the hard-hitting report ‘Groningers above gas’ by the parliamentary committee of inquiry into gas extraction in Groningen. Parliament tried to hold up a mirror to itself, but partly went into a spasm when something was pushed too deep into the wound. Six things that stood out.
The role of Prime Minister Mark Rutte and his “incredible” performance
The committee of inquiry had judged rather leniently about the dealings of Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) in the entire gas extraction and earthquake dossier, according to part of the House of Representatives. On Thursday, he wants to get a clearer picture of how the committee sees the actions and role of the Prime Minister. In the report ‘Groningers above gas’ it is reported that the committee has established that “the Prime Minister has not intervened in time in the policy of line ministers. [zoals Henk Kamp en Eric Wiebes]”. Rutte also “has not made a difference for Groningers”.
PvdA Member of Parliament Henk Nijboer calls this an observation. But what political consequences this should have remains too vague. Nijboer was very critical of VVD Prime Minister Rutte, who calls it “incredible” that the prime minister stated under oath that he only realized in 2018 what the impact of the high gas extraction in 2013 meant for Groningen residents. The PvdA member – and others as well – subtly pointed out to the committee that Rutte was in a talk show with angry Groningers during the campaign for the 2017 parliamentary elections. Sandra Beckerman (SP) found the interrogation with Rutte “the most disruptive interrogation”. Group leader Caroline van der Plas (BBB) was also skeptical and wondered under what rock the prime minister had been living. The BoerBurgerBeweging also wants a political opinion from the committee of inquiry about the Prime Minister’s actions. Rutte was also accused on several occasions that he or his cabinet have still not responded substantively. Van der Plas: ,,He is the only one in the cabinet who has been on top of things all these years. He could have written the report himself.” The PVV was the most outspoken: Rutte should just go, said Alexander Kops.
Strong and emotional speech Sandra Beckerman
“Six years ago I only asked one question: House of Representatives, let this happen even longer?” With a trembling lip and a sob in her voice, SP Member of Parliament Sandra Beckerman says that “the House of Representatives has allowed it to happen”. According to her, the House of Representatives has failed. Just before that, she mentioned in her speech how she asked this one question on April 20, 2018, during her maiden speech as a Member of Parliament.
The speech of the member of parliament from Groningen, adored by many earthquake victims, was one of great class. She hit the right chord, had emotion at the right time and was full of self-reflection about the role of parliament and the cabinet. “Coalition interests often ensure that matters raised by the opposition are blocked.” It was ‘one-persons’ Pieter Omtzigt and BBB party chairman Caroline van der Plas who wholeheartedly supported Beckerman’s speech and walked especially to the microphone to tell her this.
Humble and self-critical House of Representatives
It is a “political mortal sin” that the House of Representatives is not well informed from time to time. Incorrect even. “But we cannot just hide behind that,” said SP Member of Parliament Beckerman. Because, according to her, the same House of Representatives has also largely agreed to set up a system in which the claims handling (by IMG) and reinforcement (by NCG) have been pulled apart. “We have also not agreed in majority with a proposal to reduce gas extraction. When I wanted insight into all contacts between the Dutch state and oil companies Shell and ExxonMobil, that was voted down by a majority vote.”
Various factions acknowledged that the House was often insufficiently informed by the cabinet. The committee writes that the House was unable to properly perform its task “because of this structural lack of information”.
Many parties allowed themselves to hold up a mirror to themselves, their own party, but also the entire House of Representatives. Where former Member of Parliament Liesbeth van Tongeren already concluded during her interrogation that parliament around Groningen “had failed”, the opposition also acknowledged this outright. The members of parliament who have done Groningen over the years were not always sharp enough.
What stuck was that the House did make attempts to take a critical look at itself. Words like “shame” fell. And that it could have been better and that the politicians in The Hague “dropped stitches”.
The entire House of Representatives? Well no, there were also parties that tried to push it away. D66 for example.
“Really president? Was this the block of self-reflection?” Sandra Beckerman of opposition party SP could not hide her surprise in any way after VVD MP Jeroen van Wijngaarden indicated that he was done with his block of politics. It was striking how much the MPs of coalition parties VVD, D66 and ChristenUnie floated to the surface when it came to their own role and that of their political groups. PVV member Kops called Groningen “a VVD problem” over the past ten years. Other factions pointed to the inquiry committee’s finding that the House of Representatives failed to “get through coalition agreements”.
Really deep ideas about what should be done differently in parliament, in order to strengthen their own position in relation to the government, did not come from VVD or D66. To the disappointment of a large part – read: the opposition – of the House of Representatives.
The independent Member of Parliament Pieter Omtzigt made the most of it. He expected proposals from a party like D66, which nevertheless attaches great importance to democratic renewal. “If we get questions about coalition pressure, I also expect reflection on that coalition pressure,” said Omtzigt, who wanted to know from D66 how they want to improve Article 68 in the law (the government’s obligation to provide information to the House of Representatives). But he received no substantive answer from D66.
Even when Omtzigt wanted to raise the issue of “party political discipline”, the coalition rows closed. But Omtzigt poked an open wound. According to him, MPs of the coalition are being pressured to vote along with the wishes of the cabinet. “When we start talking about party political discipline, I notice that in this country [en in de Tweede Kamer], the shutters close completely.” Omtzigt wanted the House of Representatives to deal with this in a “relaxed” way. After all, he wanted to know whether the Gas Extraction Groningen Committee of Inquiry has been put under pressure. “If I can’t ask that question, after everything that has happened here, I find it insulting,” he snapped at D66.
A positive exception was CDA Member of Parliament Agnes Mulder. She simply admitted that she “greatly regretted” the fact that the reinforcement approach per village/residential area disappeared from the table. Mulder took a good look at her own role and that of her party. “I failed too and I think that’s terrible.”
Former coalition MPs CDA and PvdA feel, with today’s knowledge, cheated by the then Rutte cabinet
Northern MPs Henk Nijboer (PvdA) and Agnes Mulder (CDA) were already in the House of Representatives ten years ago when the high gas extraction of 2013 was discussed. Almost 54 billion cubic meters of gas was extracted then. Necessary, the cabinet said at the time. That appears to be very different now. 20 billion cubic meters less could easily have been extracted. Nijboer and Mulder feel cheated, they said during the debate. “We have always been told by the cabinet: Because of the security of supply, this must continue. It is irresponsible to reduce gas production. Hospitals have to close. When I saw the interrogations and heard that it wasn’t… I felt betrayed and cheated. I have been cheated and cheated,” said Nijboer, who was then a member of the coalition. “That turns out to be just a lie. Unprecedented in a democracy.”
Uncertainty about the debt of honor
Recommendation 11 of the committee of inquiry concerns the debt of honor that the Netherlands owes to the region of Groningen, North Drenthe and its inhabitants. But what exactly is that, Joost Eerdmans (JA21) wondered aloud. That was not always clear during the debate. It was cited many times. In any case, PvdA member Nijboer believes that the cabinet should invest in Groningen for sixty years to pay off that debt of honor. That is a structural solution, says Nijboer, for a region where general practitioners are closing, bus lines are being canceled and hospitals are being merged. D66 talked about the “most child-friendly region” of the Netherlands where the perspective is no longer underground, but in the bright minds of young people.
On Thursday afternoon and evening, the seven committee members, chaired by Tom van der Lee (GroenLinks), will address the many comments. And therefore undoubtedly also to the question: What is that debt of honor?
