The documents show that officials from the police and the Ministry of Justice and Security were at odds with the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. The latter was of the opinion that protecting public health was not a valid reason to be able to fine on the basis of the Passenger Transport Act.
On the other hand, the police and the Ministry of Justice and Security stated that boas are simply responsible for enforcement in public transport, and therefore also for the mask obligation. The police also pointed out that fines for non-compliance with the carriers’ house rules would be lower than for non-compliance with the emergency ordinance. “That is also better for enforcement because a lower fine is expected to lead to less resistance,” a police legal adviser wrote.
Self-maintenance
On May 14, 2020, the day the cabinet informed the House of Representatives about the mask obligation, it was still not clear who should enforce it. However, Justice Minister Grapperhaus had already made it clear behind the scenes that the police did not have to show up for this. An official wrote: “Minister JenV wants to prevent a discussion at all costs about whether the police should enforce this. Public transport must enforce itself.”
The parties were also arguing about when boas could ask the police for help, the documents show. The police only wanted to draw up a report after a report. “There must therefore actually have been a criminal offense and not a name-calling”, reads an internal memo.
Compromise
After weeks of squabbles, a compromise was reached in mid-May: the mask obligation formally falls under the corona emergency regulation, but it is the boas who enforce whether the carriers’ corona rules are followed. It has been laid down in final agreements that they can call on the police if things threaten to escalate. According to the police, this was necessary a number of times at the start of the mask obligation, although the police cannot say how often exactly.
The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management says in a response that the consultation was under great time pressure but was “open and result-oriented”. According to the public transport companies, the discussion about the mask obligation was necessary “to clarify what the division of roles would be”.
–
