De Jonge: later revealing a critical report coronapas was a ‘mistake’ Inland

“As soon as it was pointed out to me that we did not send that document to the House as an attachment, I did so,” said De Jonge on Wednesday. He said he was made aware of it just before Christmas, while the advice itself dates from November 17.

The House was initially to debate the introduction of 2G on December 6, but that was postponed due to the emergence of the infectious omicron variant. MPs Pieter Omtzigt and Nicki Pouw-Verweij (JA21) ask in a series of parliamentary questions why the critical emergency advice was not made available to the House for the debate. “We would have had to have that debate without this very crucial information.” said Pouw-Verweij. “Unacceptable.”

“An advice only makes sense if it is made public,” says Omtzigt. “Otherwise, you can put up the new management culture neatly.”

dissatisfaction

The unrest that has arisen about the emergency advice from the Council, which questions, among other things, the proportionality of the measures and the power of the Outbreak Management Team (OMT) in decision-making about the corona pass, is what De Jonge considers ‘a storm in a glass’. water’. The cabinet has already responded to the advice in the Explanatory Memorandum (the explanation of a bill, ed.), so the House could have obtained its information from that, the corona minister argues. According to him, the bill has also been partially amended on the basis of this advice.

“In the Explanatory Memorandum, the House could already read that there was an advice and what the cabinet thought of it. So there is not that much going on with the point about the provision of information to the House. The only mistake is that we did not send the advice ourselves. And when we were reminded of, ‘hey, the advice itself isn’t there!’ we did that anyway.”

However, parts of the advice are not included in the summary of the advice in that Explanatory Memorandum. These are quite crucial and critical points: for example, the Council states that the OMT is not about human rights, that it is unclear what epidemiological picture can lead to an end to freedom-restricting measures, and the Council wonders what the situation is with regard to employees. who cannot show a corona pass and whether they can be fired for it.

‘Nothing held back’

When asked, De Jonge says that he understands that the House would have liked the full advice, and not just the government’s response to the advice. “Of course, that’s why such an attachment is also sent. The point is just that there’s now a suggestion of ‘oh, a piece has been held back’. Well, not at all. A piece was not sent that should have been sent. Many letters go out every day, and there is sometimes a mistake in between.”

The hard-hitting report from the Council for the Judiciary is no reason for De Jonge to review the intended expansion of the corona pass in the workplace and the introduction of 2G. “The line of the cabinet is just clear: if you don’t want to be in lockdown for longer than necessary, you will have to introduce 2G. It is ultimately up to the House to make that choice. But the cabinet is clear: we are in favor of 2G as soon as that is possible again in terms of infection numbers, and I hope and expect that the House will eventually make that choice, no matter how much they hiccup.

–