Why should the library be closed and Primark and IKEA allowed to stay open? Why is there a deviation from the roadmap and why did the cabinet not intervene earlier? Although the House of Representatives understands the announced tightening of the ‘partial lockdown’ in the parliamentary debate on Wednesday, there was also strong criticism of the corona measures.
“I do not immediately understand why the cabinet has opted for these specific measures,” said Rob Jetten in the debate where both coalition and opposition were looking for the logic behind the policy.
Kees van der Staaij (SGP): “This is no longer the first wave, the House is more critical and wants to know why some measures are being taken.”
Several parties found it incomprehensible that museums, theaters and libraries should be locked for the next two weeks while busy shops may remain open. Lilian Marijnissen (SP): “We are still allowed to go to the hardware store, but no longer walk with family or friends.”
Cabinet does not adjust measures, despite criticism
The fact that museums must back in is incomprehensible. Jesse Klaver (GroenLinks): “It is precisely the cultural sector that has taken measures with, among other things, fewer visitors.” He wanted to know what consideration the cabinet has made to allow crowds in the shops, but close museums and especially community centers and libraries. It is precisely these institutions that should remain open because of their social and societal function.
According to Prime Minister Mark Rutte, the closure is necessary to reduce travel movements and contact moments. He could not give a good explanation as to why the travel movements and contacts at the large retail chains would be different from the library.
He did assure that the evaluations would show that this would be a good measure, but what exactly the closure means for the reproduction number could not be said.
Although the prime minister acknowledged that libraries and community centers play an important social role, he has no plans to reconsider the new package of measures.
The tightening of the ‘partial lockdown’ should ensure that the pressure on healthcare is relieved at a faster pace. The number of positive corona tests is declining, but is still high and is declining at a much slower rate. The second wave in which the Netherlands is in the middle will therefore put a heavier burden on healthcare.
Criticism of course: ‘What is the cabinet aiming for?’
That the cabinet is still intervening hard, amazes the PvdA, among others. Lodewijk Asscher called on the cabinet, including GroenLinks and the SP, to take tougher action earlier. Asscher repeated his call to get testing, tracing and isolation in order in order to be able to effectively contain the virus more quickly.
The SP also repeated that harder action should have been taken earlier. “A short, hard blow is better for the economy, because the lockdown lasts shorter.” Prime Minister Rutte said that the cabinet also has to take the economic consequences into account. To the question of what the calculation of the economic consequences of the current measures is, the prime minister had no answer to the SP.
Criticism of the course is also cautious from the coalition. The ChristenUnie is starting to wonder whether the cabinet is now focusing on what healthcare can handle, or on quickly containing the virus. “Can we make it easy by clarifying where we are steering?”, Says Gert-Jan Segers.
Criticism of ‘shopping’ from roadmap
He also had questions about the roadmap that should have made policy more predictable. “I cannot trace all of the measures back to the roadmap,” said Segers. “Now I see different measures from different phases, such as from the very serious phase. Sometimes they even go beyond the lockdown phase.”
Jetten was referring to people planning their wedding and are now surprised that the maximum group size has been unexpectedly adjusted. “A roadmap brings predictability and confidence, but unexpected or not well-founded measures actually gnaw at that support.”
According to the Prime Minister, this ‘consolidation package’ is necessary and expressly limited to two weeks. He agreed with the House that the goal of the roadmap, which is to provide people with predictability, must remain intact, but added that the cabinet can deviate from it if the situation requires it, and that is now. “One in a hundred people is now contagious. That is an enormous number,” said Rutte. He is considering including an ‘aggravation option’ in the roadmap.
There was also criticism of the unexpected return to a regional approach. Earlier this was abandoned because it turned out that mayors, safety regions and the cabinet looked at each other to see who was responsible for the intervention. This time, the cabinet will take the plunge, Rutte assured Tuesday.
But the fact that the chairman of the security regions, Hubert Bruls, has openly opposed the cabinet’s wishes, bothers the CDA and the ChristenUnie, among others. Segers: “It doesn’t help if you get a public discussion about whether the regional approach is good or not.”
Rutte: ‘Majority understands a curfew’
The discussion about the usefulness of the regional lockdown was also held in Parliament. According to PVV leader Geert Wilders, the cabinet should abandon the curfew as soon as possible. “It is reminiscent of the darkest times we have experienced in this country.”
He referred to a meeting earlier in the day with RIVM boss Jaap van Dissel who said that a curfew can increase urgency. Wilders thinks this is insufficient and argues that people’s freedoms should not be curtailed in such a drastic way if it is not clear what the exact impact is on the infection figures. The measure is also going too far with regard to D66.
According to the prime minister, the measure is necessary in regions where things are really bad. The curfew, which would apply from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m., could help prevent the number of infections in home situations. The cabinet is not allowed to intervene behind the front door, but hopes that the measure will do something about infections in home situations.
He defended the curfew and contested the suggestion that there would be no support for it in society. “A majority of the Dutch who adhere to the rules are fed up that a small part is ruining the rest.”
– .
