This memo dating from 2017 already concluded that the discontinuation of benefits was unlawful and that a group of 300 parents should be compensated.
The memo, which was drawn up by top lawyer Sandra Palmen of the Benefits Directorate, was discussed internally in 2017, but did not lead to compensation for the aggrieved parents. This was repeated in 2019. In October 2020, the memo came to light by chance, after questions from CDA Member of Parliament Pieter Omtzigt.
–
–
Discussed at ministry
The former boss of the tax authorities Jaap Uijlenbroek claimed in his interrogation before the interrogation committee that he was ‘in no way aware of the memo’, and that he only became aware of the contents through publicity in the autumn of 2020. The official boss of the Ministry of Finance Manon Leijten told the POK that she could not remember having read the memo.
A reconstruction by RTL Nieuws and Trouw shows that this is not correct. The memo was already on the table on 4 June 2019 during crisis discussions within the ministry about the allowance affair. Leijten read the memo, which concludes that ‘reproachable’ actions were taken when the childcare allowances were discontinued. Uijlenbroek was also present at the meeting in which the compensation memo was discussed with almost 20 civil servants.
–
–
Memo not archived
Lower-ranking officials suggested after that meeting not to file the memo. That is against the rules and means that it would not come up in later questions from parliament or in Wob proceedings. The official leadership did not object to the proposal not to record the document.
In The Hague, it was feared at that time that State Secretary Menno Snel would not survive the policy on benefits if a solution was not found quickly for affected parents. Nevertheless, it was decided to wait for the advice of the Donner Committee investigating the matter, which left parents out in the cold longer.
–
–
An internal investigation was then carried out to find out what had happened to the memo and the earlier proposal for compensation. It was called an ‘offer’ and a ‘guidance’, although no compensation was offered in 2017. Nothing about this was included in a letter to the House of Representatives, in which it was only said ‘to work towards a solution for the parents’. Through the intervention of a personal spokesperson for State Secretary Snel, no mention was made of the earlier proposal for compensation: “We do not need to bring this up. That only raises questions.”
External investigation
The issue of the disappearance of the Palms memo is still hot. In the debate about the resignation of the cabinet, outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte and State Secretary Alexandra Van Huffelen agree, at the insistence of CDA member Omtzigt, to have an external investigation carried out into the cover-up of the memo.
This investigation is now being conducted by the accountancy firm PWC, which has received e-mail traffic from 33 involved (former) politicians and senior officials and will also interview them. PWC has meanwhile also requested access to telephones of officials and politicians involved, so that app traffic can be investigated.
–
–
Don’t tell the truth before the Commission of Inquiry
Prior to the questioning of a parliamentary committee of inquiry, a witness takes the oath or affirmation. In doing so, he or she indicates to say the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Lying under oath is a crime. If it is suspected that a witness has lied under oath, or has committed perjury, then a report can be made. The Public Prosecution Service can also independently investigate and prosecute.
Source: TweedeKamer.nl
–
–
Stick to statement
In a response, the Ministry of Finance states that there is ‘no reason to doubt’ the statements that Leijten and Uilenbroek have made for the POK about the Palmen memo. Earlier, State Secretary Van Huffelen (Supplements) said that the top officials ‘had joined’ in discussions about a report of the facts, in which the memo was mentioned.
Former director-general Jaap Uijlenbroek, who told the POK that he had heard ‘in no way’ about the memo, now says that during that interrogation he answered ‘from my memories as I have them’. “I stand by the statement made during the hearing”, he added: “PWC’s ongoing investigation will provide clarity about exactly what happened on that day and will also clarify who was present at which meetings, as well as which documents were there. shared, in what form, with whom, as well as what meaning has been attributed to it.”
–
–
No research done
The ministry also says in a response that it has ‘no signals’ that an employee has proposed not to archive the memo in 2019, although a spokesperson for State Secretary Van Huffelen (Supplies) acknowledges that no investigation has been conducted into this. The ministry also maintains that no ‘relevant’ information has been withheld from the POK. Well-established sources tell RTL Nieuws and Trouw that this has happened.
–
–
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/dmn/G76GUM6K4DY2N7SWQPQTJOH6ZE.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)