Aukje de Vries' Diary Day 17

In the evening I realise that I have acted against all my principles. I have not done what I should do in the morning and I have not taken a walk or a bicycle ride for exercise. While I listen to the radio in the morning I hear that this is the day of a very important debate in Parliament. The session has hardly begun or there is an alarm. It is unclear whether it is a bomb alarm or a fire alarm or what, but everyone has to leave the building immediately. Consternation. The debate is suspended. The radio reporter has no idea what is going on. The audience can only guess. After 15 minutes it becomes clear what it is. It is…a fire drill. The date for this fire drill was set secretly at a time when is was unknown that today’s debate would be so important that it would be broadcast on radio and TV.

I go and watch TV. Maybe I should first explain a few facts about the Dutch political system, so that it is easier to understand the background of this debate.We have two Houses of Parliament: a Lower House and an Upper House. The Lower House, commonly called Second Chamber (Tweede Kamer) has 150 members and the Upper House, called either Senate or First Chamber (Eerste Kamer) has 75 members but is considerably less important than the Second Chamber. There are something like 11 parties represented in the 2nd Chamber, some of them are quite small, they have only 2 MPs. Until about 10 years ago there were three parties which were considerably larger than the others and two of them together usually had more than 75 seats in the 2nd Chamber. The three parties were the Christian Democrats (CDA), the Labour Party (PvdA) and the Conservative Party (VVD). For many years we had coalition governments of CDA with PvdA or of CDA with VVD; centre left or centre right. Recently these three parties have lost seats and some of the smaller parties have become larger. This means that more than 2 parties are needed to make a coalition government that has a majority in the 2nd Chamber. Before a government is established the parties concerned negotiate what they can do together: they try to agree on enough subjects in order to make it possible to govern. Now this pact among parties which are going to form the government is a most important document for the entire period that the government will be in power. It is comprehensible that coalition governments must work this way: the parties must know before they accept the responsibility of governing the country that there is enough common ground to be able to work together. If there would be too many contentious issues about which no agreement is possible the government would not last very long. This method of working has one great disadvantage: the MPs of the parties that take part in the government must support what has been agreed in the pact, in other words, they are not free to disagree with what has been decided and has become part of the pact. This makes it nearly impossible for them to reject government proposals conform the pact.

Since about 2 years we have a government of CDA, PvdA and a much smaller party the Christian Union (CU). In the negotiations preceding the formation of this government the CDA (the largest of the three) has made the other 2 parties agree that the government will not investigate how the Netherlands has become involved in the war in Iraq. In the previous period the PvdA was in opposition and in favour of such an investigation. The CDA was in the government with the same Prime Minister as today when The Netherlands decided to support the war in Iraq. The CDA has opposed consistently any attempts to investigate how such a decision could ever have been taken. Other governments like the USA, the UK and Australia have had investigations and have come to the conclusion that it was the wrong decision based on misleading information. The CDA and in particular the CDA Prime Minister keep saying that The Netherlands have made the right decision and that there is nothing to be investigated. Both Houses of Parliament have asked many questions but the answers from the government have been lengthy but evasive and neither the opposition in the 2nd Chamber nor the Senators are satisfied. They have asked more questions. The curious fact is that the PvdA is in principle in favour of an investigation, but the PvdA MPs in the 2nd Chamber cannot say so because the pact excludes this possibility. There would be a majority in Parliament for a parliamentary enquiry if only the PvdA MPs could speak freely. Journalists have begun to take an interest in trying to find more details about what has happened 6 years ago and they have uncovered internal documents showing that civil servants have advised the then minister against supporting the war because there are no valid legal grounds for it. Other journalists have done research in the USA and have found that a former high level politician has declared that the USA have asked for support from the Netherlands, which the Dutch government denies, at least - so they modify their original statement - there has never been a formal request. Shortly after the decision of the Netherlands to support the war in Iraq the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, a member of the CDA, has been appointed Secretary General of NATO. There is also some evidence that this is not a coincidence.Now that the government has been confronted with these “new facts” the Prime Minister sees that it is unavoidable that something be done and he has decided to make a committee, which is supposed to do the investigation. He has already found a President for the Committee, the former President of the Supreme court who has just been retired. This is not what the opposition wants, they want a parliamentary enquiry. The MPs can conduct such an enquiry which is the strongest instrument they have to do “truth finding”. Persons who are called to come and testify before the parliamentary enquiry commission are obliged to appear. They are on oath and all the hearings of the commission are public and broadcast by radio and TV. Today’s debate is about the way in which the investigation will be done: will the 2nd Chamber accept the committee (which will work behind closed doors and report to the government) or will they insist on the parliamentary enquiry. The PvdA is in a difficult position, because as a partner in the government their MPs are expected to be in favour of the committee.

The leader of the CDA who speaks first departs from his well-known position. There is no need for an investigation at all, everything is perfectly clear. Now that the government has decided that an investigation will be done the option of a committee is by far the best. The committee will be independent and get access to secret documents. What more can MPs ask for? He is attacked fiercely by three of the opposition parties. They have very many questions why there should not be a proper investigation by Parliament and they argue that the government and in particular the PvdA curtail the powers of Parliament. Basically the issue at stake was entering a war and this is an extremely important decision for any country.

Therefore the Parliament has every right and the duty to very thoroughly investigate what has happened. A parliamentary enquiry is the most effective method. The debate is breathtaking. I see the CDA leader get more and more nervous. His hands tremble. He keeps repeating the same arguments that in my opinion are not convincing at all. He counter attacks the opposition: they are not consistent according to him, but the opposition leaders do not give in. I can hardly believe that this CDA man really believes what he is saying, but he sticks to his arguments. The leader of the PvdA in contrast is very calm, very dignified and very clear. Her argument runs as follows: because the Prime Minister has proposed a committee, he has changed his point of view, and now allows an investigation. The committee may be successful and be able to really answer all the questions about the issue. This we will only know after 9 months, but we will have to give the committee a fair chance. If its report answers all questions then Parliament can be satisfied. However, if the report is unsatisfactory, then a parliamentary enquiry should be held as yet. Critical questions from the opposition: why not a parliamentary enquiry at once, why a delay of 9 months? The PvdA leader is very convincing, but it is recognised that she has created an opening for a parliamentary enquiry after 9 months. The opposition smells victory… I just can’t break away from the debate and keep watching until it is the highest time to prepare for my afternoon activity, the meeting with the representatives of the neighbourhood care organisation.

I’ll tell about that in tomorrow’s instalment, because this one is already too long. Later in the afternoon, after my guests have gone, I turn on the TV and see the debate is still going on, I just see the end. In the evening I see some of the parts I missed. Especially the facial expression of the Prime Minister is priceless!

Aukje de Vries' Diary Day 16

In the morning I try to do some more work on the tasks I have got after the teleconference of 10 days ago. I really should have done them before, but I did not have time and this is not the only thing that has had to wait.

One of the things is that I have to send letters to the past, present and next Presidency of the European Union. The Presidency of the European Union is transferred every half year to another Member State. The country that holds the Presidency has a lot of influence on the agenda setting. In order to guarantee continuity, there is the so-called “troika” consisting of the past, present and future Presidency countries who together do a lot of the work that is involved in running the Presidency. Therefore it is important to address all three when you want to ask Europe’s attention for a special issue. France is the past President, the Czech Republic is the present and Sweden is the next President. I don’t have a clue how to address the latter two. Our French member has helped me with France, but what about the two others?? I begin by the Information Bureau of the European Commission in The Hague. They tell me to call the permanent representation of The Netherlands in Brussels (this is like a Dutch Embassy with the EU). I try but the line of the person I should talk to is busy. After 15 minutes the secretary tells me I had better call again after lunch. But after lunch I have another dentist’s appointment. This time for 90 minutes. Esther has offered to come and fetch me, if I feel bad afterwards. While I lie in the dentist’s chair, mouth wide open and completely disempowered, I realise that the Dutch Permanent Representative in Brussels will probably refer me to his Czech and his Swedish counterparts and that exchanging addresses by telephone in English with other people who are not native English speakers either is probably a fairly hopeless task. (English spelling remains difficult for me as non-native speaker and the same is most likely true for them.) This even more so because I do not expect to recognise the spelling of Czech or Swedish names. It will be better to use e-mail, even if I may have to wait for an answer longer.

My treatment does not last longer than last week nor is it more painful so I walk home. I call Esther to tell her I have managed alright and we chat for a while.

Aukje de Vries' Diary Day 15

I begin the day with a few phone calls. One of them to the SVB, the Social Insurance Bank, the agency which pays out our State Pension. They have not yet sent me their specification for 2009 and I am curious. I am told it can come any day, they are working on it, but the person who answers the phone gives me an advice, of which I cannot understand whether this would work for me. I’ll have to ask my consultant. All these regulations are so complicated.

Normally I don’t watch television in the afternoon but both Esther and Martje, my friend in Rotterdam, have told me about a broadcast on long-term care in which they think I will be interested. They saw it a few days ago and it will be repeated. Yes, indeed, I am glad they told me. It is about the CAK. The CAK is the Central Administration Office. One of the tasks of the CAK is to deal with the co-payments people have to make for their long-term care. The CAK figures out how much each user has to pay and they send the invoices. For years there have been complaints about this agency, and it seems that not much has improved. In the programme a number of people tell about their problems. The Junior Minister is also in the programme. Basically one can say that the problems fall into two categories: one is that it is very difficult to reach the CAK, the telephone is not answered, they do not call back when they have promised to do so, they do not give the information that is needed and they are very unfriendly towards the callers. The other is that the CAK makes many mistakes and charges some users of ltc much higher co-payments than they believe they are due. Some of these complainers are desperate, because quite often the conflict is about large amounts of money, and in some cases it takes years before the matter is settled. The Junior Minister, very charmingly, says she does what she can to enable the CAK to carry out its tasks properly. They were given more personnel there has been extra training for the personnel, and most difficult cases have received extra attention and have been resolved, except some 200 cases. Obviously some of them are in the programme. The Junior Minister keeps telling that she does her best to solve the problems, but refers only to the user unfriendliness of the CAK. She also asks people to understand that the CAK has a very difficult task: in order to figure out the amounts users of ltc have to pay the CAK has to receive data from no less than 5 different agencies: internal revenue, municipalities, health care insurers, care offices (they are part of the insurance system) and care providers. In my opinion this is the basic problem: the system has become so complicated that it is impossible to make it work properly. The interviewer tries: five different sources, isn’t that a bit too many? But very adroitly she brings the discussion back to her efforts to make the CAK more user-friendly. The real problem is not discussed.

Aukje de Vries' Diary Day 14

The weather does not look quite so bad as we had expected when we decided not to go to the countryside for a walk. Instead I walk to the city centre, from where I can take a bus or tram back home, when I have walked enough or in case the weather gets worse. I always walk longer than I intend to so I take a tram to go back but on the way there is a slight accident. It is amazing that passengers seldom get information about what has happened or what is being done to solve the problem. After about 15 minutes we are told to get off the tram and take the next one which, of course, is crowded.

In the evening I watch a TV broadcast on the year 1968. It is based on a book about recent European history, written in a popular style. The author of the book is the presenter of the programme, which focuses on Amsterdam, Paris and Berlin. I lived in Amsterdam in 1968 so I am interested in what will be shown in the programme. Obviously the perspective of the author, who was a student in Amsterdam in 1968 is different than mine: I held a job having to do with youth policy. For a sociologist like me it was a fascinating time. Especially the fact that the power of the authorities was questioned, often in a playful manner, was an interesting aspect, not in the last place because the authorities did not know how to deal with this. And it was useful for society to look in a new way at existing power structures. Not much of this was shown in the programme.

I have only little time left to do some work on my private, financial administration. I have to prepare the documents for my tax return. It is quite complicated this year, more so than previous years because I have had quite a few medical (dental) expenses. Some of these are deductible, but others have already been reimbursed by the health care insurance. I don’t get it finished before it is time to go to bed.