The political debate on the Dutch investment climate is “here to stay”

/in , /by

A flood of almost 20 motions in the Dutch House of Representatives last March 19 was the political result of a public discussion about the Dutch investment climate and earning capacity. A public discussion that was further ignited recently – after the earlier departure from the Netherlands of a number of multinationals – by ASML and Boskalis among others. The motions were somewhat general and symbolic here and there and ready to be concretized. Additionally, an adopted motion had a counterproductive effect; well-intentioned political intentions led to the freezing of the Dutch National Growth Fund.

During debates on the business climate, members of the House of Representatives are still hesitant to adopt concrete positions regarding the concerns that exist among companies. For example, regarding the hastily decided reduction of the fiscal expat scheme, the increase in taxes on the repurchase of own shares, or the possible restriction of the innovation box. In this respect, it is a missed political opportunity. However, more debates in the House of Representatives are expected and the “investment climate” is mentioned in the 10 themes to serve as the basis for a new cabinet’s outline agreement. The question remains in all of this: will it stick, when, and in what form? It is essential to work together in the short term on consistent policy-making aimed at the sustainable growth of Dutch business activity.

Over the past decade, concerns within both national and multinational companies established in the Netherlands have grown, and alienation from politics has increased. This often involved genuine concerns stemming from societal engagement and sometimes some opportunism from well-understood self-interest. Additionally, foreign investments in Europe and particularly in the Netherlands – also from American companies – are noticeably declining.

In some cases, the alienation is the fault of the business community itself. Out-of-line remuneration choices, less fortunate photos at top meetings with politicians, refusals to participate in political debates, or avoiding questions about politics and policy. Authoritative CEO activism in the Netherlands is granted to very few, or a style is chosen that shocks those in The Hague. Politicians also contribute to the issue: creating apparent contradictions between, for example, Dutch students and expats, inconsistency of positions by saying one thing and voting another, and publicly roasting companies and entrepreneurs. Even the reputation of family businesses is questioned by some due to advocacy concerning the business succession regulation.

Whatever underlying feelings or data predominate, a majority of entrepreneurial Netherlands has wanted to work on the relationship with “The Hague” from a constructive and positive attitude for a long time. While the opposite actually happened: the relationship has become colder and more distant. Both in personal relationships and business contacts. A worrying observation. Because even if you have substantive differences or a different political conviction, there is a mutual interest in keeping contacts warm, keeping the dialogue going, and making policy predictable in the long term.

This has led to a mutual decrease in trust. Whereby the many incidents have been fueled by a longer-observed undercurrent: policy fickleness. Such fickleness makes a company and entrepreneur restless. Internationally operating companies consider investments in the Netherlands ranging from millions to billions of euros. Investments that must be recouped over decades. The common thread of all the questions asked to me is “how predictable and consistent is the policy context in which we operate?”. If this question is answered negatively, investments are postponed, limited, canceled, or made in another country.

The mentioned motions in the House of Representatives seem to be the starting point of a political discussion about the Dutch business and investment climate. This discussion is progressively evolving into a balanced public debate, as evidenced by various Dutch television broadcasts and publications in newspapers. Soon, the House of Representatives will take its turn again with a round table discussion for which companies are invited, and a debate on support for the Eindhoven region. As a result – as the companies hope – a clear positioning of the Netherlands within the European Union and beyond. Because if you want to anchor such policy in the long term, it is precisely this fundamental discussion that is crucial. This discussion about the earning capacity of the Netherlands calls for vision. A vision that politics, ministries, relevant parties from the polder, and companies can develop jointly.

Time for a preliminary conclusion: the debate on the investment climate and earning capacity of the Netherlands is ‘here to stay’. And now let’s hope that MPs crowding in front of the interruption microphone in the House of Representatives will lead to more and sustainable business activity in the Netherlands.

New step in Dutch formation: PVV, VVD, NSC, and BBB aim for extra-parliamentary cabinet

/in /by

It has been more than a hundred days since the PVV (Far-Right Party) emerged as the big winner in the Dutch parliamentary elections. Today, ‘informateur’ (the one exploring options for a new cabinet) Kim Putters published his report on the formation process. Last week it became clear that PVV, VVD (Conservative Liberals), NSC (New Social Contract – Social Conservatives), and BBB (Farmer-Citizen Movement) are willing to continue negotiations on cooperation in a cabinet. The question in recent weeks has mainly been about the form. Putters advises the parties to continue negotiating on cooperation in what he calls a program cabinet, or an “extra-parliamentary” cabinet, including a broad coalition agreement without details.

What has happened in recent weeks?
After NSC prematurely ended the previous formation round, the chance of cooperation with PVV, NSC, and BBB seemed distant. At least in the form of a classic majority cabinet. Kim Putters, chair of the Social and Economic Council (SER), was therefore appointed as the successor to informateur Ronald Plasterk to explore other possible forms of government. For this, he not only spoke (again) with the various faction leaders, but also with experts such as scientists and former politicians. His report now shows that the parties are willing to cooperate, but in a cabinet form where the connection between coalition parties and the cabinet is looser than usual. Unknown and new territory.

Therefore, Putters proposes that the parties continue to speak in the coming period about substantive themes and further elaboration of cooperation in an extra-parliamentary cabinet. A wish that has been cherished since day one by NSC leader Pieter Omtzigt, but initially, the other parties were more hesitant. After the last debate on the formation, VVD leader Yesilgöz indicated, however, that she was willing to negotiate such a form, on the condition that the NSC would also provide ministers. Whether all parties will provide ministers, including NSC, has not yet been formally agreed upon.

What does the new form of government look like?
Informateur Putters describes in his report based on the conversations he had in recent weeks with experts and faction leaders how such a cabinet can be shaped. Unlike a regular majority cabinet, the participating parties do not detail their policies, and a majority is sought for each subject. However, the parties must reach cooperation agreements and a concise coalition agreement. This offers external parties more opportunities to contribute to the elaboration of plans in the coming years. In addition, the current situation provides even more reason to actively engage in the policy process and build relationships with factions in the House of Representatives.

Although informateur Putters speaks of a concise coalition agreement, his report shows that the parties want to reach agreements on a wide range of issues. Besides asylum and migration, other topics mentioned include nitrogen and nature, social security and purchasing power, health care housing, ‘good governance’, security, finance, the rule of law and the business climate. So the question is to what extent a concise agreement in all these areas is realistic.

Also notable is that the party leaders of the coalition parties remain in the House of Representatives. Ministers and State Secretaries will be partly drawn from outside politics, and partly from “The Hague” (whether or not from the coalition parties). Putters advises to consider at a later stage how the appointment of a Prime Minister will take place. Presumably, the four parties will jointly appoint a Prime Minister, in which PVV leader Geert Wilders will likely have a decisive vote. At first glance, not a very attractive position, given the fact that the four party leaders in the House will feel more freedom to criticize the cabinet’s policies.

Since the elections, the House of Representatives has been acting – more or less forced – somewhat in the spirit of such an extra-parliamentary cabinet. Due to the shifts in composition, surprising and changing majorities have emerged, with coalition parties no longer automatically supporting each other’s proposals. Although this approach provides flexibility in seeking majorities, it also brings problems. Especially in areas where parties strongly differ, such as foreign policy. Moreover, it is very difficult in such a form to achieve coherent policy, which can lead to an unpredictable government. These risks should not be underestimated in light of the recent discussions about the business climate.

Next steps
Presumably, the House of Representatives will debate the report of informateur Kim Putters on Wednesday, March 20. Then a new informateur is expected to be appointed to lead the next formation round. PVV, VVD, NSC, and BBB will continue to discuss the content of possible cooperation in the coming period. Although the proposed form does not establish a detailed coalition agreement, some consensus on crucial themes (such as climate, migration, and foreign policy) is essential. For companies and organizations, this offers opportunities for influence.

If the four parties really cannot reach an agreement with each other in the next round, the House of Representatives may give the initiative to GroenLinks-PvdA (cooperation between the Greens and Labor) as the second party. Then party leader Frans Timmermans must of course agree, and the VVD plays a key role. After all, they have previously ruled out governing with GroenLinks-PvdA, making a center cabinet impossible. If all possible options lead to nothing, the House of Representatives may even consider new elections. However, that scenario seems distant now.

Public Matters closely follows the formation process. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions, we are happy to assist you further!

New integrity rules for Ministers and State Secretaries – good news?

/in /by

Last week, the Council of State (RvS) issued its advice on the proposed bill establishing rules for former members of cabinet, which was approved by the council of ministers in mid-2023. With the bill, the cabinet wants to prevent (the risk of) conflicts of interest in the subsequent career of ministers. The timing is salient given the ever-depleting ministerial team of the outgoing Rutte IV cabinet. But what exactly does the proposal entail – and should we welcome it or not?

Stricter requirements for follow-up positions of cabinet members

The new legal rules for cabinet members should provide framework for follow-up functions and lobbying activities after leaving office. This applies to sitting ministers and state secretaries as well as former ministers, so-called “former” ministers. Thus, a cooling-off period of two years will be established during which former ministers will be required to seek advice from an independent board as to whether they may accept a new, paid position in the private sector. The advice is not binding but will be made public if ignored.

In addition, the bill proposes to establish a lobbying ban. Until November 2021, former ministers were already prohibited from lobbying the ministry for which the respective minister was responsible for two years. This was subsequently expanded to include policy areas covered by other ministries with which the minister had active involvement while in office. This new bill also legislates the lobbying ban. Finally, the proposal regulates a so-called “revolving door ban” in which former ministers may not be employed by their former ministry for two years. They also may not accept paid, commercial assignments there.

Council of State advice – critical comments

In response to the Interior minister’s bill, the RvS understands lobbying and revolving door bans. However, it does have reservations about the mandatory advisory obligation for follow-up positions. It is feared that this will lead to further legalization and may be counterproductive. After all, the goal is for administrators to ask themselves whether a next step is desirable and conflicts with integrity – not whether it is possible according to the (loopholes in) the law. Should the advise obligation still be instituted, the RvS recommends that the prime minister also takes a clear and public position based on the advice. This would ensure clear ministerial responsibility and enable accountability to the House of Representatives.

The RvS also warns about the perspective of (candidate) ministers. It is in the public interest that a sufficient number of suitable persons, with diverse backgrounds and social experience, should always be found willing to become ministers or state secretaries. In doing so, they must also be willing to accept the associated risks, such as premature departure. It is no secret that, for various reasons, a cabinet post has become increasingly unpopular in recent years. It is therefore desirable, according to the RvS, to also include that perspective in the considerations for such policies.

What about the House of Representatives?

Although instituting stricter rules for ministers is a sensible and widely supported measure, it only regulates a small part of public administration. Top civil servants and members of parliament remain completely outside of this legislation. However, here too the necessary debatable steps have taken place in recent years. Both from and to The Hague – because people still seem to forget that the much criticized “revolving door” turns both ways.

So far, however, the House of Representatives is showing little willingness to regulate itself; whereas a motion to impose an immediate ban on lobbying and revolving doors for the current cabinet was passed by a large majority in the House last month, a motion by the SP to institute a cooling off period for members of parliament as well was actually voted down by a large majority in the middle of last year. This motion would be an interesting addition to the current policy; after all, should not the same rules also apply here?

Concluding

Now that the advice of the RvS has been published, the rules for ministers are ready to be discussed in the House of Representatives. In light of the comments made earlier, these discussions will be very interesting-perhaps, whether forced or not, it will also force the House to reflect on its own regulation. All in all, it’s a good thing The Hague is combating (the risk of) conflicts of interest more proactively. Even if only for perception and public trust in politics.

Revamping the European Parliament: how will it influence your lobbying activities?

/in /by

In her State of the European Union, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proudly stated that during her mandate, 170 bills were proposed. Ranging from sector-specific to broad horizontal legislation, small reforms to first-of-its-kind proposals, the European Institutes have been very active. The European Parliament, representing the interests of all EU citizens in these processes, works across various committees to scrutinize and amend these proposals. This involves a complex network of over 20 committees, subcommittees, and special committees – spanning from a committee for Internal Market and Consumer Protection to an ad hoc committee for artificial intelligence.

Since 1989, little has changed in the composition and functioning of these committees, despite significant transformations occurring both within the EU and globally. To keep up with these transformations, the Parliament has proposed a restructuring of their committees. In this blog, colleague Valérie discusses these changes and what they mean for lobbying activities.

A New Commission Structure for Greater Efficiency
The Secretary-General of the European Parliament, Alessandro Chiocchetti, recently emphasized the need for structural reforms to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the Parliament. He stated that “the world has changed, everything has changed, as has the way the Commission presents legislation with very extensive and cross-border proposals, and our structure can no longer cope with this.”

As increasingly complex proposals span multiple committee domains (for example, digital files falling under the competencies of the Committees on Legal Affairs, Internal Market, and Consumer Protection), a revision of the committees aims to avoid disputes over which committee is responsible for which competency. In response to these challenges, a proposal for reforms has been adopted, outlined in a “reflection paper” from September 13. The plan advocates reducing the number of full committees from 20 to 15.

New committees
Streamlining the committees aims to foster greater coherence and specialization within the Parliament’s legislative activities. New committees could include a mega-committee dedicated to digital policy and a mega-committee on EU expansion – two of the most contentious domains. There is also discussion of upgrading the subcommittee on security and defense to a full-fledged committee. Additionally, the committees on climate and energy will be merged, as will the committees on international trade and development.

Other proposals include the possibility of establishing ad hoc committees to address legislation falling under the competencies of multiple committees. The aim is to streamline and facilitate legislative processes, particularly in dealing with complex issues such as artificial intelligence and corporate governance.

Another goal is to have a stronger voice in trilogue negotiations with EU ministers. A caveat here is that this will result in a more select group of MEPs working on files, especially as this reform also aims to reduce the practice of sharing opinion reports between committees. This select group of MEPs will in turn wield more power and thus be quite influential – perhaps even disproportionately so.

Advocacy opportunities
This restructuring of the Parliament also affects the way organizations and trade bodies organize their policy influencing. When legislative files are discussed in less committees, with less MEPs being able to actively provide input, this means the scope of active participation also becomes more limited. Lobbying efforts will need to concentrate on a smaller set of committees and MEPs, requiring a more strategic and tailored approach. Whereas in the current system you can make your voice heard through multiple entry-points, this new system narrows these opportunities.

However, the introduction of a system where legislative files are discussed within one committee or even a specialized ad-hoc committee will streamline the Parliament’s activities and scale back the various, enormous reports, leading to more transparency and perhaps less complex processes.

Moving Forward – new lobbying options
Ultimately, more MEPs have a say in legislative proposals than just the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs. However, the new Parliament will need to figure out how to utilize all possible tools within this new structure – the same goes for lobbyists. At the same time, it presents interesting opportunities to provide MEPs with the necessary expertise in drafting new legislation.

As far as the Parliament is concerned, the reforms are set to be swiftly implemented: they were approved in December 2023, with the aim of implementing them before the June European elections. However, a final vote in the plenary session in April is still required for full adoption.

European Due Diligence Legislation in the Doldrums

/in /by

The European Union’s efforts to introduce European due diligence legislation faces significant hurdles as key member states Germany, Italy, and France, retract their initial support. Despite achieving a political consensus in December 2023, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is at a critical juncture, awaiting final approval from both member states and European lawmakers.

The directive aims to mandate companies to actively police, monitor and prevent human rights and environmental abuses within their supply chains. However, recent concerns from Germany about the directive’s impact on businesses have led to a domino effect, with other countries expressing doubts, thereby undermining the proposal’s support base. France’s push to narrow the scope of the directive by targeting fewer companies, combined with Italy’s opposition, further complicates the situation.

Although the Netherlands stands in support, the Belgian Presidency of the Council will once again have to review the situation. This development introduces further delays to a process already constrained by time, as the legislative machine in Brussels approaches a standstill with the upcoming European elections in June.

 

Germany Throws a Spanner in the Works

Germany’s political landscape faced turbulence recently as a significant rift emerged within its coalition government. The Free Democratic Party (FDP), the smallest member of the three-party coalition, announced its withdrawal of support due to concerns about the directive’s perceived negative impact on business interests. Targeting the likes of businesses and right-winged voters, this decision is part of the FDP’s efforts to maintain its relevance in the upcoming European and German regional elections this year, as well as the general election next year.

This development has not only revealed (again) divisions within the German coalition but also escalated tensions among EU lawmakers, public officials, national governments, civil society organizations, and certain businesses, sparking controversy in Brussels. Lara Wolters (S&D – PvdA), the EU Parliament’s lead negotiator, likened the FDP’s actions to those of an “angry toddler”. With Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition deadlocked on the issue, Germany indicated its intention to abstain from a critical vote.

 

Running Like Wildfire

Germany’s renewed position raised fears that other reluctant countries, particularly Italy, would follow Germany’s decision to abstain or reject the legislation. Italy eventually decided to follow Germany’s lead, while France proposed at the last minute to raise the threshold for companies covered by the legislation.

Concern is growing within several sectors about the uncertainty of the due diligence legislation. Many sectors fear that the stringent rules could undermine European competitiveness. On the other hand, proponents urge the swift implementation of the CSDDD, arguing that it would provide uniform standards and avoid the confusion and complexity of a fragmented regulatory landscape. Moreover, the important human rights considerations associated with this decision should not be overlooked.

This shift from Germany occurs in a broader trend within the European Union, where the political wind turns more towards the right-winged parties. With the elections ahead, already final negotiations of legislation are influenced by this move. Centrist-right group EPP fears a victory of the more extreme right-winged groups I&D and ECR, which leads to a shift in their voting behavior to attract voters.

The deadlock on the CSDDD thus comes at a time when the European legislative calendar is crowded, with the European Parliament recess and the upcoming elections in June in sight. It is therefore unclear whether an agreement will be reached before the European elections, as the last plenary session will be in April, when the law is due to be finalized. Negotiations could resume after the European elections, although the European Parliament is expected to undergo a shift to the right, which could lead to the watering down or even complete halt of the legislation.

Now, Dutch Due Diligence Legislation?

The development of the Netherlands’ own due diligence legislation, as outlined in the 2021 coalition agreement, has stalled due to the (outgoing) cabinet’s preference for an EU-wide approach to ensure a level-playing-field. Furthermore, an initiative bill by a coalition of smaller parties – ChristenUnie (Christian Party), SP (Socialist Party), GroenLinks-PvdA (alliance between the Greens and the Labour Party), Volt (Pan-European Political Movement), and D66 (Liberal Democrats) – has been left unaddressed as of September 2023. However, with the EU directive currently in a state of uncertainty, there could be a resurgence in discussions about the need and viability of implementing national legislation. Yet, the political climate following the Dutch House of Representatives elections in November 2023, with a shift towards the right, casts doubt on the bill’s support. While recent EU developments might reignite interest in this issue within Dutch politics, the chances of national legislation being enacted in the near term appear slim.

Jaap Velema receives Machiavelli Prize 2023

/in /by

The presentation of the 2023 Machiavelli Prize to Jaap Velema, mayor of Ter Apel, took place on February 14, 2024 at Press Center Nieuwspoort in The Hague. The prize is awarded annually for a remarkable achievement in the field of public communication.

Deputy Mayor Giny Luth accepted the award on behalf of the mayor, who could not be present due to illness. He did address those present after receiving the award by means of a video message, in which he dedicated the award to the entire community of Ter Apel.

Marja Wagenaar, president of the Machiavelli Foundation, read the jury report and presented the award.

Femke Halsema, mayor of Amsterdam, delivered the annual Machiavelli Lecture prior to the award ceremony, titled “The open society and its allies.” The full lecture can be found here (in Dutch).

It was the 35e time the award was presented. Previous award winners included Johan Remkes, Gerrit Hiemstra, Marion Koopmans and Diederik Gommers, journalism collective Bellingcat, She Decides, Eberhard van der Laan, H.R.H. Princess Máxima and national team coach Bert van Marwijk.

The Machiavelli Foundation is committed to public communication. Public Matters has been main sponsor of the foundation since 2010.

Missed it? Watch back here (in Dutch)!

Forecast European Elections: Heading Towards Campaign Time

/in /by

From June 6 to 9, 2024, EU citizens will cast their votes in the European elections. Voters will then determine the new distribution of seats (and power) in the European Parliament, thereby indirectly influencing the EU’s priorities until 2029. The political landscape in the member states is constantly shifting, making the outcome of this year’s elections uncertain. In this blog series on the European elections, colleague Valérie Mendes de León analyzes recent developments in EU member states and their potential influence on the upcoming European elections, the allocation of the 720 seats in the European Parliament, and the formation of a new College of Commissioners.

Election Manifesto’s and Spitzenkandidaten

With four months to go until the European elections, the European bubble is slowly gearing up for the campaign period. The first draft manifesto’s from the European groups are coming in, and more campaign leader names are being revealed. Nicholas Schmit, the current Commissioner for Jobs and Social Rights, will lead the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) as Spitzenkandidat. Bas Eickhout and Terry Reintke will enter the elections as co-leaders for the Greens. And at the upcoming party congress of the European People’s Party (EPP) on February 19, Ursula von der Leyen will reveal whether she will run for a second term as President of the Commission.

These first two weeks of February also mark an important deadline for trilogue negotiations, the final negotiations before a law is adopted (or rejected). Every deal that is closed this week can be voted on during the last plenary session in the European Parliament in April and officially published before the summer. So, you’ll see that a considerable number of laws are still being passed now, such as the Right to Repair, the final changes to the AI Act, and the law on ESG ratings. Many deals are expected this week, including on the EU Platform Work Directive and a directive making more forms of gender-related violence punishable.

Right Bloc Growth Continues

In earlier blogs, we wrote about the trend toward a more right-wing European Parliament after June. This trend seems to continu, with a growing number of expected seats for parties to the right of the European People’s Party. Since November, Identity and Democracy (I&D) – the party including the Dutch PVV, the French party Rassemblement National of Marine Le Pen, and the German Alternative für Deutschland – has been topping the liberal Renew group – which includes the Dutch VVD and D66 – for the first time. After the EPP and S&D, I&D is third in the polls. Political scientists also show that a majority is possible between the three most right-wing parties, but significant differences in priorities currently hinder strong cooperation. Therefore, the expectation is that the cooperation between S&D, Renew, and EPP in the European Parliament will continue, but with greater opposition from the right-wing flanks.

What Does This Mean for European Policy?

This means that the new European Parliament will have a considerable number of Eurosceptic members. How this affects policy remains uncertain for now. Unlike Dutch politics, MEPs do not vote in coalitions or political groups on important decisions – think of sensitive amendments or other legislative texts. MEPs operate relatively independently on some policy areas, making traditional bloc formation less straightforward. However, some estimation can be made regarding the EU’s sustainability agenda. Under the leadership of Frans Timmermans, the current EP has presented ambitious goals, and it is expected that a more right-wing Parliament will weaken these. To counter extreme right-wing parties, Christian Democrats of the EPP are already shifting and aligning more with the ‘ordinary man.’ This weakens sustainability ambitions, which was already visible in the Nature Restoration Law last autumn, but also last week, during negotiations on agricultural measures where Von der Leyen stated that “farmers can count on European support.”

National Priorities for the Next Mandate

In the coming weeks, national governments are also working towards the next mandate. Ministries are drafting their priorities and wish lists for the next Commission mandate, which will be presented to the European Commission. For example, the Digital Economy department of the Ministry of Economic Affairs has already announced that they are prioritizing the enforcement of the Digital Rulebook, as well as the twin transition of sustainability and digitalization. This offers the business community an excellent opportunity to collaborate with Dutch ministries and share their vision.

Public Matters will regularly share updates on the campaign period and expectations for the next mandate (2024 – 2029) leading up to June. Would you like to be kept informed more frequently through a tailor-made Election Update? Then contact us.

Copyright photo: © European Union 2024 – Source : EP

/in /by

Every year, Public Matters supports a number of organizations pro bono, because we believe that every organization deserves a chance to have its voice heard – to participate in the democratic decision-making process. This applies not only to organizations that have sufficient resources for this, but to all organizations with a societal interest. In this context, we have been supporting UNICEF for some time now, which is committed to the rights of children in the Netherlands.

UNICEF collaborates with the government and other organizations on urgent issues such as the care of refugee children, mental well-being, and proper nutrition, to improve the living conditions of (vulnerable) children in the Netherlands. Public Matters supports UNICEF by reviewing existing lobbying strategies and documents and providing ad hoc advice on ongoing specific lobbying dossiers. With our experience and expertise, we thus contribute to achieving UNICEF’s lobbying objectives in the Netherlands.

Care for Asylum-Seeking Children

One of the specific dossiers currently underway is the care for asylum-seeking children, including the so-called ‘distribution law.’ Last year, UNICEF, together with the Working Group Child in asylum seeker center – policy makers, called for the physical, social, and mental safety of children to be included in this law. It is of great importance for children that, during their asylum procedure, they remain in the same place, are placed near a school, and have access to good guidance and facilities. UNICEF is committed to this dossier.

Vision on Youth in the Coalition Agreement

In addition, UNICEF is calling on political parties and the upcoming new government to clearly indicate in the coalition agreement what its vision is on the upbringing and development of youth and what the government’s responsibility is in this regard. This call is based on the recognition that the government plays a crucial role in supporting the development of children, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. UNICEF emphasizes that a holistic vision on youth is essential amid challenges such as digitalization, youth care, poverty, and climate change. This vision should ensure that children and young people feel recognized, heard, and involved, and that their rights and well-being are central in policy-making. In this way, UNICEF is committed to sustainable and future-oriented policy.

Pro Bono advice by Public Matters

Public Matters advises organizations on how they can secure a position in the political, public, or administrative arena, and believes it’s important that professional advocacy is not only reserved for, for example, companies, trade organizations, or (semi)governments. From our social commitment, we therefore support various societal organizations annually with pro bono advising.

Also in 2024, we are offering pro bono advice and support again. The deployment of our advisors’ expertise for societal interests is an important part of our CSR policy. Support can be deployed for a wide range of questions. This could, for example, involve advice on public affairs and lobbying activities, strategic communication, stakeholder management, power field analyses & reputation research, or training and workshops.

Interested? Feel free to contact Evi Sonnemans or Valérie Mendes de León.

Public Matters has joined the Netherlands British Chamber of Commerce (NBCC)

/in /by

Public Matters has joined the Netherlands British Chamber of Commerce (NBCC), an organization focused on promoting trade and business relations between the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The main activities of the NBCC include organizing networking events and meetings, and advising and supporting companies that are doing (or wish to do) business in the United Kingdom or the Netherlands.

Bas Batelaan (Managing Partner): “As we already advise many British companies in the field of public affairs and strategic communication, membership of the NBCC is a logical step. Our consultants will actively participate in the NBCC, by exchanging knowledge with the other members.”

The membership has been announced on the NBCC website.

Roundtables: transparency in times of polarization

/in /by

For its monitoring task, the House of Representatives has various instruments at its disposal. The knowledge about these instruments is decreasing and a public profile is becoming more important for MPs. Partly because of this, the House is increasingly turning to instruments that are visible and easily deployable. This is clearly evident when looking at the number of motions, the implementation of which has been rising for years. The report of the Van der Staaij working group on the working methods of the House, which recommended, among other things, attaching more value to promises and fewer motions, has not been able to turn this tide. This is one of the conclusions in the final monitor of the same working group.

Control from committees

The working group recommended organizing more control from the House committees, including through hearings and roundtable discussions that prepare future plenary debates. This seems to be happening: roundtable discussions and hearings are increasingly being used to prepare the debate on policy or legislation and to ask experts for their perspectives. An example is the roundtable discussion on Tailor-made agreements with industry, about public-private investments in sustainability. This conversation was a clear example of respectful dialogue between business, civil society, government and the House. Here, an informed discussion was held where different perspectives were given space, the number of political expressions “for one’s own audience” was limited, and questions were asked about how standing (government) policy could be improved.

Instrument increasingly political

Many roundtable discussions are amiable. However, it is not always a neutral conversation to gather information and hear multiple perspectives. In fact, roundtable discussions and hearings are also tools that can shape perceptions – and the members of the House are happy to use them for that purpose. Particularly on controversial issues, the roundtable is increasingly being used to put organizations on notice. This does not help the willingness to participate in such discussions and thus the societal dialogue on certain topics.

On the other hand, the information that invitees share with the House is often used to challenge a minister later in a committee debate, think of today’s hearing on New Measures on Grid Congestion where information was gathered for a committee debate on the same topic on Wednesday of this week. In those cases, organizations sometimes find themselves on the very side of the MP in debate with a minister. Finally, for companies, industry associations and civil society organizations, participation is also an opportunity for mutual understanding and better scrutiny of policy.

Participation: yes or no

Without reputational risks, then, participation seems like a no-brainer. In reality, politicians are increasingly trying to confirm an existing image, so there is not always room for nuance, and thus there are risks. In addition, for invitees, much preparation goes into coordinating with internal and external stakeholders, such as the trade or professional association, industry peers, or other stakeholders. Also, a roundtable discussion takes place in a political current event. These can change from day to day. Think of a MP presenting an initiative proposal in the run-up to the round table discussion, or a critical stakeholder seeking out the media on the day of a hearing.

Nowadays, the business community is increasingly expected to be socially engaged, and a roundtable discussion is an excellent opportunity to show that you operate transparently, have a story to tell and want to build a bridge between business, society and politics. Declining an invitation carries risks. In principle, a reputation as a party that puts up a wall and avoids dialogue is not desirable. Besides: those not at the table are on the menu.

The importance of good preparation

So for organizations, good preparation is important, this way misunderstandings are avoided and the chance of unwanted perceptions is at its lowest. In most cases, preparation consists of three parts: an advance position paper, an opening statement and answering questions.

Good preparation brings peace of mind. Technical information is often incorporated into a position paper so that MPs can read it calmly in advance and do not have to start “from scratch” when asking questions. At the start of a hearing or roundtable discussion, an opening statement is often used to give a first impression of (the position of) the organization. This is because there is room here to outline a historical perspective and tell why your organization has added social value or why the issue under discussion is so important. Finally, there are the questions from the House: the most political part of the conversation. Questions can sometimes be politically colored or biased, and good preparation can help answer questions.

Also in 2024

This year, roundtables and hearings on key issues will be back on the agenda. After all, there are many complex policy challenges at play on which opinions vary widely. Think of nitrogen, water quality, climate, drug policy and artificial intelligence. It is important for companies, civil society organizations and industry associations to take invitations to the House seriously – because it is an opportunity to take joint responsibility in shaping and monitoring sound policy.