Correspondence with the Ministry of Finance shows how fierce the fight over the “Laurentian method” was.

March 27 · Analysis · 20 min reading time

The (Equal) Worthy Recovery Foundation helps recognized victims of the benefits affair deal with their cases. Since last year, the foundation itself has fallen into a fight with the Ministry of Finance. At the end of February, app traffic within the ministry came out about that fight, but that of the foundation was largely missing. Follow the Money did get that correspondence and reconstructed a heated conflict.

Dossier: The rule of law

Author: Eric Smit

Image: © Follow the Money

This piece in 1 minute

The affair about childcare benefits, also known as the benefits affair — but better: the benefits scandal — is about large-scale violation of civil rights by the Dutch government. More precisely: by the tax authorities.
This article is about the recovery operation from that colossal scandal: it just isn't getting the momentum that the tens of thousands of affected parents are entitled to.
The Foundation (Equal) Worthy Recovery (SGH) has developed a method that can help disadvantaged parents as quickly and best as possible.
The recovery operation is very slow and that has a lot to do with the department that leads it: the Ministry of Finance.
The SGH — particularly its co-founder, Princess Laurentien — has been under fire from the ministry since the spring of 2024.
This article reveals new details about the intense battle between the SGH and the Ministry.
Today (Thursday, March 27), a committee debate on the Child Care Benefits Recovery Operation will take place in the House of Representatives at 1.30 p.m.

This story is part of an ongoing research file.The rule of law

In the recovery operation on the Allowance Affair, the Foundation (Equal) worthy Recovery (SGH) fights for its independence. For her, this is essential: without that independence, the many thousands of affected parents would not trust the SGH. This is the only way the foundation, with its thousands of volunteers, can work to remedy the unprecedented injustice done to the victims. The foundation is involved in a conflict with the Ministry of Finance, which actually wants more control. But for the victims, the ministry is the very authority that caused their problems; that's a problem. In addition, the recovery operation is underway at the ministry. exceedingly slow.

From the ministry, there was a lot of criticism of the “Laurentian method”. It would be too expensive and the evidence would be weak

The stakes are high and the fight is fierce, as it has become clear since the spring of last year. That's when it became clear for the first time that the ministry had a lot of criticism of the 'Laurentian method'. It was too expensive and the evidence was weak, said anonymously quoted officials who came out via the press. That would cost the Dutch treasury dearly. Since then, the foundation, and especially its co-founder Princess Laurentien, has been under regular fire. On February 26, after a WOO request from various media, app traffic about the issue was released for the first time. In particular, the apps from and to the top official in the Ministry of Finance — Secretary General Bas van den Dungen — are remarkable. NRC found a month ago that the ministry had 'deep distrust“The SGH left NRC know that she regretted that the messages were released without context. The Ministry of Finance did not respond to requests from the foundation to publish its messages and documents at the same time. The SGH made part of that information available for inspection after Follow the Money requested it. An analysis of these reports from April and May 2024 shows that the battle between the foundation and the Ministry of Finance was even more fierce than it had previously come out. The ministry questioned the foundation's methodology and independence, and the foundation therefore fought.

What exactly does the foundation do?

The SGH was founded in the summer of 2023, partly by Princess Laurentien, and claims to have the fastest solution imaginable. The core of the foundation's approach is a method that has been devised and gradually improved by parents, personal injury experts, insurers, lawyers, scientists and consultants. The “Laurentie method” provides that recognized victims take control of their own destiny. The starting point is the conversation they enter into with neutral volunteers, who talk extensively with affected parents after training. The parents are the “storytellers”, the volunteers the listening “writers”. The storytellers set the pace, the goal is to get their whole story on paper. The stories go to professional claims analysts, who provide their services at a social rate. They “then analyse and verify the story — including supporting documents — recorded by the writers. Then there is a second analyst who looks at the story and finally follows the critical eye of a quality controller,” personal injury lawyer Derk-Jan van der Kolk previously explained. Follow the Money out. “The final compensation is the sum of the amounts resulting from the story. The more destructive the effects of the wrongful recoveries from the Fees Service, the higher the compensation. The entire package then goes to the ministry, where the parents sign a collective settlement agreement (VSO). That means that parents can definitely draw a line under the story. '

A big shock

The correspondence between the foundation and the Ministry of Finance's Directorate General for Recovery (DGH) shows that major tensions between the two ontstonden.Dat began at the end of April 2024, when Geert Beekhuis, the chairman of the committee that evaluated the foundation's work, emailed the 66-page draft report to Princess Laurentien. The evaluation committee had reviewed 91 files of affected parents. In 48 cases (53 percent), the claims statements and associated documentation were incomplete, reports the report. According to the sample, the damage analysts would have made an incorrect analysis of most of the files.

This was a pilot, we counted on feedback. If it doesn't come, you assume it's good

Gerd van Atten, co-founder of SGH

On the basis of which criteria the committee had reached those conclusions, the report did not report. And it was not possible to check the findings: the committee had not included the underlying dataset. “This was a pilot, we were in learning mode. We counted on feedback to tackle the project as quickly and in the best possible way. If it doesn't come, you assume it's good. So that suddenly turned out to be not the case,” says Gerd van Atten — lawyer and co-founder of the SGH — to Follow the Money. “It's like building a house with someone and your partner — without telling you — keeps a list of everything that's wrong and comes up with it at the last minute. Throughout the previous period, the ministry had only pointed out two cases where something was wrong. 'The evaluation committee stated in its concept that it expected the foundation to face a high influx of affected parents. This is due to the calculating behavior of the parents. The committee substantiated this with a reference to a publication in behavioral science (see box). According to the committee, that scientific perspective would “be at odds with one of the central points of SGH's approach, namely that trust is based”.

The SGH wrote to the ministry that it found the passage about calculating parents “false and shockingly suggestive”

The foundation presented that statement to professor of clinical neuropsychology Margriet Sitskoorn. She judged otherwise: the SGH's trust-based approach was actually not at odds with the findings of the relevant publication. The SGH wrote to the ministry that it found the passage “incorrect and shockingly suggestive”. “A kick in the face of parents. We haven't made it any further. Perhaps a quote from the report “Blind for Man and Law” would be better. “The foundation barely had time to respond in terms of content: two business days. Her comment was due on Tuesday, April 30. Princess Laurentien sent Beekhuis a message the same day that an official shared with Secretary General Bas van den Dungen the next day: “It should come as no surprise that with this concept [report], you run the risk of completely derailing the process. It is now no longer realistic that the evaluation timeline can be met.” She continued: “We would like to receive the source data of the sample and all the examples mentioned next Sunday so that they can be debated. It is very special that this topic has not come up that way in the dialogue. That is telling. I see it gloomy. In the past 2 years, the connection has not been so fragile. I'm holding my heart. ' “I'm going to make sure you get the source data asap; I don't think Sunday works, so we'll have to push back the Tuesday deadline so you have enough time,” Beekhuis wrote back. “And if there are errors or our interpretation is wrong, we will definitely take that into account. The goal is precisely to improve together to expand your approach. '

SGH was not allowed to read report about 'colleague' CWS

The SGH makes a point of sharing as much as possible with the outside world, as evidenced by the extensive 'First report'that the foundation published in early March 2024 and the weekly updates in the learning monitorThe evaluation by the Commission for Actual Injury (CWS) — one of the two other “routes” through which victims can request compensation — was published earlier this month. “A restart must be made to break old patterns and culture within the CWS,” was a conclusion of the summary that was shared with the House of Representatives on April 2, 2024. In order to process larger numbers of files from affected parents, CWS must become “a production organization with high-quality professionals”. “One thing is absolutely clear: continuing on the current path is not an option.'The underlying report, prepared by consulting firm Berenschot, was not made public and the SGH was eager to see it, but received zero response. The foundation was only able to read the confidential report late last year, after it became public via appeal to the Woo. “Confidential report shows chaos and cynicism at the government commission for compensation for benefits affair,” was the headline of the product that Follow the Money published about it.

“Misleading presentation”

According to Van den Dungen, the evaluation committee was “independently positioned”, but consisted entirely of ministry officials. Some committee members had even been involved in building the recovery organization. A crucial point was that the committee almost lacked knowledge of the method used by the SGH. It is widely used by personal injury experts and considers the lives of injured parties before, during and after recoveries. This method is about the plausibility of the damage, while a tax inspector wants to see proof for each claim: receipts.

'The concept report seems to want to question SGH's intentions and craftmanship. '

On 3 May, Van Atten sent the evaluation committee the SGH's first response to the draft report. '... the report is factually incorrect, incomplete and suggestive in so many parts that it is misleading. It seems like a conscious choice to question SGH's intentions and expertise. ' The draft report, he wrote, left “man and law aside”. According to Van Atten, the committee “deliberately misrepresented [..] the damage analysis process carried out by the foundation.” With regard to the source data supplied late, he stated that the committee's analysis was “disconcerting”. His conclusion: the evaluation was “part of a pattern of the past few months where efforts have been systematically made to interfere with SGH's neutral and independent process”. According to him, the recommendations would result in the ministry being in a position to “regain control over the outcome of the claims settlement”.

The rule of law

The rule of law has come under fire: lack of transparency, laws that do not comply with international law, and profiling citizens is no longer the exception.

There was no response to Van Atten's letter, but apps show that it did not go well at the ministry. An official characterized its tone as “armoured” and feared that Princess Laurentien would take an equally harsh stance on Van den Dungen. “I'm not going to comment on their substantive opinion about the evaluation other than I think the tone does not do justice to my people's work,” Van den Dungen then appended. On May 5, the SHG sent a comprehensive response to the draft report: 46 pages, supplemented with an Excel sheet commenting on the findings about the data. “The amount and diversity of factual inaccuracies, omissions and suggestive wording has overwhelmed SGH,” the foundation wrote. “The unequal, firm and substantive analysis comes across as questioning the integrity and competence of a team that works professionally and motivated to help solve the problem created by the government.”

Final report: conclusions unchanged

On Sunday evening, May 12, Beekhuis delivered his final report on, plus an extensive document in which the committee responded to the foundation's comments. “We explicitly don't recognize your view of “misleading”. We strive to provide a factually accurate report, which is why we appreciate your substantive responses. We have assessed these according to their factual nature. This way, we can even better include your perspective in the report. We suggest that it seems to be a conscious choice to question SGH's intentions, craftsmanship and integrity, far from us. We look at the content with an open mind, we sincerely listen to the perspectives of you, DGH and other parties, and draw our conclusions. ' “Thanks again for your substantive responses. The evaluation team worked hard to study, process and respond to the responses,” Beekhuis wrote in the accompanying email. SGH was no longer able to respond to the final report. The disputed scientific passage had been deleted and the evaluation committee had taken a large number of comments to heart. But some fundamental differences of opinion remained unchanged, as did the list of findings. The conclusions of the report — which the ministry published the same evening — were unchanged: the foundation needed to make the results easier to explain and imitate. In other words: the affected parents had to provide more evidence to prove their damage onderbouwen.Dat was diametrically opposed to the foundation's approach.

Official leaks to the NOS

Negotiations on a new service agreement (DVO) between Finance and the SGH were supposed to begin shortly thereafter, but on 13 May, the foundation received another blow. NOS journalists had received the note with the “financial picture” of the scaling up of the recovery operation. “Repairing the benefits affair risks becoming an unprecedented noose: an additional 5 billion,” the NOS headlined. That news came while the formation talks for a new cabinet had reached a decisive phase in The Hague. The responses in the apps by and to Van den Dungen provide a nice picture of how the ministry dealt with the leak within the organization.An official who had now had contact with someone from the SGH texted Van den Dungen: “He called it very bad and ugly that this can happen, and also literally stated that “if this is a attempt is to make things fall, you succeed.” 'And: “According to them, a lot of damage is now being done to Laurentien , and they are considering how best to deal with it without making it too big. I firmly pointed out to him that we really want to stay up to date and would like to be informed in advance with the same openness and transparency as something like that would happen. “For Van den Dungen, the leak was no reason to pick up the phone ourselves: “Perhaps make it clear in contact that we don't want to let things go wrong at all and don't have a hand in this. We stand by our commitment.” That night came News Hour with an extensive item in which an official of the Implementation Organization for Recovery of Allowances (UHT) — wearing a wig and a voice changer — was interviewed. “Precisely because you don't have to provide hard evidence to the foundation, they hold their heart at the tax authorities,” said the official.

“With a knife to the throat”

Later that week, the foundation and a team from the ministry sat down at the negotiating table. The officials went “hard” and reported that “certain points are not negotiable, but are a requirement to continue,” according to an email. The key points: a “control protocol” and the requirement for more “supporting documents”. In short: Finance still wanted to see receipts. According to the ministry, it was clear after the evaluation that a “possible follow-up phase” of the SGH route required other agreements. The pilot was completed and Van den Dungen made it clear in a telephone conversation with Princess Laurentien that the foundation was not allowed to take any further steps. “The State will no longer close VSOs,” he repeated by email. The SGH also had to stop calculating the facts.

The foundation had to tell the parents that their case could not be closed for the time being. At that time, there were almost a thousand current cases.

This actually brought the whole project to a standstill. The foundation should therefore tell the parents (the storytellers) who were talking to the listening writers at the time that their case could not be closed for the time being. When (and whether) that would happen at all depended on the new service agreement to be concluded between the ministry and the foundation. At that time, there were almost a thousand pending cases. The foundation found it intolerable that these victims now had to wait again. Princess Laurentien replied to Van den Dungen that she had forwarded his message to the SGH lawyers. For Van Atten, the decision to no longer sign settlement agreements was a reason to walk away from the negotiating table. “I had no desire to negotiate with a gun to my head,” he says. 'I found it fundamentally wrong to terminate ongoing discussions with affected parents.'A lawyer hired by the SGH argued that the decision was legally ineffective. The ministry would be “not entitled” to unilaterally terminate the agreement it had concluded with the foundation.

“People's lives are at stake”

There is a “fundamental difference of insight”, Van Atten emailed Van den Dungen at the end of May. According to him, the state was “anyway obliged” to let parents who were already linked to a listening writer go through the process. He explained why the foundation took this so seriously: “Because there is another perspective I have to stand up for from the Foundation, and that is the perspective of the parents who are currently going through the process [..] who have had their soul and soul recorded by a Listening Writer or are working on it,” he wrote. “Flesh and blood people who, against their better judgment, have put their trust in someone else one more time and hope that they too, like those now more than 200 other parents, can come to a VSO and get on with their lives.” “We can't tell them: “Sorry, we'll have to stop for a while, but we don't know when or if it will continue.” In doing so, the parents lose faith in the Foundation. “He illustrated that with a dramatic anecdote. “Last week, due to the special leak, we had to commission a suicide intervention from your organization to the NOS. With the police and everything. That is the reality in which we operate, and for which the people of the Foundation also feel and bear responsibility. People's lives are at stake.” Van Atten recalled that if a new service agreement could be concluded in the coming weeks, it would not have to go to court proceedings. “I will resume the conversation with your team tomorrow,” he concluded.

Van den Dungen was crystal clear: the pilot has stopped and the ministry will no longer sign VSOs

An official who saw this email characterized Van Atten's response in an app as a “harassment strategy”. Otherwise, the foundation's lawyer would have let go. horen.Dat happened shortly afterwards. According to the foundation, affected parents who were already linked to a foundation volunteer have the right to complete the process. If there was no new agreement with the foundation by June 10 and the signing of the VSOs has not yet resumed, the SGH would file a lawsuit against the ministry. At almost the same time, top official Van den Dungen sent an email to Van Atten. His message was crystal clear: the pilot has stopped and the ministry will no longer sign VSOs. The foundation had to inform the parents “appropriately”. Should the SGH refuse that, “we are forced to provide clarity ourselves,” wrote Van den Dungen. He was referring to a letter that the Secretary of State would send to the House of Representatives. The SGH knew it had to swallow it. “We had been told that the ministry would not accept going to court,” says Van Atten now. “We could have maximally enforced around 940 parents to complete the pilot, but we would have had to leave 20,000 parents out in the cold. That was unthinkable. “Princess Laurentien focused on a video message to the affected parents. Via an app, she informed Van den Dungen: “Hi Bas, FYI, video message made to parents to alleviate pain if possible and to keep calm and keep them together where possible.” The next day, Secretary of State Aukje de Vries shared a letter with the House of Representatives, she reported in it that the pilot with SGH had ended and new agreements had to be made with the foundation. As a reason, she stated that “the individual results of the route must be explainable and imitable.” Van Atten and a number of foundation employees received calls that day from the parents who were already in the SGH process. “One of the worst days of my life,” he says. 'I've had desperate people on the phone crying: “I promised my kids it was over.” '

Alarm clock

On 16 July 2024, the ministry and the SGH signed the new service agreement containing the control mechanisms desired by the ministry. These required adjustments in the organization of the SGH: it had to scale up and recruit more volunteers and damage experts. The process could go ahead, but that was difficult. Once again, the ministry believed that the substantiation with receipts and documents was insufficient. Three months after signing the second service agreement, not a single new VSO had been signed. On October 16, the foundation shared a document within the circle of stakeholders: “Success blocks independent recovery approach: Foundation (Equal) worthy Recovery sounds the alarm”. The document described eleven blockages. “SGH fears the impracticability of the SGH approach, which was precisely intended for acceleration, emotional recovery and focused on parental satisfaction.” It wasn't until the week of November 11 that the first VSOs were signed again. Due to the delays, then Secretary of State Nora Achahbar (NSC) was called for a emergency advisory committee to compile, which was led by MP Chris van Dam (CDA). On 23 January, the Van Dam Commission published the report “Promise less, do more”. “We do want to be completely clear. The way things are going, it's really not good enough. A significant number of people are not being helped properly. This way, it will take many years,” the committee wrote. “Moreover, the recovery operation does not meet what can be expected under the rule of law.” The committee considered it necessary to “take firm action”.

We want the Ministry of Finance to make a retreating move in this process. She is also a party.

Van Dam Commission

One of the elementary problems identified by the committee was that “generosity” is not in the DNA of the government organizations involved. “Parents are dealing with a government that always asks them for receipts and does not seem to trust them.” This led to the main recommendation: “We want the Ministry of Finance to make a retreating move in this process. She is also a party. ' According to the committee, when parents need emotional recovery and need help determining the damage, that task should be “completely” placed with the SGH. “This is a proven and well-working method.” Now, due to all the additional requirements of the ministry, the SGH is not functioning as it did last year. Now around 20 affected parents sign a VSO every week, the foundation tells Follow the Money. At the end of April 2024, there were still 50 per week. This also happened at the time with half the number of volunteers who are currently active for the foundation. The good news for the treasury is that the average amount of damage paid out is “well within budget”, says the SGH, well below the 88 thousand euros that the ministry uses as a budget*.

'Colossal governance issue'

Earlier this month, on March 14th, reacted Secretary of State Sandra Palmen (NSC) on the Van Dam Commission report. She ignores the most important recommendation — that the Ministry of Finance distance itself —. The ministry is in control and even wants to strengthen that role. The cabinet accepts the advice to mainly use the SGH route to compensation, but also believes it is “necessary to strengthen SGH's governance”.

“Once again, we are being blamed for everything, even though joint agreements have been made about it earlier”

“That's the new tricky topic now,” says Van Atten. “About governance, we received a note drawn up by the law firm NautaDutilh, which doesn't make the dogs want a living. Once again, the pressure is being increased. Once again, we are being blamed for everything, even though joint agreements were made about it earlier. “On Tuesday, a product into The Telegraph that this mainly concerns the statutory roles of Princess Laurentien and Van Atten. According to the statutes, the duo could exert too much influence within the SGH, and the checks & balances would fall short, causing “integrity risks” as well as “risks of conflict of interest”. Van Atten was not surprised by the publication this time: he participated. He was forced to do so, given NautaDutilh's note. “Our lawyer states that there is no problem and that we meet the legal requirements. The cynical thing is that the ministry has previously agreed to our governance, but itself poses a colossal governance issue: Finance is the party that committed the wrongful act and controls damage repair. That's why the SGH is there as an independent party, that's why affected parents can trust us and that's why we exist. ' “The ministry is a party to this terrible tragedy. That is why the Van Dam Commission recommended that the ministry should make a retreating move. But now the opposite is happening. “When asked whether SGH has considered mediation, Van Atten replies affirmatively. “Especially in the negotiation process about the service agreement. But that was refused by the ministry.” Response from the Ministry of Finance. The ministry's spokesperson says the following: “SGH is an important partner in the recovery operation. The cabinet highly appreciates the work of the foundation and the efforts of everyone involved. The government also believes that SGH's listening method can be of great value to many affected parents. That is why the cabinet wants to remain fully committed to this method. In line with the recommendations of the Van Dam Committee, we are discussing this with SGH. This includes the scaling up and governance of the foundation. Precisely because the SGH plays such an important and valuable role in dealing with additional claims, it is important that governance meets the legal requirements.This is regardless of the government's great appreciation for the efforts of everyone involved in the SGH.We believe it is important to have this conversation together at the table and not via the media.Our shared goal should be to make the SGH route a success and so do affected families. to help quickly and in the best possible way. '