Cabinet did not pre-test Princess Laurentien's 'politically sensitive work'

Monday, September 16th, 17:15

Cabinet did not pre-test Princess Laurentien's 'politically sensitive work'

Renee van Hest
Investigative Editors

Judith Pennarts
Investigative Editors | Nieuwsuur

The cabinet only tested Princess Laurentien's involvement in the claims settlement of the Allowance Affair after a contract with the Ministry of Finance had already been signed. Experts believe that the cabinet should have assessed earlier whether those activities could conflict with its position as a member of the Royal House.

From July 2023, Laurentien's activities are sensitive because, according to experts, the princess is carrying out a government task. On behalf of the Ministry of Finance, her foundation is setting up alternative claims for affected parents in the Allowance Affair. But not the princess, but the prime minister, is responsible for her work.

The prime minister should have been on top of this.

Paul Bovend'Eert, professor emeritus of constitutional law

Only four months after Laurentien started, then-Secretary of State for Supplements Aukje de Vries (VVD) sent a letter about it to then Prime Minister Mark Rutte. “Incomprehensible,” say constitutional law experts. They call it “mustard after the meal”. The cabinet should have considered beforehand whether the princess's involvement in a government task was desirable.

The Ministry of Finance acknowledges that the assessment took “a little longer than usual”, but that retroactive testing is also possible. “The prime minister should have been on top of this,” says emeritus professor of constitutional law Paul Bovend'Eert. “From the start, he should have been intensively involved in whether the princess should even have these activities.”

Ministerial responsibility

From research by News Hour it appears that in the letter, Secretary of State De Vries on November 28 states that “there are no compelling reasons that preclude the acceptance of ministerial responsibility”. Rutte endorsed that, confirms General Affairs.

The Government Information Service emphasizes that the primary responsibility for Laurentien's recovery operation lies with the Secretary of State. Earlier - in 2017 - Rutte did accept ministerial responsibility for another of the princess's foundations: the Number 5 Foundation.

Reconstruction

Read here the entire reconstruction.

The fact that, in this case, the Secretary of State bears ministerial responsibility for Laurentien's work - as the Government Information Service emphasizes - is wrong, according to experts: it is the Prime Minister who is responsible for coordinating and implementing ministerial responsibility for members of the Royal House.

“The Prime Minister should have sent such a letter to the Secretary of State. He must coordinate and execute, not the other way around,” says professor Bovend'Eert.

But the current Prime Minister Schoof also follows the same line: “The responsibility for the recovery operation policy and the deployment of the (Equal) Worthy Recovery Foundation (Laurentien's Foundation), red) lies with the Secretary of State.”

Procurement rules ignored

Finance does not want to make the 2023 letter public. As a result, it remains unclear on the basis of which the assessment was made that Laurentien could hold her sensitive position.

Despite the fact that the test turned out to be positive at the time, there are sensitivities to Laurentien's involvement.. For example, when awarding orders to the princess, Finance appears to have failed to follow the procurement rules twice: for a pilot assignment worth 4.2 million euros and a new order worth 96 million euros.

The ministry ignored the advice of the National Finance Inspectorate in that new major assignment, it previously showed. messaging by NRC. The Inspectorate warned that a private award is “possibly unlawful”. The assignment should have been publicly tendered.

On the contrary, the prime minister must ensure that Laurentien does not end up in a vulnerable position again.

Paul Bovend'Eert, professor emeritus of constitutional law

“It's really strange that you make a mistake once and don't learn from it. That you also don't learn from a warning and then seem to ignore the procurement rules a second time,” says professor of procurement law Pieter Kuypers.

Indeed, the ministry acknowledges that it did not follow the procurement rules and that this involved “a reasonable wrongdoing”. But this risk was accepted because the House wanted speed and not to leave parents in uncertainty. A fallacy, says Kuypers. “This order could have simply been put out to public tender with an expedited procedure.”

Exception for princess

According to experts, the ministry is thus making itself unnecessarily vulnerable in a file that focuses on the government's unlawful actions. In addition, ignoring the rules damages the princess's position. “These procurement rules are intended to prevent the suggestion that you give certain people an advantage,” says professor of administrative law Geerten Boogaard. “Sooner or later, the question comes: has an exception been made here because it's a princess?”

In addition to the procurement issue, there are also questions about the transparency surrounding foundations involving Laurentien. According to the website “disinterested” place. But after questions from News Hour the Number 5 Foundation (NR5), where the princess is director and director, appears to be sending invoices to the Foundation (Equivalent) Recovery (SGH).

For “facilities, expertise and knowledge,” according to a spokesperson. It would be a “reasonable cost allowance” and that money does not go to Laurentien's salary. But Bovend'Eert believes that the princess should have been transparent about this. “It doesn't matter if this is an expense allowance or a salary.”

Vulnerable position

The foundation also appears not to be affiliated with the CBF, the charity label. Organizations with that label are, among other things, obliged to publish executive salaries. The foundation does have a so-called ANBI status, which applies to institutions that are committed to the public interest.

A spokesperson for the van Laurentien Foundation says that they are considering applying for the CBF label after all, but that has not happened yet.

Laurentien may be resigned at SGH, but if it's up to Gert-Jan Segers - chairman of the SGH Supervisory Board - Laurentien holds a “continued engagement”. Unwise, says Bovend'Eert. “It turned out that the princess ended up in a vulnerable position. The prime minister must ensure that Laurentien does not end up there again.”