Opinion: Second benefits affair looms if we start recovering benefits accused of bad faith

Opinion

Opinion: Second benefits affair looms if we start recovering benefits accused of bad faith

Minister van Hijum of Social Affairs intends to recover excessive benefits that were demonstrably received intentionally or through gross negligence. Exactly the same measure was used in the benefits affair, with disastrous consequences.

Fabian van HalOctober 30, 2024, 5:11 PM

Minister Eddy van Hijum tijdens het UWV-Kamerdebat. — Minister Eddy van Hijum during the UWV Parliamentary Debate. Image by David van Dam/de Volkskrant

The amount of more than 84 thousand disability benefits may have been set too high or too low. At the beginning of this month, the Parliamentary debate on this brand new crisis followed. In November, the research results — and, if possible, also the solution — by responsible minister Eddy van Hijum (NSC) will follow.

About the Author

Fabian van Hal is an administrative law lawyer.

This is a submitted contribution, which does not necessarily reflect the point of view of de Volkskrant reflects. Read here more about our opinion piece policy.

Previous contributions to this discussion can be found at the bottom of this article.

During the Parliamentary debate, Van Hijum already referred to a potential solution: part of the overstated benefits will be reimbursed. This recovery will only take place if the benefit is clearly too high and the recipient should therefore have known better. As fair as it sounds, this solution is so clumsy: recovery takes a lot of time, has far-reaching risks for vulnerable citizens and, in addition, there is no administrative capacity. As a result, this recovery operation can result in a true benefits affair. Minister Van Hijum should stay far from this.

battering ram

In the current affairs program Buitenhof, last Sunday, Minister Van Hijum tried clarifying his position: only when a beneficiary 'demonstrably' knows that he has received too much money will be recovered. An administrative law lawyer knows that Van Hijum is referring to deliberately receiving too much benefit or cases where this is due to gross negligence.

Experts of the benefits affair are now ringing a bell: it is exactly this “intent or gross negligence” accusation that the allowance parents were also made. The consequences for the parents were, as is well known, disastrous. Indeed, this serious accusation makes it possible that no payment arrangement was concluded and that victims lived at or below the social minimum, with the result that they were unable to support themselves. In short, the intent and gross negligence are an administrative battering ram with unforeseen consequences.

Moreover, the question arises: how does Van Hijum want to show that someone knew he was receiving too much? Especially among vulnerable citizens, such as benefit recipients, intent or gross negligence must be determined with caution. Accurately determining intent or gross negligence requires customization, human knowledge and, above all, a great deal of time. This creates the risk, on the one hand, that mistakes will be made due to time pressure and, on the other hand, that a Damocles financial sword hangs over the heads of benefit recipients. In addition, numerous appeal procedures and correcting erroneous findings will cost the Dutch state more money than taxpayers would like. Especially now that the human dimension is an administrative pillar, Van Hijum needs to know better.

Expensive promise

Although “customization” is an administrative magic word, the cure for this scandal-in-the-making does not lie there. Determining per beneficiary that he or she received too high a benefit in bad faith is a very extensive project. Especially with 84 thousand potential files. Customization requires intensive review before the government and — last but not least — in court. This ambitious customized plan, which Minister Van Hijum is referring to, is almost impossible because of the already understaffed implementing organizations and jurisdiction. Moreover, customization is an expensive promise that leads to distrust in the government if that promise is not fulfilled or fulfilled too late.

In administrative law, the principle applies that an error on the part of the government should be at its own expense. This is all the more true now that recovering a WIA benefit that has been set too high for months puts Dutch people with a small wallet in a bad position. Even though a beneficiary could have known better: recovering an erroneously accrued benefit debt is the nail in a vulnerable citizen's coffin.

The solution is therefore logical: learn from the benefits affair, put it to words when it comes to the human touch, and cancel the overstated benefits.