Questions from member Heite (New Social Contract) to the Secretary of State for Finance about the message “6-0 for allowance parents, but State will continue to litigate” and a civil or administrative uniform mass damage claim to a

2024Z16815
(submitted October 24, 2024)
Questions from member Heite (New Social Contract) to the Secretary of State for Finance about the message “6-0 for allowance parents, but State will continue to litigate” and a civilian or administrative uniform mass damage response to accelerate the recovery problem
1.
Are you familiar with the message “6-0 for allowance parents, but State continues to litigate”? [1]
2.
What is your response to the image painted in the article that the State's continuing to sue against your better judgment?
3.
What is the core of the six discrimination complaints that have been declared well-founded by the College for Human Rights (hereinafter: the College)?
4.
Do you share the view that after six judgments of discrimination, there is no longer any reason to defend these complaints on a case-by-case basis? If not, how do you justify that the cabinet continues to defend itself when victims are already heavily burdened?
5.
Why does the State intend to continue litigating, despite the fact that in the six cases already assessed, there is discrimination by the tax authorities? Do you share the view that continuing to litigate against allowance parents, despite the College's existing judgments, further damages trust in the government?
6.
Now that six cases of discrimination have been confirmed by the College, why is individual judgment still awaited in other cases? Are you willing to acknowledge discrimination in future cases immediately? If not, why not?
7.
Lawyers argue that compensation should be awarded more quickly because the discrimination is clear. Is the government taking specific steps to accelerate this process?
8.
According to the cabinet, the College has “stretched” the definition of indirect discrimination. On what basis does the government make this analysis and how is it legally substantiated?
9.
According to the cabinet, the extended definition would no longer have been used in the sixth judgment. How does the definition of the first five judgments differ from the definition of the sixth judgment? How does the cabinet explain that the sixth opinion also ruled that there was discrimination by the tax authorities?”
10.
Can you explain what consequences you foresee of a changing definition of indirect discrimination in future cases that the College will decide?
11.
Are you aware of the article “Settling the benefits affair can be done much faster if it is handed over to court”?
12.
Do you share the views in this article? Can this significantly accelerate the recovery process, which has stalled and needs to be reset?
13.
Is it true that the judge can make a number of categories of similar cases and then grant similar compensation in these cases, without having to look at each case individually?
14.
Do you share the view that the Wamca Act allows the judge to make a binding ruling, which would not only save time, but could also give affected parents a sense of justice, because it is not the government, but the judge who decides on this?
15.
Given the situation across the chain, shouldn't you consider a crisis organization?
16.
Is a solution, such as in the United States, conceivable with a class action, including an opt-out, and various options based on the evidence provided?
17.
Is it true that this gives parents control again, especially when it comes to trade-off between care and speed?
18.
Is it true that the Commission on Actual Injury (CWS), in particular, lacks the necessary speed, both in setting up a more efficient organisational structure itself and in dealing with requests to compensate the actual additional damage?
19.
Is it true that the CWS has dealt with 540 cases in four years so far? While the Equal Recovery Foundation (SGH) could work towards 350 cases per week?
20.
When do you expect to reach 350 cases per week?
21.
Can you explain why the CWS does not come close to the goal set by the SGH?
22.
Do you share the conclusion that the CWS, with 540 parents in four years, is also not working? If so, what are you going to do about it?
23.
Do you think there are alternatives if the current additional damage routes remain stuck?
24.
How do you recognize yourself in the idea that the cooperation with the SGH has been at an impasse since the cooperation agreement before the summer?
25.
Before the committee debate on November 6, 2024, can you discuss with the SGH whether you both still have confidence in the current cooperation agreement going well?
26.
Can you explain why a maximum amount of 2,500 euros has been agreed for special, harrowing and traumatic events?
27.
Do you remember the Van Vroonhoven motion of April 2024 on uniform claims handling within administrative law? What about implementing this? Are you already working on this?
28.
Do you share the view that a uniform, administrative recovery arrangement with the associated guarantees can make a quick and thorough recovery operation possible?
29.
Do you share the view that the original decisions (in particular higher repayments) from the period 2010-2020 can be used as a guide for the claims calculations?
30.
Can you answer these Parliamentary questions separately within a period of two weeks, at least well before the committee debate on November 6, 2024?
1) NU.nl, October 21, 2024, https://www.nu.nl/binnenland/6332195/6-0-voor-toeslagenouders-maar-staat-blijft-doorprocederen.html?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2