The cabinet has admitted that introducing the new permanent corona law is a rush job. A spokesperson for health minister Ernst Kuipers says that the cabinet actually wanted to take more time for the corona law, which should be introduced after the summer.
The new law is meeting a lot of resistance. Mayors, municipalities and GGD GHOR are very critical of the new law, because it gives the government extra powers that can limit the fundamental rights of citizens.
The Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNG), the Netherlands Association of Mayors (NGB) and the Security Council would have liked to have a say in the law because they are primarily responsible for enforcement. Incidentally, they put that criticism on paper at the end of June when the bill was submitted for consultation.
“The criticism does not change now either, because the recognition does not change anything,” says a spokesperson for the VNG. “There is a lot to criticize about this law. A temporary problem is leading in this law. That is very undesirable. Ambiguity is now also being created instead of contributing to a robust, good system.”
The permanent corona law is in a hurry, because the Senate no longer allowed an extension of the temporary law in May. Until then, this temporary law formed the legal basis for the corona measures. The cabinet is taking into account that the virus will flare up again this autumn and that action will have to be taken again.
The municipalities have also criticized the proposal in terms of content. They wonder, among other things, whether such a radical system change is necessary and desirable for tackling a temporary problem. They also ask for a clearer substantiation of the division of responsibilities and powers.
Didn’t look enough at alternatives
In the proposal that was ultimately sent to the Council of State for advice, the government addresses many of the criticisms that emerged during the consultation round. It states in this regard that the municipalities “in principle support the line taken, in which respect they deem clarification and tightening up in parts”.
The Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) has the most criticism of the new corona law in terms of content. The ATR even advises not to submit the bill. The main reason for this is that it is still unknown which approach and combating the corona pandemic has worked well, Trouw writes.
Investigations and evaluations of the measures taken earlier are also ongoing. Possibly less burdensome alternatives to the corona law can therefore be overlooked.
The cabinet does not want to wait with the introduction of legislation because the autumn period is approaching and it is expected that the corona virus will revive.