News Politics
Support for abolishing guaranteed seats in water boards
The bill to abolish the guaranteed seats in the water boards has received support from various political groups in the House of Representatives. This became apparent on Thursday evening (April 21) during a debate on the private member's bill of MPs Laura Bromet (GroenLinks) and Tjeerd de Groot (D66). It is not yet clear whether they will have enough supporters.
Caroline van der Plas (BBB) is against the abolition, just like VVD, SGP and CDA. Pieter Grinwis (ChristenUnie) is against abolishing the guaranteed seats, but does want to get rid of the obligation that one of the members of the executive board must leave the guaranteed seats. If the secured seats go overboard, Van der Plas wants the BoerBurgerBeweging to participate in the Water Board elections.
In the water boards, eight to thirty members sit on the general board. Most have been chosen. Each water board board also has seven to nine guaranteed seats for representatives of companies, farmers and managers of nature reserves. These are staffed by VNO-NCW, LTO and the VBNE. Due to 'the increased complexity of our water management, the initiators no longer find it self-evident that the interests of the agricultural sector and the business community predominate'. Water management has become crucial for climate adaptation, mitigating biodiversity loss and water supply in times of drought, according to the bill's introduction.
More powers through the Environment Act
According to the two MPs, the expansion of the regulatory powers also calls for 'a complete democratization of the administration in order to give voters more influence over the creation of regulations that affect them'. This extension of the regulatory powers is a consequence of the Environment and Planning Act. "For these reasons, the management of the water board must be carried out by a level of government that is no longer based on the 'payment-interest-determination' principle, but is based on the 'one person, one vote' principle."
VVD does not agree with that. "By abolishing the secured seats, water boards become a political arena, while they are a good example of interest representation," said MP Fahid Minhas. SGP is also against. Chris Stoffer: "In the distant past, farmers jointly put their shoulders to the wheel for good water management in their area. From there, water boards arose in the centuries that followed. With knowledge of the area and an approach mentality, the water authorities have acquired an internationally renowned position and our water management in order. The participation of farmers, among others, now via secured seats, has contributed to this. We should therefore not abolish these secured seats. On the contrary, if they were not there yet, we must set them up immediately."
'Set a hundred people free and the farmer fall'
CDA is also in favor of retaining the guaranteed seats. Harry van der Molen: "A water board consists of a city of a hundred inhabitants and the surrounding countryside. One farmer lives in that countryside. Is it fairer to take decisions with half plus one or is it fairer to ensure that the farmer, whose company can be directly affected by the decisions of the water board, is at least sitting at the table with that water board board? Or is it: release a hundred people and the farmer falls?
JA21 Member of Parliament Maarten Goudzwaard quoted the advice of the Council of State: "However, the concept of democracy can also be viewed more broadly, in which the protection of minorities or specific interests can play a role. This is not unusual and is applied in other places." That is the core for JA21. "For my group, too, the context in which this board operates is essential for the water boards. We attach great value to a careful balance between safeguarding positions and interests and doing justice to the voice of the people and groups whose interests are Expertise and balanced safeguarding of interests is the foundation of the water boards. Anyone who undermines this foundation undermines the water boards as such."
BBB is also against the proposal. Van der Plas: "If this private member's bill goes through, we, myself and my party, will be forced to join the BBB in the water boards as well. The people who now have the secured seats are welcome to join the list. Given the current polls, the initiators may well regret this proposal."
CU: Remove obligation that a board member must come from secured seats
ChristenUnie MP Pieter Grinwis has his doubts about the bill. "Is this the proposal that will take us further: abolishing the seats on the water board board that are occupied by minorities with a greater interest in and a greater contribution to the work of the water boards? 'democratization', but with the functional character of the water board? I have serious doubts about that." However, he is not against change: "I have already hinted that the concerns of the petitioners have not fallen on deaf ears. The ChristenUnie also recognizes objections from practice, such as the unhealthy block formation. As far as my group is concerned, we are removing the obligation that one of the members of the executive board must come out of the guaranteed seats. This obligation is not necessary to make the guaranteed interest heard properly in the water board board. We can also adjust the number of guaranteed seats and their distribution."
MP Eva van Esch wants to completely get rid of guaranteed seats: "As far as the Party for the Animals is concerned, we are switching to a fully democratic form for water boards. Secured seats are unfair and unnecessary. water must be controlled." PvdA MP Habtamu de Hoop is also on that line: "The current system of secured seats is a remnant of the past that, as far as the Labor Party is concerned, simply does not belong in a modern democracy, certainly not if those secured seats are necessary innovations in the can get away."
PVV has long abolished water boards in election program
The large PVV party can be decisive in whether or not to delete the secured seats. PVV is against the water boards 'in itself'. "We have had in our program for a long time that we would rather abolish them and that we would like to place their task in the hands of the province. The Netherlands has far too many boards and too little democracy. In that respect, this bill appeals to us." said PVV MP Barry Madlener.
This proposal will be discussed further in the House after the May recess.
Linda van Eekeres
© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.
