“There is anyway of thunder” and “why not remove it?” Those were two of the comments VVD MP Ard van der Steur in May 2014 wrote in the margin of a draft letter from the Minister of Security and Justice, his party colleague Ivo Opstelten.
The subject of the Teeven was -deal, which Opstelten would stumble. From his eighteen points in the air plus some cancellations show that Van der Steur quite some influence on the letter.
It was known that as a Member of Parliament was involved in the way the Ministry wanted to communicate about the case. That already garnered criticism, because an MP must precisely control the government. But instead, he worked out that the foregoing would raise too many questions.
Controlling task
In answering 137 questions in Parliament after the presentation of the second study the commission Oosting have been Van der Steur writes that he as member of parliament should have been aware of the scrutiny role of parliamentarian.
at the same time, he pointed out that it is normal “that his contacts with important processes between ministries and parliament “
Minister Van der Steur:.” these contacts take place with members of both coalition and opposition parties of both Houses of Parliament and their administrative support these contacts also include the “probing. ‘letters to the Chamber. the relevant minister is responsible for contacts and how accountability to Parliament. “
the House debate Wednesday on the second report of the inquiry Oosting did that research the political aftermath of the controversial Teevendeal. In the second study, the committee concludes that there is no question of a cover-up, but part of the opposition is there still not convinced
No comments:
Post a Comment