2024 07 04 Debat Plenaire Zaal Regeringsverklaring Voortzetting Dick Schoof

I would like the Prime Minister to commit that we will also see in the budget what the forecast is for those poverty figures, so we know whether it will be achieved or whether additional policy is needed. So we will also hear on Budget Day whether the expectation that it will at least remain equal and hopefully decline will be met. That seems like a reasonable question to me. Thank you for that commitment. The second is that there was an interdepartmental policy review this week. That's a very difficult word for a number of departments that have worked together and looked at what actually causes poverty. Because poverty is not just about whether I now have an extra 6 or 10 euros per month, so purchasing power goes up per week, sorry, purchasing power goes up because of indexation, but people also get into major trouble due to fines, collection agencies, harshness in social security. And that report also contains a fair number of proposals. Can we receive a substantive response to that at the beginning of autumn, on which of the proposed measures this cabinet is taking and which measures can really have an effect on preventing poverty? Madam Chair, I can also say yes to that. That is the normal course of events for an IBO report.

Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to return briefly to the answer the Prime Minister gave me in response to my question about the single-income earner. I very consciously painted the picture in my first term of those neighbors of Henk and Ingrid, where the wife worked and the husband was in a wheelchair. Because if the idea arises anywhere that the SGP absolutely wants women to stay behind the kitchen sink, that is absolutely not the case. For us, it is about freedom of choice. I'm not saying that to the Prime Minister, but just to clarify what it's about. Very often this is not a choice. But what matters to us is that where there is no choice, or where there is a choice, there is simply neutral freedom of choice, so that families can organize their own lives. Now, with that introduction, Madam Chair, the answer the Prime Minister gave was a bit like, you think, well, I don't know exactly. Look, there is a very concrete motion from Mr. Omtzigt, supported by almost the entire House, only D66 and the VVD did not support it at the time. Well, you know what happened to those parties after the last election. They lost at least 20 seats. So I assume that support is even broader. And the call is to reduce the marginal pressure for low and middle incomes, for those families. I don't expect, Madam Chair, as we also discussed with Mr. Omtzigt in a debate, that we will completely close that gap with the upcoming tax plan. But what I would like to see is that at least a first step is taken. This also has a concrete connection with the poverty we were just talking about, and that a vision is also laid out on how we can eliminate that gap in the longer term. Now my question is, could the cabinet give answers on that in September? And I add, this was very specifically for our Senate faction, at least twice, perhaps more often, the reason to vote against the tax plan. So it really is a very high priority for us.

Well, Mr. Dassen on the previous point. Thank you, Madam Chair, because I found this very thin as an answer to the question of how we are going to secure our future earning capacity. Because this main lines agreement also shows that we are cutting a large part of our scientists, 1,200 scientists who were precisely hired with the idea that they could help us tackle the major challenges of the future, precisely to ensure that we... [bell sound] ...to ensure that we really should not do this because it directly affects our future earning capacity. And I am curious whether the Prime Minister takes those voices and those concerns seriously, not only to look at what we do here and now, but also how we ensure that the position we have, our attractiveness for the business sector, also in the future, our business climate, and thus our earning capacity for the future, can be safeguarded.

But, Madam Chair, I really find this too thin. Because precisely those cuts to research and science, the removal of 8 billion, including from the National Growth Fund and the research and science fund, directly affects the earning capacity of our future. It affects the companies that are now developing new technologies, and it also ensures that large multinationals will be less willing to continue to establish themselves in the Netherlands in the future, because we are no longer the knowledge park. I hope I don't need to explain that there is a competitive battle going on with the United States and China, and if we lose that, and if we are not willing to actually invest in it, then new developments like batteries, hydrogen, will be done in the United States, artificial intelligence in China, and then we will become the consumer of the value of others. So I want to urge the cabinet to pay more attention to this, to go and look with the Minister of OCW and the Minister of Economic Affairs, and I see him nodding vigorously, I am very happy about that, to take these alarm bells seriously. Because it is very easy to say, yes, we are now going to reduce the regulatory burden and we are now going to ensure that the fiscal climate here remains okay, but if you don't dare to invest in the future, you will get a very big bill for that later. So again, my appeal to this Prime Minister: take those alarm bells seriously and get to work on it. An innovative economy is essential for this country, and we will come back to it in the government program.

Yes, Madam Chair. The objection of my party to this measure is very great. It is actually a penalty on living together well, because you are increasing the burden on people who give to good causes, on companies that give to good causes. And this cabinet is already cutting 1 billion in subsidies to the social sector, but that is something the government gives. And precisely all those good causes, all those organizations that strengthen society, and then you would also cut on the other side where entrepreneurs and people themselves give. I have seen in the main lines agreement that there is also 2 billion in tax relief for citizens that still needs to be worked out. And in my opinion, this is typically one of those things where choices are made: are you going to do this? Yes or no? It's not that it can't be done any other way; it's a political choice. And I would seriously urge the cabinet, towards the autumn, to come up with something better than weakening society in this way.

Mr. Chairman, my previous interruption about single-income earners, let me be clear, we have already marked that as our top priority. But this issue of the gift deduction is also very difficult for us, and Mrs. Bikker just indicated that as well. My question is, does the Prime Minister, does the cabinet also see that, and perhaps think about it over the summer? If you're not careful, and you remove a lot of that work that is done through giving, and all the social institutions doing things, you also remove something from society that, if you're not careful, will come back directly or perhaps in a few years, and will cost the government much more. And I would say, please reflect on that as a cabinet in the coming months, because then you are also dealing with each other for the first time. Look at it carefully, and perhaps you can also, because I understand that you have to balance the books technically, but maybe you can also make a distinction. I know that the cultural sector, for example, always has a multiplier effect, but also look at those institutions that really mean something in society and really ensure that something else doesn't have to be paid for. And think, well, that's just not going to work out. Is it possible to look at this in a more refined way? I don't necessarily need an answer saying we're going to do it this way or that way, but I would say, take it with you in the coming period, reflect on it now that you are really getting down to work hard for the first time. And I am sure that in the cabinet, I look around, there are people who really have insight into this. And maybe it would be a nice team-building exercise to look together at how you could give a slightly better interpretation to this, while I understand that you have to balance the books.

Yes, Madam Chair, I had to get my calculator out. That was about the natural gas-free operation. Look, where does that amount come from? It's 300 billion, those are the total costs per... well, per home, 40,000 euros. That is an amount calculated by the Vereniging Eigen Huis, I think, or the PBL, one of those two. And those are the costs per home, 8 million homes, that's the amount people have to pay if they want to make their home completely natural gas-free. Is that the path this cabinet is continuing on? Because that was the old policy, let's say, the idea that we can adapt the climate, we must dedicate everything to that, so all homes off the gas, then we will achieve the goals. Well, nonsense, because we won't achieve that at all. China blows that away in three days with their new coal plants at airports. In short, the Netherlands can't do it, but is the cabinet continuing on that disastrous path that means people have to pay 40,000 euros for heat pumps in their homes, hybrid or not?

No, that's fine. Only the more principled point, and I was a bit shocked by that in turn, your statement that the cabinet is continuing in a responsible manner, whatever that may mean. Because the money won't fall from the sky, as the SP always thinks, it has to be paid. So homeowners will have to pay that. And I want to know that, whether it is true that homeowners will continue to bleed for making homes natural gas-free.

Yes, Madam Chair, perhaps briefly continuing on the climate and energy approach of the cabinet. In the main lines agreement, it was agreed that we will stick to existing agreements. Only if we don't achieve the goals will we make alternative policy. Now, in the autumn, there will be a new Climate and Energy Outlook from the PBL, the independent referee, and it will probably indicate that the climate goals for 2030 are not yet fully being achieved, because a number of climate measures are also being reversed. How does the Prime Minister see the process after that PBL report?

Yes, Madam Chair, it won't become very complicated, I fear. Because last year we heard for the first time that the Netherlands is on track to achieve those climate goals for 2030. But there were a few very important conditions attached: everything must be continued, we must fully implement what we have agreed with each other, and there were a few important elements, such as the agricultural agreement, which was supposed to account for about 5 megatons of CO2 emissions. But that agricultural agreement unfortunately never materialized, and I also read in the main lines agreement no additional measures to reduce CO2 and methane emissions in that agricultural sector. So yes, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to predict now that the PBL is going to give you, as a cabinet, the task of taking additional climate measures, as you also agreed in that main lines agreement.

And, Madam Chair, finally, I am not asking what kind of additional measure you are going to take, but especially how it will be approached. And I would like to give you one thing to consider. I myself had the honor of being Minister for Climate and Energy for the past 2.5 years, coordinating minister for climate. And that means you are also dependent on colleagues in other areas, such as the built environment, agriculture, and mobility, who are responsible for reducing CO2 emissions. I was able to do that in the past few years because I felt supported by the Prime Minister to really urge those colleagues to go the extra mile. And that will also be crucial for Minister Hermans, because she is responsible for the electricity sector and the industry sector, two sectors with large emissions that are becoming more sustainable very quickly. But the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Agriculture will also have to deliver, otherwise we will ask something unreasonable of our Dutch industry. And it's called green growth for a reason; we want to keep that industry here, keep those jobs here. So I also expect you to ensure that the agricultural sector and the built environment also reduce CO2 emissions.

Yes, sorry, nothing, I'll run faster. Continue.

The section on migration and asylum, in which block does that come? I think we've already covered that. May I ask something about that? I'll place my first interruption on that. I was almost starting to doubt. The Distribution Act. And I think you also want to show good governance in your leadership. I think the Minister of the Interior also wants to maintain a good relationship with municipalities. You have signed a main lines agreement, so that is the bandwidth. But I think there is also some room in the order of things. Are you willing to look at whether the withdrawal of the Distribution Act, very concretely, at the moment when asylum seekers are no longer being dragged in buses to Stadskanaal, but we see that the pressure on Ter Apel has actually decreased, and then only then to schedule the withdrawal of the Distribution Act, so that this cabinet does not consciously create chaos in the country?

Yes, Madam Chair, thank you, because this offers an opening. Because I interpret carefulness as indeed only starting the withdrawal of the Distribution Act at the moment you know that you are not making the problem in Ter Apel bigger. Is that how I hear it?

Yes, but I think carefulness is more than just legal. If we make agreements with municipalities, and municipalities, which we already assign many tasks to, will have a harder time because of this, and then I'm talking about Ter Apel in particular, but there are more municipalities that are working very hard to house asylum seekers. Carefulness also means dealing carefully with municipalities, dealing carefully with people. So it seems to me that it would also be a sign of good governance and carefulness if you only withdraw the Distribution Act at the moment you really have a view of an asylum chain that is simply humane and we are no longer dragging people around.

Madam Chair, thank you. I have a question about the order. I have four blocks and I've lost the thread a bit, so I want to check with you if it's correct. I have one: rule of law and working method of the cabinet; two: finance and budget; three: physical living environment; and four: other. I'm wondering if that's correct and where we are now.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, it could go a bit faster. I had the impression that block four was finished.

Yes, so then I'm wondering, and I'm directing this question to the Prime Minister, where my question will be answered. The Prime Minister has said that the Netherlands no longer has to be the best boy in the European class. Where will that question be answered?

Yes, okay. So look, I'm asking about it because I'm curious on what basis the Prime Minister bases that statement. Because if you look at the statistics, the Netherlands is not at all the best boy in the European class when it comes to nature and living environment. We have the worst water quality of all, we are at the very bottom. We are at the top of the list of countries with the highest nitrogen emissions per hectare, which is destroying nature. We are at the bottom of the list of organic farming area. So if you look at the statistics, such a statement, as if the Netherlands always wants to be the best boy in the European class, is not based on reality, in my opinion. That's why I asked about it. And if the Prime Minister says here, yes, but if you look at the rules, then it is, then I am curious which analysis he can send to the House if he claims something like that.

Yes, Madam Chair. I understand that the Prime Minister says, yes, I recognize that, because this is often claimed. But if you look at reality, it's not true at all. The Netherlands, when it comes to the physical living environment, is the worst boy in the European class. The highest pesticide use per hectare, which can make citizens sick, we are really at the top of those lists. We are at the top of the lists for the highest nitrogen emissions, at the bottom of the lists for healthy water, and in the middle for protected nature. So I would ask the Prime Minister to respond to this, because it has also been in the newspapers. He must have seen that the Netherlands is not at all the best boy in the European class all the time when it comes to nature and climate.

Yes, Madam Chair. The Prime Minister does not reflect on the fact that it is being claimed without question that the Netherlands always wants to be that best boy in the European class, while if you look at the effect and the reality, we are not at all the best boy in the class, because our nature is deteriorating. So the Prime Minister can say that, but if the reality is that there is no analysis with facts and figures underlying it, and also not a reality that our nature is doing incredibly well compared to other European countries, then he must send that to the House. Otherwise, this is a factual claim that stifles the debate. Because if you keep saying we are the best boy in the class in terms of rules, but your nature is deteriorating, then people who don't feel like protecting nature can keep using this one-liner, and everyone believes it. So I would urge the Prime Minister, if he wants to claim this, to actually substantiate it and relate it to the reality in our nature areas, in our agriculture, for those people who live nearby, who suffer from all that manure, who experience health problems from all that poison and all that ammonia. Then you have a substantive debate and not fact-free statements, I would think.

Yes, Madam Chair. I think the Prime Minister has already clearly indicated how important it is that we continue to cooperate in Europe, how important the European Union is, especially in a time when the challenges around us are growing, in an increasingly unsafe world. But then it is also important that the Prime Minister stands there with a clear mandate and can negotiate with a clear mandate. And that is also a bit behind my question: will he be the one with the mandate in Europe to actually make choices, to be able to cut knots, or does he have to consult with the various faction leaders in between before he can make a choice?

Madam Chair, then one concrete example of that and a question. The European Commissioner, the Dutch European Commissioner, will be nominated. That is done by the Dutch cabinet. With the previous nomination, Mark Rutte determined it independently, that it would be Wopke Hoekstra, with a small, narrow part of the cabinet, I believe. But now Mr. Omtzigt proposed last week during the debate on the European summit that the Dutch European Commissioner should endorse the main lines agreement. And I was curious how this process will work exactly according to the new Prime Minister. Are there already names that the Netherlands is considering? Does the cabinet decide this? Have agreements been made about this with the four coalition parties? And when can we, as the House of Representatives, be informed about this?

Madam Chair, so I understand that the cabinet will nominate someone for that, not in consultation with the various coalition parties. I have one more question, and that is about the pioneering role of the Netherlands with regard to support for Ukraine. Because the coalition agreement states that support will continue, financially, militarily, and humanitarian. But a big difference is, of course, how that role will be filled in exactly. And we saw with the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Rutte, that he had a very active, driving role in that support for Ukraine. He was a driving force. Whether it was about F-16s or other support, he arranged in Europe that there was support for Ukraine. And I am curious how the new Prime Minister sees his role in that. Will he also be the driving force in Europe to ensure that support for Ukraine remains at least at this level, but actually to ensure that that support is increased? Because that is what a pioneering role entails: it's not just what is in the coalition agreement, it's mainly about the implementation and how the Prime Minister gives substance to it.

Yes, Madam Chair, that was approximately the same question I wanted to ask that Mr. Dassen asked. Because you know, for the VVD, not only the security in our country is of crucial importance, but also the role we take in international security and the pioneering role we have always had. So I also very much appreciate that Prime Minister Schoof called President Zelenskyy yesterday. I wanted to ask him if he can say a bit more about that, about how he also reassured President Zelenskyy that the Netherlands will remain a loyal ally and will also support him in the fight against Putin.

Yes, Madam Chair, glad to hear that the Prime Minister is taking this line on Ukraine. The coming weeks and months, this summer, could be quite exciting in Europe, not only because of the war on our own continent and the war in Israel and Gaza, but also because of unrest in a country like France, where the second round of elections will take place next Sunday. And we already see that financial markets are reacting restlessly to that. What possible effects does the Prime Minister foresee in response to a French election result, and what role should the Netherlands then take within the Eurogroup?

Madam Chair, that's fine and wise to also deal with it thoughtfully. But let me then ask it at a different level of abstraction. Because you...

The Netherlands can adopt different stances when things get tense in the European Union. Especially after Brexit, the Netherlands has often played a bridging role between Paris and Berlin as a responsible member state, the largest of the small ones, acting proactively to ensure European solutions for European problems that also directly affect Dutch interests. Beyond that abstract level, what stance does the Prime Minister intend to take in the European Council? Is it a connecting role or more of a frugal role as we've seen in the past?

It's good that the Prime Minister is also bringing up some ambitions from the coalition agreement. Because you are indeed going to ask very big questions of the European Commission and other member states—questions where the chance is quite high that many in Brussels will say, 'Have you gone mad in the Netherlands? Sort it out yourselves.' And when it comes down to it in the coming period, on our security, on addressing that war or potential unrest in the eurozone that could directly affect Dutch trade interests, I expect that the Dutch cabinet will do everything possible to sometimes rise above its own narrow interest and look at how we can become stronger together in Europe.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Could the Prime Minister explain why in his view it is in the Dutch interest to do so much in supporting Ukraine?

Yes, so the question is not being answered but repeated. So why does the Prime Minister think it is in the Dutch interest if what he calls Russian aggression—I call it Russian defense, because in my view Russia is reacting defensively to American aggression in Ukraine, but that's debatable—why is it in the Dutch interest to engage in this war with Russia? I don't see that, and I hear no argument. I only hear the Prime Minister repeating that it is in the Dutch interest according to him, but why? Look, we've now seen various Russian government officials say that if the Netherlands continues with these arms deliveries, Dutch locations will become targets. So there could possibly be a Russian attack on Dutch territory or supply lines. We are making ourselves very vulnerable. Nord Stream was blown up; the Netherlands lost many billions from that, and it's still officially unclear who did it, but it's an open secret that the Americans did it, and that we thus suffered an act of war against us. It was an act of aggression against the Netherlands, among other things, blowing up Nord Stream. Soon Dutch soldiers might have to go there—the first soldier has already died. What is the Dutch interest here? I hear no argument, no explanation. I only hear it repeated like a mantra: 'It is in our interest, it is in our interest.' Why? Which interest of the Netherlands is served by this?

Concluding, do I understand the Prime Minister's position correctly that it is his view that if the Netherlands does not contribute to stopping supposed Russian aggression in Ukraine—and thus the Western bloc of which the Netherlands is a part—then Russia would want to conquer the Netherlands? Is that his thinking?

Mr. Timmermans. Mr. Timmermans, my question is... Mr. Timmermans, Mr. Timmermans, you need to make some noise, Mr. Timmermans. Chair, I hope you will permit me the remark that a dictator who aims to restore a great empire only stops when he is stopped. And stopping that dictator is our collective European responsibility. I thank the Prime Minister for being so clear about this. It will likely be one of the most important tasks facing us all, and I hope you will allow me to say that briefly after these remarks were made by Mr. Bodet. My remark to the Prime Minister is: he will soon go to Brussels next week; I welcome that. Through him, I would also urge all ministers to go to Brussels very quickly and make contacts. You still have some time until the new Commission starts, but all contacts are equally important at all levels—with the Commissioner, with the President of the Commission, of the Parliament, and of the European Council. So I applaud you for doing that. For you, it is a bit more difficult because you don't have a political home; that is simply harder, because Europe has become quite political on that point. We also know that from Prime Minister Rutte, who did a lot via Renew, via the liberals in Europe. But I heard Mr. Onzicht say last week that the new European Commissioner should endorse the coalition agreement. I want to point out to you that demanding that from the new Dutch European Commissioner is a fight with the European Treaty. A new European Commissioner will come from the Netherlands, but that person will not take a seat in the Commission with a mandate from the Dutch government or parliament. The new Dutch European Commissioner will sit in the Commission, will have to work out a program with the Commission, and will have to defend it before the member states and the European Parliament. But that person is not the ambassador of the Netherlands; that is someone else. So I would urge you, when choosing the new Dutch European Commissioner, to look at the person in combination with the function that is most important for the Netherlands, but without the illusion that you can send someone to Brussels with a political mandate or a coalition agreement, because that is simply in violation of the Treaty.

No, no, Chair. And there has never been a Dutch Commissioner who forgot that he came from the Netherlands. And it is also not at all strange if a Commissioner is sent to Brussels who is politically close to the coalition; I'm not saying any of that. But you cannot send a Commissioner to Brussels with a political mandate or a plan. So all understanding if you look within your own circle for someone to become the new European Commissioner—all member states do that—but there are limits to what you can give a Commissioner, and those are set by Europe.

Chair, we had a fairly extensive and also emotional debate this morning about the headscarf, and the Prime Minister gave a comprehensive answer, also indicating where the norms and boundaries lie for him. And now, about 15 minutes ago, a tweet was posted by Deputy Prime Minister Agema. I'm trying to understand what the cabinet's message is with that tweet. Ms. Agema has just tweeted a screenshot of Mayor Halsema's Instagram account, which shares a video of Ms. Lala, and Ms. Agema also shared a screenshot of an opinion piece by faction leader Halsema from about 15 years ago about the societal debate on the headscarf. And honestly, with this tweet from the Deputy Prime Minister, who speaks with one voice on behalf of the cabinet, I no longer understand what the line is that Mr. Schoof conveyed this morning.

That would have been an okay answer if Ms. Agema were still sitting in the blue chairs as a Member of Parliament, but she is now sitting next to you in the cabinet as the first Deputy Prime Minister of this government. What insinuation, what message is the cabinet trying to convey through Ms. Agema towards the Mayor of Amsterdam?

Chair, that is still no answer to my question. And before I place a third interruption, I would actually like to suggest that we briefly suspend the debate so that Mr. Schoof can look at the Deputy Prime Minister Agema's tweet and consult with her about what the cabinet line is regarding the headscarf. Then I will gladly ask my follow-up question to the Prime Minister.

I ask everyone to take their seats. The floor is to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Dassen? Mr. Jette, excuse me. Yes, Chair. So I understand that the tweet from Deputy Prime Minister Agema is not being withdrawn. And thus, in this debate, while the Prime Minister is answering, behind his back, his own first Deputy Prime Minister has broken the unity of cabinet policy and undermined his authority. The first major debate this Prime Minister has with this House, and the Prime Minister's authority was first undermined by the faction leader of the PVV and then undermined by the Deputy Prime Minister of the PVV. When that happened to Mr. Rutte in his third cabinet—undermining his authority and breaking the unity of cabinet policy—a State Secretary was dismissed. You are now showing that you have no authority over this coalition, that you have no authority over this cabinet, and that all your fine words about setting norms are hollow phrases. I wish you a lot of wisdom and a lot of strength in leading this cabinet in the coming months. Because you have shown in these two days that you have started an impossible task and that you are letting yourself be insulted while you stand there.

Mr. Dassen. Yes, Chair. The Prime Minister is now hiding behind a substantive line, but what is happening here is that the first Deputy Prime Minister next to him is undermining him during a debate. During the debate, the unity of cabinet policy is being broken. During this cabinet, Ms. Agema is setting everything on fire. This is not about a substantive line; this is about you being directly undermined. And that tweet is still online, so nothing has been done about it. So I don't need to hear the substantive line. I want to hear from the Prime Minister what we all asked this morning: how is he going to set norms for this cabinet? Because that undermining from that bench will continue, but that it also happens from this bench is unacceptable. The Netherlands cannot be governed this way. This is a totally unstable cabinet in this manner; it will cause chaos, cause stagnation, and that will affect all Dutch people. You are being undermined, and you must take action. I would like to hear how you are going to do that now.

Chair, it is irresponsible behavior by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is uncollegial. It is an insult. It is an insult to all Dutch people. It is an insult to this cabinet. It is an insult to the Prime Minister. And if you keep holding on only to the line you expressed this morning, then I think you are going to have a very hard time. You were asked by this entire House to set norms, because there are great concerns—great concerns about undermining, great concerns about theories that have been expressed. And this morning you tried to make clear to this House that you would stand up against that and that you would set norms for this cabinet. And what do we see in the afternoon? Irresponsible, uncollegial behavior from your first Deputy Prime Minister. I leave it to you.

Chair, I stand here with a feeling of shame. Many people at home are watching, and again we are talking about Twitter messages sent from the cabinet, where we've had all sorts of trouble with Twitter messages before. So the lesson should have sunk in by now. This country needs very different things: people who step up to tackle problems. You can certainly disagree on substance, but when you are in debate with each other and you act as a kind of extra booster for the PVV faction—and that's how this feels—that's the problem. And that's why I have so much difficulty with it. Because being a servant of the Crown—and that is this entire cabinet—means being a servant of the whole country, and that is not just tweeting for party gain. I say to the Prime Minister, Chair, you are not here with four little cabinets from the different parties; you are here with them for the country. And if that doesn't work in the coming period, we will continuously experience these kinds of peat fires. Maybe the parliamentary press or political junkies enjoy what's happening now—the House is suspended—but it's bad for the country. It's a scandal that we have to talk about this all the time. So I support the Prime Minister again. From the bottom of my heart, I think it's important that a new cabinet can get to work. But if the largest party itself chooses to continuously undermine that, then we are going to have a very difficult time. And the word 'responsibility' will have to be spelled better or put back in the dictionary of this cabinet.

Yes, Chair. Thank you. It has become firm and passionate, but I would like to say: it is not unfortunate, it is irresponsible, and that must stop very quickly, because it undermines everything. Thank you.

Chair, I want to join Ms. Bikker. All day yesterday and today, and undoubtedly everyone here, I receive an incredible number of messages from people at home who are following this and wondering what on earth we are doing here. Chair, I expect responsible behavior from people with a leading role in the House. And I would also like to ask the Prime Minister to address his minister on this, not only during meetings, debates, and deliberations. I expect a responsible role, and that applies to everyone sitting in that cabinet. So that also means we don't continuously set people against each other, pour oil on the fire. That applies to Mr. Wilders, who is undoubtedly behind Ms. Agema's tweet, and it also applies to Ms. Agema. But that applies to everyone. And may I also ask the colleagues in the House who are now expressing concerns—Chair, a point of order, because I hear someone shouting. You can also walk to a microphone. The floor is to Ms. Jezus. I will continue. Mr. Dijk, if you listen carefully, you'll hear... So if someone walks to a microphone to respond to Ms. Jezus, that's fine. Because I also wanted to add to the colleagues in the House who are now incredibly concerned about the position of the Prime Minister and say that he is being undermined: if you start the debate yesterday without a single word having been said about substance, never having spoken about the content—about how we are going to limit migration, lower taxes, provide more housing—but immediately waving motions of no confidence or saying 'oh, he's fallen through the ice on a test' and whatnot, that is undermining the position of someone who says 'I am sticking my neck out and committing myself to the national interest.' So let's please stop this and also show the people in the country that we want to take responsibility together.

Point of order, Chair. Not a point of order, but a personal matter. Colleague Jezus said literally that I was behind Ms. Agema's tweet. I am not, and that is a false, dirty accusation.

Chair, I understand very well the discomfort of Ms. Jezus, who, along with the other coalition parties, has to carry all this, because it all comes from the coalition. And of course she would rather talk about something else, because it is very unpleasant to be confronted with this again and again. My colleague, our colleague, this morning was given a personal moment by you, Chair, to say something about that, in which she tried to build a bridge and let the discussion land in a decent way that does justice to people in the Netherlands who choose to wear a headscarf. I thought she did that in a dignified way. I also thought that this gave the cabinet room to embrace that and thus settle a discussion that could become a split in favor of the cabinet. The tweet from the Deputy Prime Minister cuts across this, deliberately provokes, tries to stir things up again in a vicious way. We call it a tweet; it is a public expression by the Deputy Prime Minister of this cabinet. A public expression by the Deputy Prime Minister that contradicts cabinet policy. Unity of cabinet policy now requires, I say to the Prime Minister, Chair, that this tweet be removed immediately. And I also expect that tweet to be removed immediately, otherwise you cannot maintain the illusion of unity of cabinet policy.

Chair, I repeat: the public expression of the Deputy Prime Minister is in flagrant contradiction with cabinet policy. With that, she breaks the unity of cabinet policy. That can only be restored if she takes back that public expression—in this case, deleting the tweet. If she does not do that, if you do not compel her to do that, then you also know—and I say this reluctantly, because I don't like having to say this—that you are considerably undermining your own authority. And I tell you from the opposition: you do not deserve that on the first day you are in debate with this House. But it is an own goal. It is not something coming from the opposition. So Prime Minister, I ask you once more: delete the tweet immediately. That is the only way to restore the unity of cabinet policy.

Concluding, then I can only wish you a lot of strength. Because the taunting we have seen from that bench for years will now start from the cabinet bench. The taunting, the undermining, the sowing of division. I must tell you, I do not envy you. I do not envy the colleagues who come from your colleagues who come from NSC and VVD. You have to deal with it. The Netherlands has to deal with it. It is a circus, not a serious cabinet.

Chair, there are many people in the country who cannot pay their bills, cannot find a home, cannot get enough care because there is insufficient care staff. I can list a whole series of gigantic problems that need to be solved. From this morning, I have tried to constantly question you on these kinds of things, solutions also in the coalition agreement, solutions for people. And time and again, there is a hitch because of a kindergarten class that cannot behave. It is not my coalition, just to be clear. The parties that formed it—the most right-wing cabinet ever—oh, how proud they are. But if you get this kind of whining and fussing every half hour, what on earth are you doing?

Chair, the whining was just now from Ms. Jezus and Mr. Wilders. Yesterday in the debate, I saw Mr. Onzicht and Mr. Wilders fussing from that side. And now a tweet again. Was that tweet on a personal title or what, Ms. Agema? You do understand that it doesn't work that way anymore when you are a minister, right? You do understand that, right? You do understand that you are now creating an incredible number of blockages to solving the country's problems. You are more concerned with each other than with the country. That is not what you were chosen for, and not what you were appointed for. Go solve problems. People are waiting for that. People cannot wait. And Mr. Schoof, your authority has been so severely undermined. I hope it still turns out well for you, but I don't think so.

Yes, Mr. Chair. Mr. Bonbon? Well, Chair, I would still like to devote a few words to the kindergarten. I have committed myself, after careful consideration, to a cabinet that stands for what we have been asked to do on a number of points: grip on migration, housing, agriculture, farmers, economic security, given the tensions in Dutch society and internationally. That is not a kindergarten. That is a responsible cabinet. And I just said it is not good if anyone from the cabinet tweets during a debate. Let that be clear. That is over. But do not confuse that with the discussions taking place in the House. There is a big separation between the cabinet and parliament, and your manners are your manners, and we have our manners, and then we relate to each other.

Chair, it doesn't even work on the very first day to have a normal debate because you have to suspend because there is trouble. And it actually started before that, it started this morning as well. You started by asking—I gave all kinds of openings in those first two days, actually the first day already, that those two ministers are sitting there who make unnecessarily offensive remarks. You didn't address them. You didn't speak out about it. I also asked: what do you think of that? That's not so complicated. Yes, so I seriously wonder, Chair. People are watching this now, and I know that what I am doing now probably won't help either, I understand that too. Yes, I understand that too. But it's not that the people standing here are the cause of it. The cause is there, there is the cause. And it would become you, and I would also give it as a considered self-interest, to intervene quickly and firmly on this now. Because otherwise, yes, I said it already, I do not envy you at this moment, anything but. But it will not turn out well this way.

Chair, there are moments when I am simply ashamed to be a member of the House of Representatives. This is such a moment. I think we should also keep this brief but describe what is happening. I see the cabinet. There are many people there who simply want to do their work reliably and competently. I also see them being ashamed of what is happening. So I am not assuming that the entire cabinet is no good, and I am also not going to say that this Prime Minister has already failed in advance. What is happening is that a Deputy Prime Minister very consciously undermines her own Prime Minister, who is sitting next to her, during a debate. So that is a strategy of the PVV to sabotage this cabinet from the outset. And I think it is good that it is stated that the largest party in this parliament, which also has the greatest responsibility at this moment, is doing this. And we should, I think, establish that very clearly together.

Chair, what an amateurish mess. But Chair, let's not forget what this is really about. What this is really about is all those women in the Netherlands who have seen the expressions of two ministers in this cabinet: that you should take off your headscarf for freedom, and that they look down on people who wear their headscarf. It is about those women who are now worried about their religious freedoms, and all those women with a headscarf who currently work for the national government. That is what it is about now. And if you, as the responsible minister who sent that tweet, knowing that all those women are worried, still post a tweet to provoke on top of that, then you are not just amateurish, then you are simply malicious. Because you know it hurts those women. You know you are insulting those women with a headscarf. And I ask the Prime Minister to address that, to take care of all those women, and the salt in the wound that is now being rubbed by Ms. Agema by provoking on top of that—does the cabinet care about those women? I ask you.

And Chair, while the Prime Minister is saying that, he is left completely exposed, because that tweet is still there. That tweet with which Ms. Agema deliberately, while women were worried, wanted to taunt a bit over the backs of those worried women—it is still there. And this Prime Minister remains exposed, remains incredible, as long as this behavior is not sanctioned, as long as this behavior is not normalized. He does not distance himself from it by a millimeter. That tweet is still there, and those statements are still there. This man has lost his authority. And all those women in society with a headscarf who are now worried are the victims of it. I think it is a low point, and it is the living proof, yet another proof, that you should never govern with the PVV.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Prime Minister. I think it is completely clear what the cabinet stands for, clearer than any other cabinet has ever been on this point, and I thank him for that. I would like to give him the consideration to organize a tweet policy and also to think about whether it is wise for ministers to have two Twitter accounts: one for work and one private. I think he should perhaps call his predecessor, Mr. Rutte, who had a very strict policy on that. And Mr. Jette undoubtedly still knows that ministers said nothing between the end of the Council of Ministers and the start of his press conference. Because it is really of great importance that there is unity of cabinet policy. That is not just important for whether it's cozy here in the House—that can be theater and spectacle—but it is important for solving the major problems of the Netherlands. That unity of cabinet policy is not to annoy ministers; it is to ensure that it is unambiguous how this cabinet wishes to solve the housing crisis, how this cabinet solves the major problems in healthcare, how this cabinet shapes better governance, and how this cabinet gets a grip on migration. And in that interest, I would like to know how communication is going to be tightened so that it is unambiguous that everyone in the Netherlands knows: this is cabinet policy. And then there may be people in the House who think differently about it; this is it. I would also appreciate it, Chair, if we take the time to debate those problems today. I understand that we have done all these intermediate things, but that is what we have been waiting for for seven months: to start on that. And I hope we can debate a lot more about that tonight. Thank you.

Thank you for that clarity. Chair, it would be desirable if cabinet members then only have one public expression as a cabinet member. And if that doesn't happen, except in those two weeks before the elections, that you simply have clarity: 'I am busy with party politics.' Then it won't work for us to maintain the unity of the cabinet. We from the House will do our party politics. And I hope that you, instead of having these long debates about it, will also give direction at the first cabinet meeting to a cabinet that will give direction to the change that was desired on November 22, and that this was a small distraction.

Here now pretending it was a very strange tweet, not at all. But it was a photo of an interview with Femke Halsema who says, I quote, 'Sling off the headscarf.' With that, Mrs. Agema or the minister, in my opinion, is doing nothing more than showing that there has also been justified criticism of the headscarf from various people we know from left-wing politics, and that different opinions are possible. I see no conflict with cabinet policy at all. I also think that Mr. Schoof is being unfairly attacked in this way. I find it very hypocritical. It's fine. The minister is free to tweet something like that. It's good that it's being discussed. It's also allowed to have a preference, to say, well, I'd actually rather not have a whole street full of headscarves. I'd rather not have a whole country full of headscarves. You're allowed to think that. That's a legitimate position. That's also traditionally not something we don't know in the Netherlands, which is a symptom of the 'omvolking' (replacement migration), and that we discuss that with each other is justified. So I stand up for Mrs. Agema, but I think it's good that she speaks up. And all this fuss here distracts from the problems in the Netherlands. This is perhaps one of the biggest problems in the Netherlands. Shall we talk about that instead of all your feigned indignation? Thank you.

Yes, I would... I think Mr. Baudet now uses the word 'omvolking' in the sense that he uses it, which was rejected in a motion last week that was passed by a majority. So I would request that you act in line with that motion and refrain from that.

That motion is incompatible with the constitutional freedom of speech, and that motion is therefore of no value. The House of Representatives is not free to limit the constitutional rights of members of parliament by motion.

Yes, but that motion was passed, and I ask you, I urge you to adhere to it.

I have already heard Mr. Jetten in this round, so I would like to hear Mrs. Van der Plas and Mrs. from the Party for the Animals first. Mrs. Van der Plas?

Yes, thank you. And thank you to the Prime Minister for the clear and steadfast explanation. The Prime Minister shows that he stands up for his cabinet and his cabinet members. That does not alter the fact that the timing of this tweet, whether the content is right or wrong, everyone can have their own opinion about that. But it is of course not smart that as the first Frisian Prime Minister and as a minister in the cabinet, you send a politically charged tweet during this debate. And we are not proud of that in the Netherlands, I must honestly say. Not only today, not yesterday either. We, as Mrs. Jetten said, were also overwhelmed with messages from people in the Netherlands who really don't understand what's going on, what we're doing. People came to watch a debate for two days expecting to hear where the cabinet wants to go, what we're going to do. There are substantive questions, concerns from a certain side of the House, I understand that, and that's allowed, and you can express that. But we are now really two days in, with the exception of when it finally briefly went into substance, we are now debating about social media, about Twitter, who says what to whom. And I would simply like to ask Mrs. Agema, not demand or call on her, but I would like to ask Mrs. Agema, 'Hey, would it be so terrible to just delete that tweet, and then it's done?' I think, and I also ask myself, 'Yes, maybe it wasn't so smart to do that now.' I leave that entirely to Mrs. Agema herself. But I would like to make the call, Chair, to broaden this a bit. Because the harassment, as it's called here, goes back and forth, and it's not just back and forth on social media. It goes from the left to the right and from the right to the left. It also happens here in the debate, as we saw yesterday: yelling, laughing, interfering, shouting at each other. It's really a farce. It's really... I'm not ashamed to be a Member of Parliament, because it's the most beautiful thing there is, being a representative of the people. But guys, let's just all do that, right? I saw tweets yesterday too. I won't mention them here, I won't start a fight. I'll discuss that later with the faction leader in question, a Member of Parliament who also tweeted something about me that I really don't think is okay. But then let's just not do it. Let's all just not do it. Let's just stop it. Play the ball, not the person. And if that happens, also to me, Chair, it can happen to me too. We're all human. We're not robots. Then just call me out on it, and let's treat each other that way, and not like it's going now. That's really... we're making a huge blunder in the Netherlands.

Mrs. Ouwehand?

Yes, Chair. I wanted to ask the Prime Minister if he hadn't seen this coming. Didn't he see this coming?

Yes, Chair. Thank you for the answer, but it was largely an answer to Mrs. Van der Plas's question, so it would have been handy if it had been there, because I asked whether the Prime Minister couldn't have seen this coming, given the pattern we've seen throughout this formation and also the nominations. Mr. Wilders has been in the House for a very long time, and if you think you can change him, then I think you're just a bit naive. And also regarding the attempts Mr. Omzigt is making here, I think it's a bit naive to pretend that this House is full of people who wouldn't know how it should be done. Mrs. Agema herself has been in the House since 2006. The PVV has practiced politics in a way that is appropriate from the House: you look at what people have said in an interview or on Twitter, and you are called out on that. And if it conflicts with cabinet policy, well, then they were at the forefront to have an opinion about that, and that was their right as a Member of Parliament. In other words, that you do this now is not 'Oh, I didn't know how it worked as a minister yet,' and it fits a pattern we know from the PVV. That can't be news to this Prime Minister either. So the question is, couldn't he really have seen that this pattern would be continued with this cabinet, which he was asked to lead, and of which he said, 'I'm going to do that'?

Concluding, yes, Chair. Look, a cabinet that doesn't respect the rule of law can't take office anyway, so in that respect, the position of the Party for the Animals doesn't change. But I do feel a bit sorry for the Prime Minister who is leading a PVV cabinet and apparently didn't fully realize what he would be dealing with.

Mr. Eerdmans, thank you, Chair. Mr. Schoof is a marathon runner, and this debate probably already feels like a marathon. But we are of course not even at the first kilometer marker yet. I don't think Mrs. Agema's tweet is so much the problem. It's the nail in the low water that will always be found by virtually the entire opposition, minus perhaps Mr. Stoffer, Baudet, and myself. That indicates two things. That tweet shows exactly what hypocrisy is within left-wing Netherlands, and I think that's very clear. There wasn't even a comment above it; it was just a statement. I agree with Mr. Baudet on that point. The point is, you can do two things: one, don't let that nail be found, prevent it. I believe Mr. Schoof just said we won't do that anymore. But two, don't have the illusion that you will ever satisfy this camp with answers or gestures, because they will always come to this microphone, always. Whether it's Mr. Jetten, Mr. Van Baarle, Mr. Eerdmans, it doesn't matter, to find that nail in low water. So go ahead, do what you must do for the Netherlands. Keep a cool head, a warm heart, and move forward. I mean that sincerely. Because if you spend every week trying to satisfy this group of people who will always seize every point to split hairs, to start discussions, to dissect terms, whether it's a tweet from 10 years ago or from yesterday, they keep searching. So try to focus, and you know you are surrounded by a lot of political experience. Use that to continue the course. Thank you.

Mr. Jetten, Chair. I think we're about an hour and a half further on after I asked my first question about this tweet. And I think Mrs. Van der Plas just made a very reasonable request, a suggestion. I would actually like a very concrete answer to that. Will Vice Prime Minister Agema delete that tweet? Yes or no?

Then my follow-up question would be, Chair, what about the unity of cabinet policy? Because as long as that tweet is not deleted, that tweet is part of the expressions of the cabinet. What exactly is the problem that the Prime Minister has with the Mayor of Amsterdam, the mayor of our big city? What insinuation, what accusation does the Prime Minister have against Mayor Halsema?

Chair, then absolutely nothing makes sense anymore. And it's quite sad that the Prime Minister has spent the last hour and a half trying, with all kinds of different answers, to find what the fundamental point in this discussion actually is, and he still hasn't hit it. It's not another open-door text about women with headscarves. Shall we from now on speak about head or hijab, something less derogatory? That's not the point. You've made that point often enough in the last two days. The fundamental point in this discussion remains that the unity of cabinet policy hasn't just been broken, but that the unity of cabinet policy is that when there is a discussion in society about whether or not to wear that, the cabinet feels the responsibility, the cabinet expresses that we throw a bit of oil on the fire, we stoke, and we make insinuations towards the mayor of the largest city in the country. That is the cabinet policy that you are standing here defending, because you did not intervene and did not put your foot down and tell your Vice Prime Minister, 'Withdraw that tweet now, because I am here defending the entire cabinet and I am being undermined behind my back.' You let it pass. You have defended it for an hour and a half. With that, you have again failed today the simple question of whether you can lead this cabinet.

Mr. Wilders, Chair. What has been going on here for a while is a witch hunt. A witch hunt by, in particular, the left part of the House against ministers or candidate ministers of the PVV. And that is what is factually happening. We saw it when one of our candidates, during the hearing, took back almost everything that could be taken back about a word she never meant to use, about 'omvolking.' She said, 'That connotation was never mine. I have nothing to do with nations, I have nothing to do with planned idiotic theories. I won't use it anymore, and I shouldn't have used it.' Nevertheless, after she said that, she and her colleague who retweeted that were pursued in the hearings. And also yesterday here in this House, as if they had taken nothing back, they were pursued by the left part of the House, who simply wanted the witch to hang. That's what's going on. And the same is now happening with my former colleague and now Vice Prime Minister, Mrs. Agema. There is also a witch hunt going on about a tweet she supposedly sent, which she did send. And that, Chair, is also a witch hunt. Because I don't control the Twitter policy of the cabinet; you have to arrange that yourselves, whether it's allowed during debates or not. But she did nothing more than retweet an article by Mrs. Halsema of GroenLinks, who, I believe, said in a very old article years ago, and I quote, 'I can't wait for the moment when women will freely take off their headscarf. I would most like to see every woman in the Netherlands without a headscarf.' End quote. That's what Mrs. Halsema herself tweeted or wrote in a newspaper article or an interview with Gustaf Bessems. And today, apparently after the input or the personal matter of colleague Esmah Lahlah, she said, 'Well, look how wonderful what that lady is doing. I hope every Muslim woman looks at that.' And what Mrs. Agema did is place two factual things next to each other. Not her own opinion. She didn't say, 'I don't want those headscarves.' She didn't do any of that. She simply laid this factually on the table. And what happens now? From all sides of the House, but especially from the left part, it is suggested that Mrs. Agema tweeted something totally wrong, and she is blamed for that, and she must take it back. Well, I hope she doesn't take that tweet back, because she retweeted nothing wrong, absolutely nothing. And it really has to stop sometime, Chair. When people have apologized for words they didn't use, and yet are still pursued as if they had robbed a bank, to this day. Or when people factually retweet something and are accused of having done something wrong. This is a witch hunt on the members of the PVV who are candidate ministers and now ministers. And I reject that. And for those people, for our ministers, and for Fleur Agema, I stand up here and I will always do so, 100%.

Mr. Timmermans, Chair. I would like to put the following to the Prime Minister. We are used to it. You will have to get used to the fact that from Wilders and his faction, very hard blows are always dealt. But they can't take it. Because as soon as they receive criticism, they squeal and lie on the ground rolling in pain. It's Cristiano Ronaldo, but then ten times worse. We are used to that. But we must not let ourselves be distracted by that. Mr. Jetten said to the Prime Minister just now, 'Do you know what a dog whistle is?' Well, I say to the Prime Minister, this is a dog whistle. Such a tweet is a dog whistle. You try to provoke reactions with such a tweet that hook onto what Mrs. Lahlah was trying to do just now, namely bridge-building. That is a dog whistle intended to provoke. That was done on behalf of your cabinet. That is a public expression. And the only way, I repeat it once more, to set that right is to delete that tweet. If you don't do that, you have no unity of cabinet policy, and it is therefore permitted for Vice Prime Ministers to launch dog whistles into society to further polarize the social debate. You shouldn't want that, Chair.

Okay, okay. If the Prime Minister gives this answer, then I may also ask him, through you, Chair, what then was the intention of the tweet? You must also explain that. And then I hope the Prime Minister does not give the naive, false naive explanation of Mr. Wilders. Because you know that's not what it's about. What then was the intention of this tweet?

I would like to return to the government declaration. Mr. Bontenbal?

Mr. Bontenbal, Chair. I want to make two brief points about what Mr. Wilders also said just now. The fact that he himself came with the document and that he had it on his desk just now. I can't prove it, but it does suggest that there was indeed contact. One. And two, Chair...

Mr. Wilders wants to react to this.

Yes, but Chair, this is really getting too dirty. This is just too dirty. How dare you, as a supposedly decent politician, insinuate that it was already on my desk when I saw the tweet? I only saw it at the moment it was mentioned here by a colleague who came forward. I asked a colleague sitting there, 'Can you quickly copy that for me so I can read it properly?' Yes, that was the reason. So don't you dare accuse me of something that is not true. It's so false, Chair. If it's not true, it's not true.

Wait, may I finish my sentence, Chair? If it's not true, I also take my words back. If it's not true, and you really tell me it's not true, I am also decent enough to take it back. So I am now assuming it is not true, and I take it back. So I do that. That is noted. Your second point.

The second point, and then Mr. Wilders will perhaps correct me, but he just said something about 'omvolking' also coming from his mouth and from the faction. But in 2017, written questions were also asked by Mr. Wilders in which he himself used the word 'omvolking.' So that also doesn't add up, in my view.

Okay, Mrs. Van der Plas?

Sorry, I... yes, this is being brushed aside very easily here. And Mr. Bontenbal thinks he can spew this kind of filth in this way and then say sorry. But conspiracy theories are being spread here. Yes, conspiracy theories are being spread here. Yes. And that is a kind of politics that I deeply abhor.

The floor is given to Mr. Bontenbal.

Chair, I am really not too proud to say sorry for something. So if this was a fact that was incorrect, then I simply say sorry to Mr. Wilders. I am not too proud for that. This one, Mrs. Van der Plas, because we are now so nicely busy.

Yes, well, I think we were at the international section. Yes. And I actually had a question about the NATO summit next year. Oh, we are still having a debate here, right? Yes. So in my memory, we were at the international section. And next year, the NATO summit will be organized by the Netherlands. I believe from June 24 to 26. That is very nice, and it is also a great honor for our country. NATO is also important, because it also watches over the safety of all of us. And one of the things that is very important for safety, for international safety and national safety, is also strategic food security. And I wanted to ask the Prime Minister if, during the organization of the NATO summit next year, a side event could be organized that is entirely about strategic food security. That could perhaps also coincide with maintaining essential goods, so that we keep our own production of essential goods on our own continent, Europe, or in the Netherlands. And I wanted to ask the Prime Minister if he wanted to take this along and discuss it with the ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defense to see if that is possible.

Mr. Baudet, thank you, Chair. NATO is of course an intergovernmental organization that implements policy that is a bit the sum of the parts of the various member states. And we know that, in addition to the alliance between the Netherlands and the other NATO member states, there are always conflicting interests. The Netherlands does not have the same interest as France regarding pulse fishing, for example. The Netherlands has a different interest than Turkey, name it all. And I wondered if the Prime Minister is of the opinion that NATO policy and the NATO interest as the sum of the parts, the vector that NATO is, always coincides with the Dutch interest, or that it could also be that the Dutch interest is just a bit different from the NATO interest as defined as the resultant of all those partial interests together. So is it possible that the NATO interest is in conflict with the Dutch interest?

Yes. I hear, just like with my previous interjection on this subject, a repetition of a position but no substantiation of it. For example, during the time of the Bush Jr. administration, which started a number of wars in the Middle East after 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, there were several countries that were members of the alliance, for example the France of Jacques Chirac, who said, 'We do not support this. We are not participating. The American interest or American foreign policy is simply diametrically opposed to what we as France want.' Would something like that also be possible in the eyes of the Prime Minister from the Netherlands? Could the Netherlands, of which he is the Prime Minister, also say no to the United States or NATO on such a crucial point?

Yes, I sometimes have an extra question, but not now. So it doesn't always have to be in threes, Mr. Chair. All the better. Thank you, Prime Minister.

Mr. Van Baarle, Chair. Does the Prime Minister realize that this is a slap in the face for the Palestinians? Because this cabinet intends to reward the Israeli government for all those decades of crimes. Still, the land of the Palestinians is being illegally taken by the Israelis. The number of illegal settlements is being expanded, it continues. We see the horrors in Gaza. And then this cabinet is going to investigate rewarding the Israeli government for that by moving the embassy to Jerusalem. That is a completely wrong signal, given the war crimes that the Israeli government is committing.

Yes, Chair. You don't investigate something that amounts to a gift for Israel while the Israelis are currently committing war crimes, illegally taking the land of the Palestinians. Does the Prime Minister realize what the Israelis are currently doing? May I ask him if he even acknowledges that the Israeli government is currently committing crimes against the Palestinians? Does he acknowledge that the land of the Palestinians is being illegally taken? Does he acknowledge that the Israeli government is ensuring that a massacre is currently taking place in Gaza? Does this Prime Minister acknowledge that, Chair?

Chair, I just heard this Prime Minister speak very firmly about Russia's attack on Ukraine. I heard the Prime Minister speak very firmly about that. What Israel is doing is broadly the same. What Israel is doing is illegal: annexing the land of the Palestinians, illegally taking the land of the Palestinians. And they have been doing that for decades. And I don't hear the Prime Minister using those harsh words about the Israeli government. And with that, this Prime Minister differs essentially nothing from his predecessor, Mark Rutte. It seems that he continues to look away from the crimes of the Israeli government, even wants to give the Israeli government a gift, and abandons the Palestinians. And Chair, I think the Prime Minister should take that to heart. I ask him to have an eye for the position of the Palestinians and to condemn the crimes of the Netanyahu government. If you don't do that, you show that you are selective.

Chair, thank you for the answer to my question about the arrest warrants that the International Court of Justice or the Prosecutor has requested. Now we have also seen that yesterday it became known that at the end of last month, 1,270 hectares of land on the occupied West Bank were annexed. And the previous cabinet said that the sanctions list because of that colonization and illegal occupation should be expanded. Is that also the position of the Prime Minister in this cabinet? Chair, I request that you allow me to come back to that in the second term. I grant that. Thank you.

Chair, if I may add, then he really needs to be with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I mentioned both, yes, certainly. But the Minister of Justice, the previous Minister of Justice, did a lot about that, but it all didn't work. So the authorities are not cooperating. Then the question is, when people are threatened or get a fatwa, parliamentarians or others, what do you do with a country that, after 100 requests, simply doesn't respond, doesn't respond to requests from the Public Prosecution Service, doesn't respond to requests from the ambassador in Islamabad, simply doesn't respond? And what do you do? Here it says in the agreement: we do not accept that as the Netherlands. So my question is not whether he is going to ask the same thing that has already been asked 100 times, because you won't get an answer to that. But what is the diplomatic response to a country like Pakistan, where people can threaten parliamentarians with fatwas and get away with it? That is not the intention. So we would like an answer from you on that. If that's not possible today, then at least before the beginning of September. Before the beginning of September, we'll go towards that.

Mr. Wilders, Chair. Many thanks. It is of course up to Mrs. Agema whether she finds that desirable, but I would find that very nice, of course. If you could do something together from that visit. But it's great that you're doing that. Because again, it says in the agreement that regional hospitals should be preserved. And the way, whether that's the funding model... And if we could then get a report on that before the General Political Debate, that would be great. Thank you very much.

Yes, maybe you want to come along too, Chair? I don't need to come along, according to what Mr. Omzigt said. I will gladly come to Heerlen, and often, even though it's the other side of the country for me. Fine. Thank you for the response. I would then like to ask for one more addition. We have now specifically talked about the hospital in Heerlen, and in the outline agreement it says more broadly about regional hospitals. And of course it's about the form of financing. But my question, which I linked to this, and I think this is the hook, I have been looking for a while for a vision from a Prime Minister, and I am asking for that. How do you view market forces in healthcare? Because that is very much related to this problem. Just a small question in between, I understand.

Then one more addition. That is related, because in the debate I had with Mr. Wilders about this hospital, we talked about a way of financing that you probably won't get before you have to keep the hospital in Heerlen afloat. That would mean that money needs to be added. I would like to see that back in the government plans, in any case before we discuss that coalition agreement. I would like to see that back, because money will have to be added to the hospital in Heerlen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to Prime Minister Schoof for the answers given in his first term. I especially thank him for the answers he gave to our questions. He addressed the question I asked in the first term about incomes, poverty reduction, tax relief, tax distribution, and the energy transition, among other things. We will come back to these points with him and his cabinet during the general debates. I would like to submit two motions. The first motion: the House, having heard the deliberations, considering that people should be able to make ends meet on the wages they earn, requests the government to increase the minimum wage, linked to the state pension and other benefits, and requests the government to cover this increase with a fair contribution from people with significant assets and profitable companies. This motion goes to the order of the day. Co-signed by colleagues Dijk and Ouwehand. Then a motion: having heard the deliberations, considering that people who are chronically ill do not benefit from the proposed reduction of the deductible because the disability allowance is being scrapped, requests the government to ensure that chronically ill people benefit as much from the reduction of the deductible as all other people, for example by retaining this allowance. This motion goes to the order of the day. Co-signed by colleagues Dijk and Ouwehand. Mr. Chairman, today's debate was at times almost impossible to follow, at times also hurtful, complicated, painful for many people in this room and outside. I want to look back specifically at the moment when my colleague Esmah Lahlah, in a sincere attempt to build a bridge, in a sincere attempt to make clear what it means for people, for women, to make the conscious choice to wear a headscarf, a sincere attempt to explain that and thus build a bridge to the cabinet, where the Prime Minister also reacted positively at that moment. That then, a little later, a tweet was sent out into the world by the Deputy Prime Minister that completely undermined that. It means that a gesture of good intentions is met with a sneer, with bullying. And we know that from the PVV. As the ultimate... parliamentary mediation... done by ministers is cabinet policy. Public statements that are not in line with cabinet policy should be corrected. In this case, that could only be done in one way: removing the tweet. The Prime Minister was not willing to do that. With that, he not only undermines the unity of cabinet policy, but unfortunately also his own authority, at a time when the cabinet has just started. Earlier, he did not want to distance himself from statements made by Ministers Faber and Klever, statements that are far removed from, I will say with some caution, ethics and that are in conflict with the rules contained in our Constitution and other treaties that we have all signed. In a general sense, he said that the cabinet will adhere to those agreements, but he refused to make clear that he distanced himself from the statements made. Even when asked repeatedly by various members of parliament about very concrete statements, not only statements that the ministers in question made before they stood on the steps, but even statements they made while holding the ministerial office in the past 24 hours, they could not be condemned, were not condemned by the Prime Minister. Then, of course, we also saw the spectacle in this House of quarreling members of the coalition factions. We, and I include myself as a member of this House, did not do ourselves any favors for the outside world. Most importantly for my faction, finally, is to indicate that, as far as we are concerned, ministers who have for years propagated a ideology that was in serious conflict with, is in conflict with the fundamental rights that should apply to every Dutch person, that these ministers should have no place in a cabinet. Therefore, the following motions: having heard the deliberations, declares a lack of confidence in the Minister for Asylum and Migration, and goes to the order of the day. Co-signed by colleagues Jetten, Dijk, Ouwehand, and Dassen. Second motion: the House, having heard the deliberations, declares a lack of confidence in the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, and goes to the order of the day. Co-signed by colleagues Jetten, Dijk, Ouwehand, and Dassen. Mr. Chairman, finally, I think it is a sad day. Not because my faction and the Cabinet are opposed to each other. Not because the trust that I mentioned in my first term between my faction and the Cabinet is absent, both substantively based on the cabinet's plans, based on how the cabinet was formed, based on how the cabinet has operated since taking office. But the way in which today the relationship between the House and the Cabinet has been determined by an atmosphere of quarreling, of taking each other to task personally in a way that had nothing to do with what people said substantively. The way in which substantive debate took place on the topics that concern people in the country, but that was completely overshadowed by other topics. Yes, I hold the cabinet accountable for that. I hold the Prime Minister accountable. He could have given clear answers. And I am concerned about how this should continue. I sincerely want to wish the Prime Minister and his ministers strength and success in keeping this upright in the national interest. But I fear that he will not succeed because the division is far too great and the mutual trust, even within the coalition, seems completely absent. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, it is unprecedented that Mr. Timmermans just submitted two motions of no confidence against ministers from the PVV. The left is clearly on a witch hunt. PVV ministers who apologized, retracted their words, indicated they would never use them again, sincerely had nothing to do with racism, Nazism, or any conspiracy theory, and never will, are being deliberately hunted and damaged. It is too false for words. And Ms. Agema, who tweeted a tweet full of only facts, was portrayed as someone who had violated about three laws. She was even called malicious by a colleague. Malicious! How dare you? An unacceptable and dangerous witch hunt, Mr. Chairman. And I will never accept that. I will always stand up for our people. Always and everywhere.

Mr. Jetten. Mr. Chairman, the hypocrisy of Mr. Wilders to speak here of a witch hunt, after he called Minister Kaag a witch for years from that spot and unleashed a witch hunt on her. The hypocrisy of Mr. Wilders to attack Mr. Timmermans here for submitting a motion of no confidence because of statements and actions of ministers, while Mr. Wilders, in all debates on the government's statement, submitted a motion of no confidence against ministers such as Minister Ollongren or Minister Jilisen, purely and simply because of who they are, not because of what they had done, not because of what they had said, but purely and simply because of their nationality. Mr. Wilders submitted a motion of no confidence every time for that. And now that there are again ministers with dual nationality in this cabinet, I haven't heard him peep about it. Hypocrisy, Mr. Wilders. That's what we've seen from you these two days.

You saw that I stood up for our people. I will continue to do that. And I have never called anyone, including the person you mentioned, a Nazi, fascist, or racist. That is of a completely different order, and I would never do that. And if I had done that, you would never have accepted it either.

Mr. Van Baarle. Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Wilders uses the word 'witch hunt' while Mr. Wilders has for 20 years, without mercy, with the harshest words, conducted a hunt on Dutch Muslims, Dutch Moroccans, and minorities, with the most reprehensible expressions, is truly the greatest hypocrisy that exists. And Mr. Wilders can turn things around here, but it is his ministers, on behalf of the PVV, who have made those terrible statements in the recent past. It was Ms. Agema who said, 'Take off that headscarf, because then you choose freedom.' It was Ms. Faber who said, 'I have nothing to do with headscarves.' Those were the expressions. And then it is not fitting for Mr. Wilders to point to the left side of the House. He should look at himself. He has shown that his ministers are making a mess of it, and he has also shown that he is completely at odds with his coalition partners in the coalition.

His ministers are unworthy of being ministers. He cannot manage the coalition, and he does not see that he has always led a witch hunt against Dutch Muslims and minorities. This is selectivity that Mr. Wilders should be ashamed of, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is a left-wing witch hunt, and Denk is leading it. You can criticise each other, but what is fair is when candidate ministers declare during hearings that they shouldn't have done something, that they should have seen it sooner, that they will never use that language again, and that they adhere to all declarations of the rule of law. To then still hold them accountable for what they said before is false. It is hounding people. If they hadn't done that, you might have a point, but they did. They said they shouldn't have said it, they didn't mean it that way. I believe them, because there are no racists in the PVV. To then read them the lesson again in this debate is very false.

Mr. Speaker, there are no racists in the PVV, says the man who personally shouted 'fewer, fewer Moroccans,' says the man whose minister walked around with a sign saying no mayor of Arnhem because Arnhem got a Moroccan-Dutch mayor. And yes, Mrs. Faber made a gesture during the hearing, but a completely unbelievable one, because I pointed out to Mr. Wilders that he was the one in 2008 who said that European leaders are Chamberlains because they are delivering the people to Islam, that they are letting the people thin out. Mr. Bosma said in another role that the national broadcaster is the national propaganda broadcaster for the great replacement, that we must fight the elites. It was expressed systematically. And if you once say during a hearing that you didn't mean it while the PVV deliberately peddled racist theory for years, then you are unbelievable, and you do have racist ideas.

Mr. Speaker, if anyone is unbelievable, it is you. You are going after people who have said they shouldn't have done it. You call our first deputy prime minister, Mrs. Agema, evil. Do you know what you are saying about someone when you call them evil? You are almost putting a price on their head. When you say someone is racist, you shouldn't do that. That is wrong, and I will always condemn it and stand up for that person.

Mr. Speaker, this is the greatest victim act from a man who has made a sport of insulting everyone in society – Dutch Muslims, Dutch Moroccans, judges – for 20 years. And now he is crying a little. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in politics, if you have dealt out injustice for years, you get paid back in kind. That is what is happening now. I maintain that if you say things like that about women with headscarves, you are evil.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I cannot take the colleague seriously when he calls Mrs. Agema evil. Everyone who knows Mrs. Agema knows she is not evil. I do not accept that. She fights for the elderly, for care, for everyone. If anyone is good, it is Mrs. Agema. Making a cheap show from Denk to call her evil is low and false.

Mr. Speaker, was Mr. Wilders finished? Yes, I was. Well, then I have a question. It was not a great start we saw today. I know you didn't want that. Right-wing Netherlands had hoped in November that you and this coalition would make something of it. So my question is: does Mr. Wilders realize that he has a golden opportunity to show it, but today it didn't seem to go that way? What lesson does he take from what happened today?

I'll get to that. I was done defending my people from attacks. I will continue my story. My next point would be that this politics doesn't deserve a beauty prize, and we shouldn't do this more often. People want to see us argue about content and ideas, but mainly solve their problems. This extra-parliamentary coalition has a broad mandate. You are right about that. I say to the Prime Minister: it's impressive that you are still standing after these two days. I say to the cabinet: get to work quickly, the House is ready. We need to turn the outline agreement into a government program. As the Prime Minister said, we will receive it a week or two before Budget Day. But as I said in the first term, that means we as the largest governing party give you a strong assignment: implementing all agreements on asylum. We must achieve the strictest asylum policy ever, as stated in the outline agreement. We will hold you to that.

If we don't do it, that is indeed the chance we have. There are still big challenges: asylum, housing, care, safety, financial situation, purchasing power. So, Mr. Speaker, I wish Mr. Schoof and his team a lot of success this summer.

Mr. Speaker, those are nice words. My question was: what does Mr. Wilders take away from today? Because you can let off the handbrake and let cabinet members go their own way. I think it's been proven that it won't help for a smooth coalition that governs effectively. There is also the national interest, perhaps before party interest. That applies to your people in this cabinet too. If it is to succeed, it will have to become a team, and you will have to behave accordingly. Is this something you take home or not?

Certainly. But I will not let my people be insulted or wrongly called racist. My people who said we shouldn't have used the word 'great replacement' will not be called Nazis. So you are right, we invest in that, and I want this cabinet to be a great success. I want the plans from the outline agreement to be implemented. But I will always defend our ministers, MPs, senators, and voters who have also been called racists.

Yes, thank you. I agree and I will say something about how differently insults are viewed. This is the core of the matter. There is a chance now, which has not occurred since I entered politics with Pim Fortuyn, to build changes with a coalition. Be careful with it, and stand up for your people. But watch that it doesn't derail. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, is Mr. Wilders agree with me that child poverty must be solved, that the cost of electricity and groceries must go down, and that care for the elderly must improve instead of worsen?

Yes, you said that all in the first term. We have achieved a lot in the outline agreement: lower excise duty on petrol, historically lower deductible, major tax relief for workers, extra money for those in need. But not everything. Sometimes we can work together, sometimes I will have to say unfortunately it didn't work out. We will fight for people to be better off. I am super proud of what the outline agreement does. And if something isn't fully arranged, like the hospital in Heerlen, we will try to do it together.

Why have you been so upset the past few days?

I haven't been upset. I stood up for my ministers. I will repeat that ten times. If someone says about Mrs. Agema what the colleague from Denk said, or calls my ministers racists, which they are not, never were, and never will be, that hurts. I hope I never lose that fire. If someone goes after one of my people, I will go through fire for them.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with dishing it out and taking it in debates. Sometimes it goes too far. You can say maybe this could have been done better. You said it didn't deserve a beauty prize. You really have been very upset today and yesterday, shouting from that bench, making trouble with tweets. It's all your people, Mr. Wilders, who caused this nonsense. It's one big puppet show. I would advise you to take the path we tried with the hospital in Heerlen and stop this.

We will certainly continue fighting for hospitals. But I will still do the same if my ministers or MPs are wrongly called racist or whatever. As long as I am here, Mrs. Bikker.

Does that also mean that Mr. Wilders, when he looks in the rearview mirror, concludes that it would have been wiser not to have called Mrs. Kaag a witch or a broomstick in the previous round?

No, I don't say that. That is allowed in a debate. People say worse things about me. I get more than that. But that is different from calling someone a Nazi. I'm not saying you did that, but it happened that my two PVV ministers, even though they had declared a hundred times that they had nothing to do with the great replacement, never meant it that way, and that they would not use the word again, were still called Nazis.

Back to what I find so striking. There are statements I understand you say we explained, but stop that. There are many past statements. I have mentioned a few, and I think it's a legitimate question to ask in peace. For example, regarding establishing asylum centers, the migration minister will have to call around. If she has already been there and called people traitors, that's not the easiest call. I understand that Wilders as leader of the largest party wants to keep his color on his cheeks. But I don't understand that he doesn't take the reflection of the responsibility for all those voters who chose the PVV to achieve something. This debate has been too much about tweets and too little about the problems of people. That could have been better if we had reflected a little.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but respect for those wise lessons. I am old enough to know what to do. But again, I have no regret for what happened, because I stand up for my people. No one, absolutely no one, will be wrongly called a Nazi.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wilders completely misses my point. You can drive a car without rearview mirrors, but you leave a lot of damage behind. We will make this cabinet a great success. I have already said what happened doesn't deserve the beauty prize. My party is dear to me that the outline agreement is implemented. I maintain that everyone, no matter who, who does an injustice to one of my people will get it back three times as hard.

Thank you. The next speaker is Mr. Jette from the D66 faction.

Yes, if you want to interrupt, you really have to go to the interruption microphone. You are coming from the back. We will listen to Jetten. You'll have to be on time. It's not that difficult. Come on.

Mr. Speaker, thank the Prime Minister for the answers. D66 will oppose for the Netherlands because we believe there is an alternative. We will oppose for the climate, for accessible healthcare, for education. We have a motion to continue school meals. We oppose the VAT increase on books, culture, and sports. I have two motions: one to keep VAT on books at 9% and one to reconsider VAT on culture and sports.

We have had a bewildering debate. When you help the PVV into the saddle, you get chaos, quarrelling, and undermining of the cabinet by the coalition itself. I found Prime Minister Schoof not always strong, but it was his first time. He said judge us by our deeds. We did that today. The internal quarrels put pressure on cabinet unity. When we finally got to content, Vice Prime Minister Agema sent a tweet that undermined unity. The four coalition parties made big promises. I say to the Prime Minister: use the summer recess to get your affairs in order. Norming is a verb. I expect more leadership, that he not only executes what faction leaders tell him but also draws a line. Mr. Timmermans has submitted two motions of no confidence. I will support them. Far-right expressions and nasty conspiracy theories have no place in my Netherlands, certainly not in the heart of government.

Past actions say something about someone's convictions and how they will make choices. If the Prime Minister doesn't draw a line with ministers like Klever and Faber, the House must. I think it's right that there is a roll-call vote on these two motions. I appeal to VVD and NSC members: with this debate in mind, I hope you will vote with your conscience. Thank you.

A question from Mr. Baudet. He gets the word, reluctantly.

Mr. Speaker, in recent days, there has been much talk about the structural demographic transformation of the Netherlands and the word 'great replacement' as a taboo word because it would imply a plan. The implication is that there is no plan. But is that what Mr. Jetten believes? Is the demographic transformation, mass immigration, happening by chance? Has it happened to all previously white countries by accident?

Mr. Speaker, what can you say to this? Mrs. Yesilgöz already tried at the interruption microphone. Many colleagues have been sitting down because you are talking nonsense. You always prance as if you are the intellectual in this House. But you have missed all the scientific reports and security service advice. There is no conspiracy, no Jewish elite making plans to bring migrants here. Migration is of all times. Your ancestors also migrated. You are not a victim; you are a dangerous racist.

I ask my question again. Mr. Jetten may have prepared this. But I would like to understand how he views mass immigration. He says it's not a plan, not an ideology. How does he look at the history of ideas? Since the 1990s, there was a dominant view among policymakers, intellectuals, and cultural elites that national identity was a thing of the past. That is an observable fact. There was a post-nationalist ideology. Why is it taboo to say that a certain ideology was the origin of policy? That happens all the time.

Mr. Speaker, if viewers at home wonder why the word conspiracy comes up, they should rewind what Mr. Baudet just said. He talks about an attack and a plan. There is no such plan. The Netherlands I stand for is where we welcome refugees, teach them Dutch, give them a chance. That is the tolerant, free Netherlands. That is not the Netherlands of Mr. Baudet.

I try again. It's not about what kind of Netherlands someone stands for. It's about a history of ideas. In the 1980s and 1990s, the dominant view was that national identity belonged to the past. That is an observable fact. Perhaps now there is a shift. You can talk about a mode. There is nothing strange about that. The only strange thing in this debate is the argument of Mr. Baudet.

Thank you. I give the floor to Mrs. Yesilgöz from the VVD.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Prime Minister Schoof for his answers. I asked about support for Ukraine. I am glad he spoke to Zelensky immediately. I respect the composed and prime ministerial way he handled the screaming and misplaced attacks. Deep respect. I think the House showed its worst side yesterday and today. That behavior stands in the way of solutions on migration, housing, climate, defense. We are indebted to the people to take our work seriously. We stand for stable, sound policy. Differences on content belong in a parliamentary democracy; a shameful circus does not. Thank you.

Mr. Bontebal from the CDA.

Mr. Speaker, I will go home feeling somber. What we saw today was not good. The coalition parties don't wish each other well, and the cabinet got off to a false start. I take no pleasure in that as an opposition leader. It damages the Netherlands, politics, all of us. I will reflect on my own role. The CDA's promise of constructive opposition remains. The outline agreement still needs to be worked out. I hope the cabinet has heard the wishes of the opposition parties. I have a motion on asylum: asking the cabinet to only withdraw the distribution law when the asylum chain is in order. I present the motion.

Mr. Speaker, finally, I cited the philosopher Levinas on the importance of seeing the other. Jean-Paul Sartre wrote 'Hell is other people.' The Flemish psychiatrist Dirk De Wachter said, following Levinas, 'Hell is the lack of others.' Without the help, love, and comfort of others, we are nothing. That is the human view from which the CDA thinks and wants to do politics.

Thank you. Mr. Omtzigt from New Social Contract.

Mr. Speaker, thank the Prime Minister for his clear, to-the-point answers on content and for marking the rule of law boundaries. I have confidence in how he does that. But if you ask if I am proud of this House today, the answer is no. We did not serve this country. We serve this country when we make clear we are here for everyone in the Netherlands, stand up for fundamental rights, and work on solutions in great diversity. We can disagree sharply on content, but the country only benefits if it leads to more housing and security. Today it did not. I ask the cabinet to work on unity of policy. It can be tough behind closed doors, but don't leak it. If you leak, you will have big problems. You must disagree internally but keep it there. I underline Mr. Bontebal's words about a common view of citizens. Use the recess for reflection. I will come with proposals on housing, security, migration, and student migration. Let's come back with energy and focus on solving problems.

A question from Mr. Baudet. Go ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I still had a clarification from Mr. Omtzigt in the second term about the alleged anti-Semitic character of the great replacement analysis. The AIVD annual report from 2022 says that the so-called elite would work through great replacement. It talks about right-wing extremists who believe in mass immigration from Islamic and African countries because immigrants would have more children and lower IQ, weakening the white population. I promised to read that. I must say that I do not classify Mr. Baudet's contribution in this debate as solution-oriented but as sowing confusion and division. We should stop that.

Mr. Speaker, I will respond. Mr. Omtzigt comes with a quote from an organization that claims a monopoly on defining a term. The meaning of a word is its use. In the dictionary, it simply means the replacement of a part of the population by another group. On what grounds does Mr. Omtzigt unilaterally redefine a word based on a report? That is strange.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. This is the debate on the government declaration. It has been about everything except the declaration. Everything is allowed. The AIVD is the service that keeps us safe from terrorist attacks and extremism. Mr. Schoof, who was at its head, made it clear. Hundreds of Dutch people travelled to ISIS territory. When there is a minor mistake in a tweet, they had slaves and participated in genocide. We have an organization that tries to protect us. Calling it just an organization is something. If you want a debate on the thinkers behind the great replacement, fine, but it doesn't fit today. The House has been very clear that we should not have this conspiracy theory. If you want a debate on demography, it is planned. But not these theories.

We should be able to talk about everything in this House. Depending on whether you see the great replacement as a positive or negative phenomenon, all connotations of Mr. Omtzigt do not necessarily apply. In the past 70 years, many people in the Western world were in favor of the structural demographic transformation of what was once the white world. If you support that, you would applaud those elites. Now we have a debate where we say maybe we should change things. But why sweep under the carpet that it was deliberately desired policy for decades? I don't understand that. Accept responsibility. This was done in Europe and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago we could still speak in this debate about the major problems of the country: healthcare, existential security, climate. I see people from left and right with good ideas. Let's talk about that. I am ready at any time to debate with these parties. But please, let's keep it to that. Thank you.

The next speaker from the House is Mr. Dijk from the SP.

Mr. Speaker, I start with a few proposals to make the Netherlands humane. The House debates: it is unacceptable that child poverty is increasing. I request the new government to ensure that child poverty decreases and to include this in the 2025 budget. Motion supported by many. Also, I request the government to not further increase inequality and to ensure that the outline agreement is worked out fairly.

To cut public services but tax the wealthiest multinationals, and proceeds to the order of the day. The House, having heard the deliberation, notes that the government intends to implement billions of euros in cuts from the Rutte IV cabinet on healthcare, and even add further healthcare cuts to this, requests the government not to cut healthcare, and proceeds to the order of the day. The House, having heard the deliberation, notes that studies, a reporting point, and the report of the independent committee on the future of the incapacity for work benefits system show that it works harshly and must be structurally adjusted, states that the cabinet must free up sufficient financial resources to resolve the harshness in the WIA in the 2025 budget, and proceeds to the order of the day. The House, having heard the deliberation, notes that increasing VAT to 21% for, among other things, books, sports, newspapers, and festivals will lead to social exclusion and poverty for people who are not well off, and will bring many small businesses in this sector into major problems, requests the government not to implement this VAT increase and to cover this through an increase in the profit tax for large companies, and proceeds to the order of the day.

Chair, this country has an enormous number of problems. The misery in Groningen, where I come from, the misery of all the childcare benefits parents who are still, and I can't say otherwise, deeply in trouble. Healthcare, where there are major shortages. I've raised it in the debate before. The poverty of 800,000 people who have too little to eat, can't make ends meet. The people who get up early every day, perhaps now had the time to watch this bad theater today. Those who have heavy professions, who deserve a scheme for heavy professions, which still hasn't been arranged to this day. Those people are watching this. Our young people. I did a tour in recent months. It was a pub crawl, I said, I love night work. I spoke to a lot of young people who are incredibly worried about our future, are extremely involved in politics and society. Sometimes I think, when I stand there and talk to young people and I see this here today, what sensible young people we have, and they see this. I've said it very often today, I'll say it here too, they see this, and that must stop. I would give a lot if all those 150 people here and those people there, I think our country would look better if those young people were sitting here. I really think so. I really think, when I'm talking to young people in a café like that, I think that, and actually, looking at today, they would have brought our country much further than this here. Chair, a few positive things also happened today. So it is possible. The regional hospital in Heerlen and the solutions that need to come for it. I heard the commitments, I don't need to submit a motion for it. The debate with Mr. Omtzigt about incapacity for work. I felt I had to submit a motion for that, but I heard you. I also heard that you remain committed to it, we've noted that. With Mrs. Van der Plas, I had a debate about poverty and reducing child poverty. I believe you will commit to that. With the Christian Union, we are doing a proposal, a previously tabled promotion for multiple areas, cities in the country where there is disadvantage in neighborhoods and districts. And we talked about it today, and yesterday too, about the state of some neighborhoods and districts where children grow up, where there is such a large disadvantage that it needs significant investment. There is a program for that, a national program for liveability and safety. Many city districts deserve a makeover, but are not arranged by the center for the future. Chair, finally, a question for Mr. Schoof. Because I called it a puppet show, a shit show just now. Those aren't the nicest words, but I mean them. What do you actually think? What did you actually think of yesterday and today, and what does this do to your mission, and what could you and your cabinet members have done better? Thank you, Mrs. Van der Plas.

Thank you, Chair. We were witnesses today, if I may, dear colleagues, I can understand that not everyone on the right likes to listen to me, but that's part of the debate. We were witnesses today to a low point in our parliamentary history. With this cabinet, 20 years of hatred and discrimination expressed by the PVV have been normalized by this cabinet and this coalition, and that is a historic mistake. And it makes it even worse that there are also ministers in this cabinet who have made the most terrible statements in the past and on their first day made toxic remarks about women with a headscarf. And of all those agreements and those statements, no distance has been taken, and they were not normalized by the guardian of this cabinet. They were not normalized by Mr. Schoof. He also did not distance himself from toxic and discriminatory agreements when expressing generalities. And that is not someone who stands for all Dutch people. And we witnessed enormous amateurism with tweets, whereby during the first debate of this Prime Minister, the authority of this Prime Minister was undermined by his first Deputy Prime Minister. It is the normalization of hate, it is glaring amateurism. Chair, therefore I can do nothing other than submit the following motion: The House, having heard the deliberation, noting that with the formal swearing-in of the cabinet, the confidence rule has come into effect, of the opinion that this cabinet, formed by parties that do not respect the principles of the democratic rule of law and that show evidence of Islamophobic and racist ideology, which is also expressed in statements by various cabinet members, should not be able to count on the confidence of the House at all, considering that the House has previously stated that respecting the rule of law forms a non-negotiable condition for the formation of a cabinet, the motion on file 357 888 28, considering that the normalization of questioning the principles of the democratic rule of law, of hatred, racism, and Muslim hatred, is in conflict with the oath and affirmation that all members of parliament and ministers have taken, and that it is unforgivable that coalition parties and ministers are guilty of this, noting that the cabinet also failed in the debate on the government declaration to normalize against exclusion and that various ministers have persisted in exclusionary rhetoric in their statements, including toxic attacks directed at women with a headscarf, declares its confidence in the cabinet to be withdrawn and proceeds to the order of the day. And this motion is co-submitted by Mrs. Ouwehand. Thank you.

Chair, thank you. What are you looking at me so intently? Oh, you always do that. Okay, good. Chair, we didn't see any progress today. But I would say to everyone who helped this cabinet to a majority: what did you expect? Of course it is reprehensible that there seems to be an unstable cabinet, that it is quite an experiment, and that the authority of the Prime Minister was already undermined today. But that all pales in comparison to the fundamental objection that a cabinet has come to power that entails a direct undermining of our rule of law. It is an undermining of our rule of law. It concerns the violation of the principles of Article 1 of the Constitution. You cannot form a cabinet if you do not wholeheartedly, generously, with everything you have, live by those provisions in the Constitution. You cannot form a cabinet by starting to question the principles of our democratic rule of law and reducing them to a political opinion, something you can negotiate about. We already said to Rutte: you do not meet the preconditions. And that applies to this cabinet even more so. And what we have seen is that Yesilgöz and Omtzigt cannot handle Wilders at all. They cannot handle Wilders at all. And today it has been shown that this also applies to the Prime Minister. The Party for Freedom has been helped into the center of power, and Wilders can eat from two wallets because he continues to do what he does, he says that, and we know that. We know that. And we have seen that fact-free incitement politics, scapegoat politics, radical right-wing strategies, populist strategies were fully unleashed in the House today. Playing the victim. I think it's already the fault of the opposition that it was total chaos today. Yes, what do you expect when you help such a cabinet to power? Chair, this country needs a cabinet that the Netherlands can have confidence in. And that starts with acting from our rule of law principles. That starts with respecting that everyone is equal in the Netherlands, and also with implementing court rulings on nature and climate, and not by responding by saying you will then limit access to the courts, that you say, you know what, we'll restrict those demonstrators, that you write down all kinds of plans in your outline agreement that all lawyers say go beyond the limits of the law, still try it, and the problems in society remain. Yes, that is irresponsible and a life-threatening political experiment. So this cabinet does not deserve the confidence of the House. And look one more time at Mr. Omtzigt: don't do it. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. In my first term, I said that we, as Forum for Democracy, will try to conduct constructive and substantive opposition, that we in principle feel affiliated with the political color of this cabinet, but that we do not yet see enough of our own ideas in it. So we will try to push it in the right direction. I also made interruptions with that intention. I participated in today's debate with that intention, and in addition to my earlier contribution, I have the following three motions. The House, having heard the deliberation, noting that the current remigration benefit will be phased out as of January 1, 2025, considering that many immigrants do not feel at home in the Netherlands and a remigration benefit makes return to the country of origin attractive, considering that remigration reduces the pressure on our housing market, safety, and social provisions, and a remigration benefit thus pays for itself, requests the government to investigate how the remigration benefit can be extended and modified, such as the amount, the frequency, one-off or ongoing, required age, length of stay, etc., in such a way that remigration will increase, and requests the government to inform the House about this before Prinsjesdag 2024, and proceeds to the order of the day. Thank you. Second motion: The House, having heard the deliberation, noting that this cabinet wants to increase the maximum speed where possible to 130 km/h, noting that a calculation distance of 25 km around Natura 2000 areas is used and that every location in the Netherlands falls within this radius and therefore must meet the current nitrogen standards everywhere, considering that this calculation distance was a purely policy choice, that various neighboring countries use a distance of 5 km, and that a distance of only 1 km in the Netherlands is considered best from a scientific point of view because nitrogen deposition from individual sources is measured up to that point and beyond that can only be calculated with models, requests the government to therefore investigate how much space a calculation distance of 5 or 1 km would provide in the short term for increasing the maximum speed and relaxing the nitrogen rules in general, requests the government to inform the House about this before Prinsjesdag 2024, and proceeds to the order of the day. Thank you. And my third motion: The House, having heard the deliberation, noting that civil servants at various ministries are resisting the new cabinet, considering that the new ministers must be given the chance to implement their policies without being obstructed by their own ministry, calls on the government to have the current top civil servants, the Secretaries-General and Directors-General, reapply for their positions, also allowing new applicants from outside the Senior Civil Service, and proceeds to the order of the day. It remains for me, despite the occasional heckling and things exchanged back and forth, to wish this cabinet all the best. And the new Prime Minister said it right at the beginning of this two-day debate: wait for our deeds. We will do that with a positive attitude, and we wish you all a wonderful rest. Thank you.

Chair, a beacon of calm in turbulent waters. I had to think of that occasionally today when I saw our Prime Minister standing here in the House. Appreciation for the way you engaged in debate with the House, and many thanks for the way you engaged with the issues that we, as the SGP, also put to you. Chair, I want to go through a few of them, because I think the cabinet is aware that the gap between one and two earners really has the highest priority for the SGP, to actually take concrete measures on that now. That is very good for families in our country, and I assume that we will also get a serious answer on that after the summer. And Chair, right after that, the gift tax deduction. I hope the cabinet will look at that carefully this summer and also look at what the effects on society are if you implement that cut completely as it is now proposed. I would like to see us do something about that. Yes, Chair, I am of course disappointed that we did not immediately get that family level that far, that we get that family level. The levy will be, and I wish the cabinet much wisdom and insight in the coming period in making the government program and the budget that must be drawn up, the tax plan that will be made. And let us please not forget with each other that in the Netherlands, farmers and fishermen need solutions, that houses must be built, that healthcare and education need solutions, and that the migration problem must really be tackled now. And let us get to work on those concrete matters together. I wish you all the best with that, and if you come up with good plans, you can also count on an outstretched hand from the SGP in that regard. Heartfelt thanks so far.

Chair, thank you. Yes, what does the Netherlands need? In my opinion, a government that is reliable, that does justice to people, sees people, and seeks peace in all its actions and words. And there is a lot of work to be done. That's how I started yesterday, and I continue to emphasize that. And Chair, I do taste the contrast with this debate, because it was a lot about statements, about tweets, and it seemed, I thought we would have a debate here with the Prime Minister proposed on behalf of four parties, but sometimes I thought he was the Prime Minister of none of those parties. And Chair, I want to express my respect and compliments for how Mr. Schoof, how the new Prime Minister, conducted this debate, and I want to encourage him to show and continue to show rule-of-law leadership at all those moments when it is necessary. And yes, Chair, I talked about the outline agreement, which contains good things, things that need improvement, and things on which we will clash. One of the things I miss, one of the blank spots that must not become a black hole, is society. Because how people live together determines our country. And I am happy with the Prime Minister's commitment to come up with an elaboration on this point in September. And one of the other matters we will return to in September is the gift tax deduction, that 'society penalty' that unfortunately stands in this outline agreement, for which I see many solutions to come to something better. And yes, Chair, I agree with Mr. Stoffer when it comes to families, because they build our country. Chair, the Prime Minister also made a commitment regarding medical ethics. The number of abortions must decrease, precisely to ensure that women in freedom, in safety, feel supported to also make choices, to give the value of every life what it deserves. I expected this debate to be much about existential security, about tackling poverty, about simplifying the benefits system, which is desperately needed. We exchanged views on it. I saw a number of gestures, and it is the reason, Chair, that we will now bring our motion, which I previously tabled, to a vote to simplify that benefits system. Because it is important that poverty is tackled not only incidentally, for a few years, but structurally. And Chair, when it comes to asylum policy, please make the strictest asylum policy you plan to make not the stupidest asylum policy ever. So keep that distribution in place, because otherwise you will have a reception crisis. I heard the commitment about the region, the committee of Geel and Nijboer, where we really say: Groningen first, Groningers above all. Yet a brief look back, Chair. I knew that an extra-parliamentary cabinet was proposed. Please let it not be an extra-parliamentary cabinet where X rules. Tie this warning around your ears: stop swearing. And I would say to those who were busiest with it: your political puberty is over today. Choose for our country, take your responsibility. Because it is absurd that I, together with Mr. Bontenbal, was initially standing here defending the Prime Minister. He stood alone, we had to come forward. That cannot be the case. So to the four coalition parties, I would say: the time of unhappiness, the time of irresponsibility, is over. You have received a lot of trust from the voters. Do something with it. Get to work wisely. And to the cabinet: you are servants of the Crown, and that is of the whole country, not of whichever party leader sitting here. Speak with one mouth that will help the country, so many people who expect a lot from you, move forward. To the Prime Minister, I would say: it is sometimes lonely, but you are not alone. Many before you have experienced that, and I may hope that you also experience that. Because Chair, I am proud that we wake up every day in our country in a democratic rule of law where you are free, where you may believe what you want, where you may differ in opinion in peace and still solve problems together. That's how we built dikes, that's how this country was built. And every day, school classes come here to see what that democratic rule of law is, how we live together here. Shall we then set a good example? We can do better. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Chair, today is indeed a parliamentary low point. A Prime Minister undermined on his first day by a childish tweet from his Deputy Prime Minister. But I also see the good intentions of the new Prime Minister today, and I believe them too. But with only good intentions, this cabinet won't make it. He will have to draw a line. He will have to set norms, and I have seen too little of that today. And with an eye on unity of cabinet policy, I sincerely hope that Mrs. Agema comes to her senses and deletes her tweet after all. The Dutch people deserve a mature and responsible government, not this bickering on day one. With all the challenges we face, with a war on the continent, a world that is becoming increasingly unsafe, people must have the confidence that the government will be there for them, will be there for everyone. And we haven't seen that today. And in the Netherlands, we are capable of so much more than what this coalition offers us. This coalition shies away from the future. We must seize it by the horns by investing in imagination through our culture, by building the most innovative economy in the world to increase our prosperity and to reduce poverty, by investing in education and combating climate change more than we have done so far. And we do that with an outward look, a focus on the future, and together with 450 million Europeans. And I hope, Chair, that the new Prime Minister will get to work on that. In the coming period, a government program will be drawn up. To combat corruption and promote integrity, noting that the cabinet, in the formation of the coalition agreement, extensively informs itself, lets itself be advised by external parties, experts, and is in contact with interest representatives, considering that it is important that different interests come to the table so that decision-making is improved, considering that it is important that there is transparency about access to decision-making for society, requests the cabinet to add a lobby paragraph to the government program, providing insight into which external parties, advisors, and interest representatives have been contacted in the formation of the coalition agreement, including the purpose of the conversations and which policy has been adopted or what impact it has had on the final government program, and proceeds to the order of the day. Then my second and final motion, Chair, together with Mr. Jetten for the school meals program, which 350,000 children already use. The House, having heard the deliberation, considering that at one in three Dutch schools, a significant proportion of pupils grow up in a family with a low income, considering that the school meals program ensures that pupils do not sit in class hungry, considering that research from Erasmus MC shows that school meals improve the health and well-being of children, social cohesion in the neighborhood, and concentration in class, considering that a survey by the Youth Education Fund and the Red Cross shows that 99% of schools indicate that it is important that this program is extended and that if this does not happen, children will again sit in class hungry, considering that 350,000 children at 2,100 schools risk losing school lunches and they deserve certainty for the coming year, of the opinion that no child should sit in class hungry, requests the government, in elaborating the government program, to guarantee the school meals program and to communicate actively about this as soon as possible, preferably before the new school year, so that all schools and children within the target group receive clarity, and proceeds to the order of the day. Co-signed by Mr. Jetten. Thank you, Chair.

21, Chair. Thank you. Also for me, to the Prime Minister and to the entire cabinet for their presence at the entire debate. Chair, there is a lot of work to be done. A lot of time will have to be spent, I think, on attention to each other, also within the coalition, to each other. Because if you look at this from the outside, you don't think, this will last four years, Chair. And the problem is not that we are on Twitter too much. The problem is that we have become Twitter. Whoever shouts the loudest is the boss. Whoever tweets or X's the ugliest is the one it's all about. Hype, personal attacks. And all this fuels distrust, and people are dropping out. And I wish Mr. Jetten would once say to, for example, Mr. Wilders or to someone else like him, or to Denk in this case, look into the eyes of Mr. Wilders, or someone else from the right flank, who is then called a racist or a Nazi or a fascist. Look them in the eye and say that to Mr. Van Baarle's face, because that is just as scandalous a remark, but I don't hear that. I don't hear that, Chair. So I hope that the left, after today, can judge the cabinet on their deeds and future statements, instead of getting stuck in the past and scratching old tweets out of context. Chair, for the coalition, there is a lot of work to be done, I think. But I also conclude that the left must work on itself. Try to steer policy instead of making theater. Chair, on the content, yes, 21 will critically follow this cabinet on our main priorities: safety, asylum, and purchasing power. And I said it earlier, I am happy to help write the government program. A first impetus for that, Chair. One motion from my side: The House, having heard the deliberation, requests the government not to impose asylum reception places in the distribution decision on municipalities that do not want to offer them voluntarily, and proceeds to the order of the day. Thank you. I will adjourn until 9:30, and then we will listen to the Prime Minister.

Yes, Chair, thank you for answering the questions. A supplementary question about the annexation. It is the largest annexation since the signing of the Oslo Accords, and the previous cabinet said the sanctions list against Israeli settlers must be expanded, and that is also in line with the UN resolution that says Israeli colonization of Palestinian territories must stop. So the previous cabinet had the position that that sanctions list should be expanded. Do I understand correctly that this cabinet does not want to continue with that?

Okay, that seems like a difference from the previous cabinet. May I then ask whether this cabinet still supports that UN Security Council resolution, the resolution that was adopted that Israeli colonization of Palestinian territories must stop? Resolution from 2016, still in force?

Thank you. Then I would like to proceed to the second minute of debate on manure policy. But I sincerely grant it to my minister. Yes, and then we say... the cabinet members are warmly welcome to be present, but they may also stretch their legs. The schedule for the rest of the evening is as follows: debate on manure policy, then I will adjourn for a moment while the cabinet ministers give their answers, then I will adjourn for half an hour so that factions can join, and then we will vote. And I would greatly appreciate it if all the people from the cabinet are present again for that, but you have some free time, I mean to say. Thank you. Change of scenery for the manure policy debate.

I will open. On the agenda is the debate on the government declaration, correction, on manure policy. Manure policy. A warm word of welcome to our new minister. Nice to have you with us, nice to see you in the cabinet.