MP Doğukan Ergin (Denk) tabled a motion during a short debate on student finance on Tuesday, calling for DUO to repeat the investigation. NSC Minister Eppo Bruins expressed his support for the proposal, saying: “It’s a good idea from Mr Ergin.”
Motie#21
Following the childcare benefits scandal, which primarily affected Surinamese and Caribbean Dutch citizens, the House of Representatives demanded that ministries and executive agencies examine whether they used indicators related to origin, such as birthplace, nationality or ethnicity. This directive became known as Motion #21. Student finance provider DUO was also subject to this requirement.
PVV State Secretary Zsolt Szabó submitted a letter to Parliament, enclosing a collection of audit reports, one of which pertained to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) and DUO.
DUO was tasked with identifying any use of personal data that could lead to discrimination. However, the audit report revealed that DUO’s assessment was ‘too limited to determine whether the review was conducted properly’.
Proportionality
A potential consequence is that “not all relevant processes may have been identified”, the report noted. Furthermore, the agency was supposed to assess the ‘proportionality’ of its practices, which it failed to do. DUO found the task ‘too complex’.
The student finance provider argued it was already overburdened. It narrowed the scope of the investigation due to limited capacity. This approach was not shared with the Ministry of OCW and only became apparent when DUO submitted its findings.
This led to Ergin’s motion and Minister Bruins’ support for it. “I defer to Parliament’s judgement,” Bruins said, indicating he had no objections to the motion. This increases the likelihood that a majority will demand a more comprehensive review of DUO’s practices during next week’s votes.
Fraud investigation
It is important to note that this matter does not concern discrimination in DUO’s fraud investigations, for which the government has already issued an apology. In that case, the discrimination appeared to be indirect. This issue has already been thoroughly scrutinised, and the government recently decided to cancel all penalties and repayment demands related to student finance fraud.
Ergin also tabled motions on this matter, demanding that the government guarantee that any new oversight system will not lead to direct or indirect discrimination. D66 submitted a similar motion.
Absolute certainty does not exist
Bruins dismissed these motions as unnecessary. “The development of DUO’s new selection model involves input from scientists, experts and students”, he stated. “I will ensure the selection model is scientifically validated and non-discriminatory. Once completed, it will also undergo periodic independent reviews to check for compliance and impartiality.”
But absolute certainty? “It’s not even 100 per cent certain that the sun will rise tomorrow morning,” Bruins remarked, suggesting that absolute certainty is unattainable. “But I fully agree with Mr Ergin on this matter.”
