Netherlands: democracy & secrecy
01 November 1993
From last September the Schengen Executive Committee (the governing body of ministers from the nine Schengen countries) has been empowered to take decisions binding to national governments. However, the Dutch parliament agreed the Dutch Schengen Approval Act on the basis that every decision binding the government has to be approved by parliament first (the Italian Senate may also follow this example).
One of the first test cases was the adoption of the Schengen Executive Committee's rules of order on November 23, 1993. The Dutch government feels that these rules do not "bind" it, and therefore has only informed parliament of their contents without asking for its approval. A majority of MPs disagree with this, but State Secretary Mr Piet Dankert has explained that this procedure has been followed to avoid precedents: "In the European Community the regulations of order of the Ministerial Council have to be modified in relation to the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty. These regulations are now confidential." Mr Dankert emphasized the aversion of nearly all EC governments towards greater openness, and said that no other European government supported his initiative for a European Freedom of Government Information Act at a recent meeting. "Even the Danes did not dare to back it, and the rest didn't like the idea one bit." Consequently, Mr Dankert withdrew the proposal. In parliament the Liberal Democrats pointed out that Holland had clearly got itself in an isolated position by pleading for openness and democratic controls in the European structures. Mr Dankert predicted that nothing would come of openness on the judicial part of the Maastricht Treaty. "There are harrowing cultural differences between the European member states on the area of confidentiality of judicial information. At this moment it seems like a hopeless struggle."
The "Central Group", a body of senior civil servants appointed by the Schengen Executive Committee, plays a crucial role. It drafts the annual Schengen budget which is then presented to the Executive Committee for approval. Controls over spending also lie with the Central Group, with participating states held to stand surety for overspending. The Executive Committee's draft rules of order, now under discussion, make confidentiality of all policy documents mandatory, with openness being the exception.
While Mr Dankert says this situation is undesirable, he argues that the Dutch parliament will still receive all the confidential information pertaining to binding decisions. It can then invite the government for a debate "in camera". But Mr. Dankert claims that "in practice it won't be all that bad, you know how it goes with parliament, it will soon leak the information anyway. The risks for openness of government are more substantial with the intergovernmental parts of Maastricht" (ie: cooperation in the domains of policing and judicial matters, and foreign and security policy-making).
The Schengen Treaty itself already imposes wide-ranging limits to the national sovereignty of member states. In a recent case, a foreign journalist was evicted from Greece on charges of endangering the public order. The reporter had criticized the Greek government's decision not to recognize the state of Macedonia, while all other Schengen countries had done so. Under the new Schengen regime this individual would be registered in the Schengen Information System as an "undesirable" alien in all nine countries. Another government would only be allowed to permit him entrance to its territory if this would serve a national or a humanitarian interest. Furthermore, this country would be expected to guarantee that the person concerned will not harm Greece's interests.
Vrij Nederland, 13.11.93.