Minister Mona Keijzer of Housing and Spatial Planning spoke on Tuesday, May 27, with the committee for Infrastructure and Water Management/Housing and Spatial Planning (I&W/VRO). The oral consultation addressed the Quality Assurance Act for Building, which was already approved by the Senate in 2019 and came into effect on January 1, 2024. This law has a long history. A large part of the committee expressed critical views on the usefulness and necessity of the law, discussing the legal elaboration and the alleged lack of direction.
The consultation led by committee chairman Robbert Lievense specifically discussed the option of partially withdrawing the law and partially undoing it. In the committee meeting of April 15, 2025, the CDA faction expressed the desire to invite Minister Keijzer for an oral consultation. This faction was already critical in 2019 when the law was passed in the House and voted against it. After previous written consultations with the minister on this subject, concerns remained. During the oral consultation on May 27, several issues already mentioned in the written consultation were briefly reiterated, such as the assurance of fire safety, regulatory pressure, and cost stacking. The majority of the consultation focused on the usefulness and necessity of the law now that the implementation in practice has proven inadequate.
Senators from the factions of CDA, GroenLinks-PvDA, PVV, Kemperman, and SP asked for which problem the law is precisely a solution. Now that quality assurance and oversight are left to private parties, conflicts of interest arise: those who pay, decide. The client of the quality assurance is often also the one who must obtain permission from the quality assurer to involve a building. The division of roles between municipalities and private quality assurers is also unclear. Abolishing this regulation could expedite housing construction. Questions were also raised about how it is handled internationally, referring to the German model. The committee members were of the opinion that the added value of the law has not yet been demonstrated; on the contrary: local implementation problems are reported, and legally the law proves difficult to implement according to these members. Senators from the factions of SP and JA21 asked what the government and the Senate itself could learn from this and whether it had already been a topic of discussion in the current cabinet: is there a willingness to amend the law?
After a brief suspension, Minister Keijzer responded to the questions raised. She discussed the origins of the law and its design by previous ministers. The idea behind it was to leave what can be to the market and to regulate what must be publicly. The law was intended to reduce regulatory pressure and increase control over new construction and improve the position of the client. The minister indicated that parties need to get used to each new law, and it was previously agreed to evaluate the law three years after its entry into force. Withdrawing the law would have far-reaching consequences, as new construction would again require permits. This would first have to be discussed with the VNG and in the council of ministers. She did not recognize that the law leads to increased costs or delays. The minister promised to take the committees concerns into account in a report she would send to the House before the summer recess.