The Finance Committee held discussions on May 20 with Minister Heinen of Finance. The discussion focused on the distribution of the oversight task regarding the income and expenditures of the State. Currently, this oversight is performed by two entities. The Audit Service of the State conducts internal audits within the national government. The Court of Audit is tasked with investigating whether the national government spends public money wisely, frugally, and carefully. The Court of Audit publishes these results annually on Accountability Day. The First and Second Chambers use these reports to determine whether a ministers policy is effective. During the meeting, Minister Heinen emphasized that the Dutch system of oversight and accountability of state expenditures functions well. Committee members, chaired by Senator Van Ballekom (VVD), expressed criticism regarding the structure of the oversight system.
The Dutch Oversight System
In 2021, research was conducted into the activities of the Court of Audit, the so-called peer review. This research identified several shortcomings. The First and Second Chambers requested solutions in May 2022. This primarily concerned an excessive dependence on the Court of Audit as an external auditor of information from the internal auditor, the Audit Service of the State. Various solutions have been proposed to strengthen the supervisory role of the Court of Audit without undermining the position of the Audit Service of the State. One of the solutions was to transfer the annual oversight task from the Audit Service of the State to the Court of Audit. The minister subsequently requested further investigation into this solution.
Report-Slootweg
The Slootweg Committee has completed this investigation. The committee concludes that – despite the risks – transferring the annual oversight task is the best solution. Minister Heijnen informed the Chamber by letter on April 4, 2025, that while he understands the committees considerations, he ultimately concludes that it is not opportune at this moment to transfer the legal oversight tasks from the Audit Service of the State to the Court of Audit. The minister therefore opts for an interim step to intensify cooperation. This interim step can be evaluated after five years, for example.
Critical Factions
Most committee members agreed with the ministers assertion that the Netherlands has a good oversight system. However, there is a question of whether an internal audit for the State is sufficient. When accounting for subsidies to external organizations, this is not adequate, several senators indicate. Although an interim step is being implemented to formalize cooperation between the internal audit service and the independent Court of Audit, the ministers premise remains that internal audit and the assessment of the independent Court of Audit should not be in one hand. This is seen as a problem by the factions, considering that the internal audit service has approved certain matters that the Court of Audit later rejected. The Court of Audit also identifies this critical point in its response to the ministers position.
Moreover, the ministers argument against reorganizing due to staff turnover and tight labor market conditions does not hold, several factions argue. The proposed interim step also costs jobs. Additionally, transferring tasks results in time savings. The Court of Audit could then complete the annual Accountability Reports a month earlier, which means they could already be included in the Spring Memorandum. Furthermore, several amendments to the Financial Accountability Act are necessary to implement the ministers staggered solution.
Ministers Response
The minister emphasizes that the Audit Service of the State is also under supervision and must adhere to high standards and requirements. The independence of this service is confirmed in various reports.
The proposal to transfer tasks does not originate from him but from the Audit Service of the State and the Court of Audit. The minister wishes to adopt this proposal. Transferring activities does not necessarily mean a faster timeline. The necessary data that parties must provide is guaranteed to be available more quickly.
Finally, the minister maintains that in the case of a major reorganization, risks such as staff shortages remain and the quality of the oversight system may come under pressure.
Next Step
The Finance Committee will discuss in a subsequent meeting when they can speak with the Audit Service of the State, the Court of Audit, and the chair of the Slootweg Committee. Ultimately, it is up to the First and Second Chambers as overseers of the government to determine which oversight system is chosen.