Covid inquiry finds some Dutch mayors refused to enforce rules in late lockdowns
Some Dutch mayors refused to enforce Covid-19 restrictions in early 2022, creating tensions between municipalities during the later stages of lockdown policy, Nijmegen Mayor Hubert Bruls told a parliamentary inquiry on Monday into the government’s Covid-19 response. Senior civil servant Mark Roscam Abbing, who at the time was program director-general for Society and Covid-19, also testified.
Bruls described growing frustration among some local authorities during the later phases of lockdowns. He said some mayors in regions including Valkenburg and parts of the Achterhoek refused to enforce restrictions in early 2022, which he said he found unacceptable and damaging to cooperation between municipalities.
Bruls said the breakdown in enforcement coordination strained cooperation between regional authorities. He stated he had no acceptable explanation for the refusal beyond general claims that society was struggling under prolonged restrictions. He also told the commission he remained “a bit angry” about the situation at the time and said he had contacted national crisis coordination officials to request a response from the Justice and Security and Interior ministries.
Bruls, who chaired the Security Council during the pandemic, also revisited the debate over the nighttime curfew introduced on Jan. 23, 2021. He said the measure had been heavily debated within the Security Council, with initial uncertainty about its effectiveness due to a lack of model-based analysis. He said some members held principled objections, while he himself struggled with the measure’s justification before ultimately accepting its indirect effects in reducing social gatherings. He added that even after additional justification was provided, uncertainty about the curfew’s direct effectiveness persisted and remained difficult to communicate to the public.
Earlier in the hearing, Bruls reviewed the role of the Security Council, the national body of regional mayors responsible for coordinating enforcement of Covid measures. He said its influence on national policy was “relatively limited,” especially in the early phase of the pandemic, when urgency and centralized decision-making dominated.
He said there was broad agreement at the start of the crisis that the response required unified action, limiting detailed debate over individual measures. Over time, however, he said discussions expanded to include implementation challenges such as enforceability and public communication.
The inquiry also heard from senior civil servant Mark Roscam Abbing, former program director-general for Society and Covid-19, who described how attention to social consequences of pandemic policy developed gradually during the crisis.
Roscam Abbing said early government response was dominated by efforts to prevent ICU overload, following what he described as “red lines” set by then-Prime Minister Mark Rutte. He said awareness of social effects, such as loneliness and broader societal disruption, increased over time as the pandemic continued longer than initially expected.
He added that he would not recommend reintroducing a separate program director role in the same form during a future pandemic, arguing that ultimate responsibility should lie with political decision-making supported by civil servants and planning agencies.
Roscam Abbing also defended the use of informal decision-making forums such as Catshuis and Torentjesoverleg meetings, saying they were necessary for complex crisis decisions because they allowed open discussion without immediate public or parliamentary pressure.
He said it would be “an illusion” to assume that policy options were not actively discussed in such settings before formal decisions were taken.
