The General Court of Auditors, a high college of state that independently audits government spending, is blowing the whistle on Culture Minister Bussemaker. In a interim opinion, published on 12 February, the Court of Auditors in fact states that there are still entirely nothing clear is about the real impact of the previous cabinet's cuts.
That cabinet, with the universally loved Halbe Zijlstra then still as State Secretary at the helm of Culture, cut heavily on the so-called Basic Infrastructure: a set of leading institutions and companies that must ensure a proper distribution of the arts on offer across the Netherlands. About that BIS, on which sometimes more than 30% was cut, the Court of Auditors writes the following:
'The Minister of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) will formulate the starting points for the new four-year BIS period (2017-2020) in spring 2015. A debate on this will take place with the House of Representatives before the summer of 2015. In these preparations for the new BIS, up-to-date information should therefore be available on the consequences of the cutback on culture and the related redesign of the BIS.'
But so that information is nowhere to be found.
'Despite the fact that the minister of OCW collects a lot of information on developments in the state-subsidised part of the cultural sector, we note that not all the relevant information is yet available to properly debate the new BIS.'
In other words, the minister cannot start basing new policy on old policy when the consequences of that old policy are not yet foreseeable. Of course, one could see this comment by the Court as a formal potty sputtering that every accountant is supposed to do, but those who read the paper will see more loose ends. Or examples of inventive pot-shuffling:
'For example: 20 million euros of the budget for Cultural Heritage has been transferred to the Provincial Fund. Parliament has been informed about these changes in the various budget memorandums, but has not been given an overview of the extent to which the cut has been realised in accordance with the intentions in the coalition agreement and their implementation in subsequent policy memorandums. Due to the many mutations, we too cannot determine the extent to which the cut has been realised.'
And then it comes:
'However, we did find that spending on the Culture budget in the period 2011 to 2013 cumulatively 73 million euros more have fallen than was estimated when the multi-year cut from the coalition agreement was booked.'
The National Audit Office does not yet know whether this is really the case, or whether money has kind of gone missing due to all this shuffling, but of course, pretty is different. Too little is also known about the number of survivors of the cuts - and especially how they survive:
'The Minister of OCW does not collect information on the extent to which and how the 114 remaining institutions have managed to cope with the complete loss of state subsidy. However, we believe this is important, as this information provides insight into the effects of the cut and the success and failure factors of cultural institutions becoming more self-sufficient.'
In a response, the ministry let it be known that one cannot break iron with hands, and that they are doing their best. The Court accepts the apology, but states, somewhat affably:
'We appreciate that ministers place so much value on the reliability of the information, but find the timing of this year's publication of Culture in Focus unfortunate in view of the choices to be made this spring for the new grant period. It would be wise if the minister of OCW wants to think about other solutions.'
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
