Due to voice DENS, pension proposal NSC seems to be just die, unless a miracle happens

The proposal from NSC, BBB, PVV and SP to give employees and pensioners to the pension reform will probably be short of one vote for a second chamber majority this Tuesday afternoon.

Crucial is the voice of DENK (3 seats), which announced on Tuesday that he will vote against. According to the party, the warnings from, among others, the Council of State and pension supervisors show that this proposal is « in terms of content » and « virtually impossible in terms of feasibility. » The party also likes to vote against the « populist torpedopolitics » of the PVV.

For a majority, both DENK and the Party for the Animals (also 3 seats) had to vote for. The latter party is ahead, Lower House Ines Kostic said on Monday. The party hopes that this proposal also gives employees and pensioners more participation in sustainable and animal -friendly investment choices from their pension fund. According to Kostic, that argument has ‘the deciding factor’. That is remarkable, because there is nothing about this in the NSC proposal.

This now seems to support exactly half of the House of Representatives. If it indeed runs out on a draw (‘strike the voices’), it may vote again next week. The result is usually the same with such a second vote: in that case the proposal has been rejected.

Only a miracle seems to be able to save the NSC proposal. For example, if an opponent is unexpectedly absent at the vote or is mistaken.

The NSC proposal regulates that pension funds should offer their participants the possibility of individual objections against moving their attributed pension money to the new system. They can also organize a referendum whose result determines whether all the ‘old’ pension money in that fund is part of that fund. Otherwise, the new rules only apply to new pension premiums to be built up.

Minister Eddy van Hijum (Social Affairs, NSC) was extremely critical of this. Earlier, the Cabinet Advisor Raad van State and Pension supervisors De Nederlandsche Bank and the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets had turned against it. NSC initiator Agnes Joseph called that in the debate « a downpour of unproven propositions ». She thought that the minister and institutions had too little attention to her principle motive: that people should have a say if something changes in their already accrued pension.

Pension funds will be relieved if the House of Representatives will definitively reject the proposal next week. They have been preparing for years for the new pension rules and has warned in recent months for chaos, high costs and years of delay if this plan continues.

Deadline

If the House of Representatives votes, then that Van Hijum states a dilemma. He knows how much his own party wants this. But he has fundamental objections and practical. It could cost the treasury billions of euros in the coming years. According to the minister, it also takes about two years to make this proposal feasible, if that is already possible.

And by that time, most pension funds have already switched. The first three are already in the new system and most want to transfer no later than 1 January 2027: the current deadline. So, Van Hijum said in the debate, if this right of consent is already coming, it can « only apply to a limited number of funds. »

Van Hijum wants to stretch the deadline to 2028, but with exactly that bill this NSC plan is a change proposal (‘amendment’). That too could be delayed for two years, and no longer come on time for the single pension funds that 2027 do not think they will get.

Joseph clashed in the two debates with the Deputy Prime Minister of her own party. According to her, Van Hijum can « work quickly, if he really wants it. » She also said that Van Hijum is kidding with his objections.

The right of consent is a long-held wish of NSC founder Pieter Omtzigt. In the debates about the new Pension Act in 2022, he already came up with a proposal for referenda in pension funds. That did not get a second chamber majority at the time. There were Ja21 and then think for, and now against.

Ja21 also changed his opinion through the criticism of the Minister, Council of State and pension supervisors.

If the House of Representatives still votes unexpectedly, there is little chance that the proposal will also reach a majority in the Senate. The parties who now want to vote for have no majority there.

To share

Mail the editors