In the pension debate, NSC will open the attack on the Council of State, regulators and its own Deputy Prime Minister

The timing could hardly have been worse for NSC. Less than a week after the announced departure of founder Pieter Omtzigt, the MPs of NSC and their Deputy Prime Minister were opposite each other.

The deployment: a controversial proposal from NSC, together with BBB, PVV and SP, about retirement. These parties propose to give employees and pensioners a participation in the transition to the new pension system.

The creator of this proposal, NSC MP Agnes Joseph, came on Wednesday with a hard attack on the pension sector, employers, trade unions, government advisor Council of State and supervisors De Nederlandsche Bank and the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets. They all had warned about her planthat would lead to chaos, high costs and years of delay.

Joseph called the criticism of the Council of State and supervisors « a flood of unproven propositions. » They « raged to us, » she said. « Apparently that is their style. » But they are all wrong, according to Joseph, who emphasized that she comes from the pension sector. According to Joseph, her proposal has no major consequences at all. And she finds another question much more important: « Who is coming up for people at home? »

It is still unclear if her proposal will have a majority. The mood is only after the May holiday in two weeks. Think and the Party for the Animals should then vote for it. Think said he had « no final judgment », although MP Dogukan Ergin was certainly not enthusiastic. Also the Party for the Animals, which did not participate in the debate, does not yet know how to vote.

What is clear: how NSC, less than a week after the departure of founder Pieter Omtzigt, showed two faces.

Because Deputy Prime Minister Eddy van Hijum, party member of Joseph and Minister of Social Affairs, did join the criticism of the sector, Council of State and supervisors. He had « struggled with that, » he said. But from his « special responsibility for the system », he could only conclude that the « expected benefits did not outweigh the disadvantages. »

He tried to sound understanding to Agnes Joseph. He rightly called her « underlying care » that people should be « better included » in the choices of pension funds, employers and trade unions. Van Hijum wants to make new proposals for that soon, he said. They will mainly see that pension funds should explain their choices better.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Social Affairs Eddy van Hijum was visibly upset by the suggestion that he is lying

Conversely, Joseph showed no understanding for the minister. She also attacked him. Van Hijum had just answered a question from her: why do people normally have the right of consent when their fund changes their retirement, but not now? This great reform is much more complex, Van Hijum said. This makes it incomparable. « I made this kind of value transfers myself, that was possible, » Joseph replied. « You are fooling yourself and the population with this. » Van Hijum was visibly upset by this suggestion that he is lying.

Plot -like theories

Other MPs extensively asked Joseph about her attack on the Council of State and supervisors. According to VVD member Thierry Aartsen, Joseph is booming « conspiracy -like theories. » Don Ceder (ChristenUnie) asked: « Is NSC a populist party that undermines institutions, as if cookies are there? » No, Joseph said, after which she repeated her complaint that « those institutions do not comment on the fundamental question of whether people have had sufficient say. »

Joseph also received criticism of the form of her plan: no initiative law, but a amendment proposal (‘amendment’) in a small, totally undisputed bill by Minister Van Hijum. That law gives the pension funds a year longer, until 1 January 2028, to switch to the new system. Why did NSC not made a separate initiative law for its radical plan, asked SGP MP André Flach. Because if the Senate wants to vote against this NSC plan, it also torpedo the delay until 2028.

According to Flach, this NSC proposal comes down to the ‘almost complete reversal’ of the pension law introduced in 2023. While the House of Representatives then met for almost a hundred hours, also about the right of consent. Flach: « Does Mrs Joseph think this good governance? »

An initiative law lasts for years, Joseph replied, and there is not that much time now. Joseph does not find her proposal radically. « The system change remains, » she said, but with participation.

Greater dilemma

If the House of Representatives votes for this proposal, Van Hijum will be faced with an even greater dilemma. He will then have to decide whether he will defend his deferment law until 2028, of which the right of consent, will defend in the Senate. He can also withdraw it, with which he actively kills a big wish of his party.

That is why MPs wanted to know from the minister: what will he do if this proposal is adopted? He doesn’t know that yet, he said. But it is certainly not a matter of course that he will continue the law. « I will have to work out the consequences with implementers, but also in the cabinet, before I can say that. »

The government expects, among other things, that this NSC proposal can cost several billions of euros in the coming years. Van Hijum also sees all kinds of loose ends and contradictions with the existing bill in the NSC proposal, he said. So if he already forwards it to the Senate, he will not do that without additional adjustments, Van Hijum said. « The current amendment is unsurpassed. That is what De Nederlandsche Bank, the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets, the Council of State. And I can only conclude that it is. »

To share

Mail the editors