NSC MP Agnes Joseph stays in the pension debate: what her own Deputy Prime Minister says is incorrect

In an extra inserted pension debate, NSC MP Agnes Joseph and NSC Vice-Prime Minister Eddy van Hijum of Social Affairs were again opposite each other on Wednesday. The deployment: the NSC proposal to give employees and pensioners to the transition to the new pension system. Minister Van Hijum is against that, but there is a chance that a majority of the House of Representatives will agree next week.

In the previous debate it was fiercely. Joseph then blamed the minister that he is fooling the population with his objections. On Wednesday, Joseph’s Toon remained calm, but the same thing happened: what of Hijum said, Joseph said.

In fact, last Tuesday, the House of Representatives would already vote on the NSC proposal (a so-called ‘amendment’), in which BBB, PVV and SP now participate. But that morning Joseph handed in a new version of her proposal. In it she met the practical objections that Van Hijum had listed in a letter to Parliament last week, said Joseph.

Van Hijum: Objections have not yet been resolved

On Wednesday afternoon Van Hijum denied that in another new letter to Parliament. Five of the nine objections he had mentioned have not yet been completely resolved, he wrote. Moreover: this was only a first fleeting inventory of bottlenecks. And the cabinet has not only practical, but also fundamental objections.

Yet Joseph continued that same evening in the debate that she had processed all this criticism. According to her, « all the last, practical and legal objections were incorporated in the new version ».

According to Van Hijum it is more complicated than that. If the House of Representatives votes for this, he expects that it will cost him two years to make this a feasible proposal through ‘a more careful legislative process’. Among other things with the involvement of the sector and a new advice from the Council of State.

That is problematic for Joseph and its supporters. Because the first three pension funds have already switched to the new system and the rest must follow before January 1, 2027 according to the current deadline – that is within two years. The vast majority of pension funds expect to achieve that deadline. So Van Hijum said, to dismiss the proponents: if this right of consent is already coming, it can « only apply to a limited number of funds. »

This was also incorrect, according to Joseph. « I think it can be much faster, » she said. She asked the minister to confirm that he can « really work quickly, if he really wants it. » « It is no unwillingness, » Van Hijum responded. « I try to indicate here what the implications are of what you want. »

Broad criticism of plans Joseph

The minister is not alone in his criticism. Employers, trade unions, pension funds, supervisors and the Council of State have also turned against it. In the previous debate, Joseph called it a « downpour of unproven propositions ». Now she spoke of « organized criticism. » « Anyone who wants to listen to that alone, » she said, « runs away for the worries in society. »

The House of Representatives will vote on the proposal next Tuesday and it is still exciting whether there will be a majority. The small parties think and the Party for the Animals seem to be the deciding factor. Both have not yet determined a position.

The Party for the Animals did not participate in the debates. Think sounded moderately critical on Wednesday. The party can agree with « the idea behind it, » said MP Dogukan Ergin. But pension funds had explained to him that this plan leads to considerably higher implementation costs, which would be at the expense of the pension of employees and pensioners. « We also understand that argument. »

In the Senate, the chance of a majority is much smaller: it is only there if parties there would vote differently than in the Lower House.

And it is also uncertain whether Van Hijum would like to send the proposal to the Senate if the House of Representatives voted for it. SP’er Bart Van Kent had a question about that to Agnes Joseph: Is she willing to force her party colleague Van Hijum here from the Chamber if necessary? Joseph did not have to think long about that: « Absolutely. »

To share

Mail the editors