Proposals for a reformed pension system in the Netherlands have now received the support of all four coalition parties, VVD, CDA, D66 and ChristenUnie, following a debate at the House of Representatives.

The Social Affairs Minister, Wouter Koolmees, also secured the support of opposition parties, PvdA, GroenLinks and SGP, with the PvdA and GroenLinks parties shifting their position after securing a number of concessions, including a capped retirement age at 67 for the short term and allowing people with physical demanding jobs to retire three years earlier.

However, the SP, PVV, 50Plus and MP Krol remained against the proposed pension reforms, and a number of questions around the implementation and impact of the reforms remained, even amongst supporting parties.

The debate follows over ten years of negotiations between the ministry, employers and unions, with the government stressing that the new system had been “worked day and night over the past year” and would increase the chances of good pensions.

Proposals within the new system would see the current fixed-rate pension replaced with one tied to stock market prices, meaning pensioners will not know how much they will receive upon retirement.

However, 50Plus representative Van Brenk, argued that there was only “misery on the table”, whilst Socialist Party representative Van Kent, stated that the party would continue to reject the agreement, highlighting issues around an “ever-increasing state pension age”, and arguing that the agreement would “only make the problems worse”.

Both parties raised issues around intergenerational and equality issues, with Van Brenk in particular expressing concerns about the distribution of the pension reserves of €1,500bn, which have been accumulated by current retirees, and could be at risk of being “permanently expropriated".

However, Minister Koolmees argued that “in any case, there is no expropriation”, explaining that no money will be taken from funds, and no tax levied, also clarifying that the transition will take place in a balanced way.

Van Kent, meanwhile, labelled the new agreement a “gambling pension”, stating that an objection option for pensioners should be maintained, and that the party would bring this issue to court together with those pensioners impacted.

However, there was also support for the reforms, as VVD representative Van der Linde, stated: “Our pension just needs to be understandable again. And frankly, that's going to happen now.

“This cabinet has solved one of the most difficult files of the past twenty years. We can move forward. We stick to a few good things about the pension system: income security, no matter how old you get, and investing together. And we say goodbye to incomprehensible terms: average premium, premium coverage."

Minister Koolmees echoed this, emphasising that the agreement was a “balanced package”, with “an eye for the interests of all generations, that had adapted to the demands of modern times”, whilst maintaining the “good elements” of the old system.

Furthermore, whilst questions from the house continue to persist, the minister acknowledged that this was to be expected, clarifying that “a lot of legislation is still to come” and that this would be introduced in “large and small steps”.

He also clarified that this was not the first time that the house had debated the topic, and “will certainly not be the last time”, as the elaboration of the agreement into legislation must be discussed in the house.

The debate centred on the implementation of the agreement, and ensuring a smooth transition from the old system to the new, with some calling for a compensation mechanism to prevent workers aged between 35 and 55 losing out in the transition.

CDA representative Pieter Omtzigt, has also called for two further committee sessions to be held in the September, to allow representative to debate the impact of the agreement.

Omtzigt emphasised that the transition would involve around €1,500bn, and therefore requires “a certain amount of care” that cannot be achieved in a four or five minute debate.

He also urged the government to map out the labour market effect of the reforms before, rather than after they are introduced, emphasising that this concerns a “very large group of employees”.

Share Story: