This became apparent on Wednesday during the debate on the Future Pensions Bill about the major pension reform. This is the final treatment. In preparation, forty hours of meetings had already taken place and hundreds of written questions were asked and answered by the ministry.
How many parties in the House of Representatives ultimately agree to the Pension Act remains uncertain for a while. The SGP has a positive basic attitude towards the bill. But the party, like GroenLinks and the PvdA, would prefer to wait for a final report containing scenarios with which the pension funds can calculate the transition to the new system. That report is expected this month. The coalition believes that waiting is not necessary.
All parties see the risks in converting the collective pension assets managed by the approximately two hundred pension funds into individual ‘pots’. This concerns a total of 1,440 billion euros. According to the proposal, from now on the pension premium will go to those individual pots. That is a disadvantage for middle-aged employees, who have to compensate for it. This has to be arranged per fund. Whether this is done properly and is not detrimental to the pension accrual of the elderly or young is a concern for all parties.
divisive agaric
The bill divides parliament to the bone. On the one hand are the coalition parties VVD, CDA, D66 and CU. They know PvdA and GroenLinks and SGP in principle on their side. They support the pension agreement on which the bill is based. The coalition has a majority in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate. There, the support of the two left-wing parties is necessary.
PvdA and GroenLinks still have reservations about the transition to the new system. They also prefer guarantees that pensions do not have to be reduced. That could happen as a result of the poor investment year 2022 and the compensation for middle-aged workers. But the opposition parties mainly have wishes that are not directly related to the bill, but are part of the Pension Agreement. For example, they want to continue and improve the scheme that makes early retirement possible.
They also want many more working people to build up a pension. In recent years, the group has expanded to 1.7 million people without pensions, half and half self-employed and salaried employees. PvdA and GroenLinks foresee that this group will face an old age in which it will have to get by on the social minimum, the AOW. They therefore have three proposals. “All three amendments are urgently needed to improve this law, so the question of whether they will be adopted is of great importance to my group when assessing this law,” said Senna Maatoug (GroenLinks)
For example, temporary workers have to accrue pension after eight weeks and not, as now, only after six months. In addition, they want 18-year-olds to start building up pension when they work and instead of, as now, from the age of 21.
Brilliant proposal: pension obligation
Trade unions and employers have already promised that they will take measures to halve the number of salaried employees without pension accrual to 450 thousand in the coming years. PvdA and GroenLinks want to put that promise into law. Just before the debate started, the trade union movement and employers sent a letter in which they agreed. In fact, the social partners are trying to placate PvdA and GroenLinks with the proposal to introduce a pension obligation if it turns out in 2025 that the group of employees without pension has not shrunk significantly.
Such a pension obligation is an exciting proposition. This means that every worker is obliged to save for his pension. How, that depends on the legislation that regulates the duty. Now employers and employees can agree on a pension scheme or join a pension fund for, for example, an industry through the trade union movement or the works council. Or nothing is agreed, and then there is no pension. The social partners attach great importance to the freedom of negotiation to make agreements about working conditions, such as pensions.
False opponents
Opposite these parties are mainly PVV, BBB, Denk and SP. These parties are firmly against the pension reform. They feel empowered by a letter to parliament from 42 ‘prominent people’ calling for the reform to be abandoned.
PVV and SP foresee massive lawsuits if the pension for many people in the new system is lower. Bart van Kent (SP) also points out that the Institute for Human Rights finds the intended new system unjust for young women in particular, who then head for a lower pension because they accrue less through part-time work or because they lack accrual after having children. Marijke van Beukering (D66) points out that this is also the case in the current system and that it must be solved in a different way, for example by reducing the pay gap between men and women.
GroenLinkser Maatoug tried to get Léon de Jong (PVV) to explain how he thinks how the current system should be handled. ‘I’ve been saying that for twelve years, but no one listens. There must be a pension with good purchasing power, with an annual increase. This is possible with an actuarial interest rate of at least 2 percent’, says De Jong. The pension funds use the interest to calculate how their assets relate to their liabilities. They now have to use the market interest rate for this. It has been so low in the past twelve years that pensions could not be increased. This year, interest rates have risen slightly, so that is possible.
Not all parties participate in the debate. Volt says he will follow the debate and form an opinion on how to vote on that basis. The Party for the Animals is against the pension reform.