On the eve of the first Budget Day of the Rutte IV cabinet, Gert-Jan Segers looks ahead to a tough winter. The corona crisis has given way to an unprecedented purchasing power and energy crisis. The elderly who no longer take a hot shower for fear of the high bill or single mothers who have the gas turned off in panic: this fills the leader of the Christian Union with concern. Energy minister Rob Jetten (D66) only promised on Wednesday that ‘no one will be closed this winter’, although it is unclear how he will ensure that.
Segers hopes that the cabinet will soon be able to come up with plans for an energy fund. Minimums could borrow or receive money from this fund, it is still unclear. Meanwhile, reports are piling up from the country that it is precisely the people who need the help most that do not dare to apply for the current energy discount of 1,300 euros. Because of the allowance affair, they do not trust the government that they do not have to repay the discount.
The new purchasing power measures will only be announced on Budget Day, Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) and Finance Minister Sigrid Kaag (D66) have repeatedly reiterated in recent weeks. ‘This does not necessarily apply to these additional measures in the short term,’ says Segers. ‘If you have a solution, you don’t have to wait until Prinsjesdag.’
The measures that are already known to absorb the purchasing power fall will take effect from the beginning of 2023. But people are now being cut off from gas. Why isn’t the government taking action now?
‘People should not be cut off from the gas,’ says the cabinet. And I do not rule out the possibility that we can take extra steps this year, we are thinking about it feverishly. This requires maximum creativity, because there are practical objections between ideal and deed, and that is often the tax authorities. They can’t have anything extra, we’ve been told.’
PvdA and GroenLinks argue for an energy ceiling. This is possible without the help of the tax authorities and is also much simpler than applying for all kinds of allowances.
‘We want the most effective reduction in energy bills. As far as I’m concerned, this can be done through a higher tax refund; a fixed amount for everyone. That is much more important for people at the bottom of society than for people with a large house, who consume more but can also pay the higher bill.’
Finance Minister Kaag warned in June that we ‘will all become a bit poorer’ because of rising energy prices. What do you think it will do to people if they can no longer afford the groceries and hear the minister say that they are getting even poorer?
‘A statement like that sounds like you’re watching the Netherlands from the moon. She can do that. But it is an academic truth and that is not enough in times of need. The bottom has no margin anymore. Then you can’t say we’re all getting a little poorer. A social response is also needed, namely: ‘We are going to help you. We have deep pockets and we will do whatever it takes not to let you fall.
In times of corona, the cabinet has done everything it can not to let companies fall. I would very much like the government to say so again this time. That reassurance must come to the public. But if the cabinet doesn’t say it, I’ll say it: we won’t let you down.’
In the meantime, the cabinet is struggling with even more crises that do no good to the public’s confidence in politics. The nitrogen crisis is anything but solved. Farmers’ protests have subsided for a while, but could erupt again soon. In that regard, confidence in his own party is also a tricky point, admits Segers. After eight months of rule, the Christian Union has already lost its agriculture minister because he was unable to reassure farmers about the future of their business. In addition, there is a threat of an uprising among the grassroots because of the controversial asylum agreement. ‘We are in dire social weather. A perfect storm.’
Have you ever thought lately: Rutte IV, why did I get in again?
‘The budget of 2023 was the litmus test for us: if there were not a large support package that inspires confidence and alleviates the first need, then the reason for us to still be in this cabinet would disappear.’
SCP research shows that confidence in politicians is low, while this usually increases after a new cabinet takes office. What is that about?
‘That is not due to one thing, but I think in any case because of the many crises that are currently taking place and the fact that the cabinet has continued in the same composition.’
Do you think this is the best ministerial team to solve all those crises?
‘I do not know. As long as confidence is low, you can’t say things are going well. You see that the most satisfied voters belong to the supporters of VVD and D66, after that the voters come to CDA, ChristenUnie, GroenLinks and PvdA. There is a risk that this will become a cabinet for satisfied people. I do not want that.’
Do you have the idea that we are in a kind of pre-Fortuynistic period where the incumbent mainly serves the interests of people who are doing well?
‘That’s the big risk, yes. That is why this budget is an important stress test. We have to be there for the people who may never vote for these four coalition parties.’
Do you feel that you are regaining the trust of this group?
‘That confidence does not return with a moving interview in de Volkskrant, or a nice contribution to the General Political Reflections. That will come back when all measures have been taken and people see that they can manage.’
In the coalition, the sun seems to shine mainly with D66 since the cabinet presented far-reaching nitrogen plans. How do you view the joy of D66 versus the storm that broke loose in the country afterwards?
‘I don’t think happiness is appropriate when large parts of the countryside feel, ‘We are not being seen and the land on which we have worked for generations may be taken from us.’ We must be careful not to widen the gap between urban and rural areas. The joy at such a D66 congress can lead to that. I’m very concerned about that.’
Can you imagine the ChristenUnie saying at a given moment: the amount of nitrogen reduction and the year 2030 in which this must be achieved: we should look at that again?
‘That question contains an enormous banana peel. Someone in the cabinet (CDA leader Hoekstra, red.) spoke about it earlier by saying: ‘A year is not sacred.’ Even though the cabinet has written it down. Hoekstra has thus made it politically more difficult, also for the farmers. I understood him very well in terms of content, but I didn’t think his public statement was wise, because it further sharpens the discussion.’
You are not a member of the cabinet and can you still say what you think of 2030?
‘I can indeed afford a little more freedom. A year is just a year. Suppose that the nitrogen reduction is not completed until 2031, or in fact already in 2029: who cares?’
The year 2030 is also stated in the coalition agreement. Is that certain for you?
‘If Hoekstra hadn’t said anything, there wouldn’t have been a battle between CDA and D66 who would be right with that year 2030. Then we could have put the coalition agreement on the table in peace and along the way we might have established that a different time frame is needed. That has now become more difficult. Everything was negotiable as far as I was concerned.’
Also the nitrogen reduction targets?
‘No, that direction is completely clear. We need to emit less nitrogen.’
Earlier you said that you fear a civil war if the government does not come up with a clear future perspective for the farmers. The resigned ChristenUnie minister Henk Staghouwer has not delivered that plan.
‘The perspective letter that was there was too long and too unclear. You can see that in peace. It is of course a painful episode for us.’
Would you be willing to apologize to farmers that the Christian Union has failed in this?
‘Of course I play that film and I also think about my responsibility. Whatever it takes to restore trust and that which touches my responsibility – I am ready for that.’
The asylum deal states that the influx of asylum seekers will be limited by delaying family reunification. Why did you go with this?
‘We have been assured by lawyers from the Ministry of Justice and Security that this plan is legally tenable. Since then, we have also received other views, which may make you question this. We have therefore requested advice from the Council of State. But that proposal was voted down in the House of Representatives.’
You could also have enforced that Council of State advice for the deal. A few simple phone calls to asylum experts would have been enough to hear that this is legally very questionable.
‘Delaying family reunification – ie not banning it – is the most painful part of the asylum deal for us. On the other hand, if necessary, we can also force municipalities to provide shelter. That is a very painful measure for another party.
‘The agreements came about because we had to resolve a very acute crisis, with families sleeping outside and a child who had died. The chairmen of the security regions said: ‘If you don’t do anything about the influx, we won’t take care of it.’ Then you are simply in an administrative dilemma.’
Isn’t that a very cynical trade-off?
‘That’s not an exchange. That is a package of measures in which you eventually come up with a solution for people who have to sleep outside.
‘Is it painful? Yes. I can’t stretch that rubber band endlessly, it will snap once and then it will stop, I know that. But in the knowledge that 80 seats in the House want a stricter asylum policy. That is also something I have to take into account.’