Further delay for the slow-progress penalty

Many members of the House of Representatives would have preferred to avoid Thursday’s debate on the education budget. Intense negotiations have been taking place behind the scenes since Wednesday to soften the government’s multibillion-euro austerity measures. Yet, coalition parties insisted on proceeding without delay.

The debate began with minister Bruins, whose most striking announcement was that the slow-progress penalty would face further delays. The legislative amendment will not take effect in 2026, as outlined in the cabinet’s coalition agreement, nor in 2027, as he estimated in October, but ‘at the earliest, in September 2028’, Bruins stated.

This delay creates a budget shortfall of more than half a billion euros, as the savings had already been factored in. The gap amounts to 95 million euros in 2026, 285 million euros in 2027, and around 190 million euros in 2028. Bruins said: “This is a hard cut, and I stand by it.” He promised to present a solution for the budget gap in a few months.

That is, if the penalty is still introduced. Last month, it was leaked that the minister is exploring alternatives. The measure disproportionately affects some groups and is becoming so complex due to proposed exemptions that Bruins is struggling to implement it effectively.

Meanwhile, new negotiations began on Wednesday with opposition parties from the ‘monster alliance’ of D66, CDA and JA21, now joined by SGP and ChristenUnie. These parties are threatening to vote against the budget in the Senate and are demanding a reversal of 1.3 billion euros in education cuts. They have also specifically targeted the slow-progress penalty.

While the penalty hangs in the balance, opposition parties intensified their criticism on Thursday. CDA MP Harmen Krul called it a ‘harsh’ measure. Sandra Beckerman of the Socialist Party (SP) speculated that the minister’s need for more time to refine the proposal stemmed from its lack of justification.

Beckerman pointed out that students are already factoring the penalty into their study choices. “For instance, they avoid STEM programmes because it is well known that students often take longer to complete them.” The premise of the penalty is that delays cost money. Students taking more than one extra year to graduate would face an additional charge of 3,000 euros per year, as decided by PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB in May.

Minister Bruins himself has made it clear on multiple occasions that he is not a fan of the penalty. He is seeking an alternative and is aware that the penalty could be scrapped in the coming days. However, as long as it remains official policy, he can offer little reassurance, saying only: “I hear students asking whether they should even bother going to university. My advice would be: just choose your programme.”

He also raised another fundamental issue: Can students who have already started their studies be retroactively subjected to the penalty? Bruins thinks this would be unfair but added: “I am bound by the financial framework of the coalition agreement.”

At the end of the debate, Bruins rejected all opposition proposals aimed at mitigating the cuts, including an amendment from CDA, D66 and JA21. However, JA21 MP Joost Eerdmans seemed unfazed.

Eerdmans concluded by acknowledging the awkwardness of the debate. “We’re discussing a budget that is still subject to changes”, he said. Yet, with negotiations looming, he struck an optimistic tone: “I think the minister could end up with a substantial boost to his budget by next week.”