{"id":197139,"date":"2026-04-08T08:45:32","date_gmt":"2026-04-08T06:45:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=197139"},"modified":"2026-04-08T08:45:50","modified_gmt":"2026-04-08T06:45:50","slug":"raad-van-state-kraakt-nieuwe-tegemoetkoming-voor-pechstudenten","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2026\/04\/08\/raad-van-state-kraakt-nieuwe-tegemoetkoming-voor-pechstudenten\/","title":{"rendered":"Council of State criticises new compensation for unlucky students"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A second compensation for students missing out on the basic grant? Completely unnecessary, the Council of State concludes in a sharp commentary on the bill that the government has sent to the House of Representatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In 2015, the basic grant for new students was abolished, but this was short-lived: eight years later, the basic grant returned. This was hard to swallow for the students in the intervening years, politicians believe, who missed out on thousands of euros.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ‘unlucky’ students were already promised compensation when the basic grant returned (1,700 euros for four years of study), but politicians considered this too meagre. That is why a second compensation payment of over 2,100 euros is being introduced. The Council of State is now criticising<\/a> the accompanying bill<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hard to swallow<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Why are these students actually receiving this second compensation, the Advisory Division wants to know. The cabinet provides no solid arguments, apart from the fact that it would otherwise be hard to swallow for the unlucky students of the student loan system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is that enough reason to allocate 1 billion euros first and then another 1.4 billion euros later? Such compensation should only be granted by the government in ‘exceptional, deeply impactful situations’, the Council of State believes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The student loan system was not that bad, is the essence of the criticism. It is difficult to argue that the system placed around one million (former) students in ‘a distressing situation’.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not obligatory<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The council had already criticised the first compensation in 2022<\/a>. It finds the second compensation even less well substantiated. The government is under no obligation to provide it at all, the advisers emphasise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is questionable whether people will regard the two compensation payments as ‘a meaningful gesture that brings a societal issue to a close’, the council warns. There is a risk that people will continue to negotiate over this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, the cabinet does not explain why the first payment would be \u2018too low\u2019 while the second payment would be sufficient. \u201cIt is therefore entirely unclear whether the proposal contributes to a need for recognition\u201d, the advice states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

General interest<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The cabinet dismisses the criticism, just as it did with the first compensation. There must be a meaningful gesture, is its response. \u201cThis is not only in the interest of the (former) students concerned, but also in the general interest. With this gesture, the government draws a line under this societal issue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It remains a ‘political consideration’, the cabinet says. It wants to close the matter with the second compensation and will therefore still send the bill to the House of Representatives, against the advice of the Council of State.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\t

\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Read more<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t