On Tuesday, April 1, the Senate continued the debate with Minister Bruins of Education, Culture and Science on the budget for his ministry for 2025. Due to documents submitted during the first part of the debate concerning the legal aspects of the cuts in the field of research, the Senate decided to extend the debate with a third term. In this third term, the Senate focused particularly on the legality of the cuts, especially the unilateral termination by the minister of an administrative agreement concluded in 2022 with higher education regarding, among other things, starter and incentive grants. The Senate will vote on the OCW budget on April 8. All submitted motions will also be voted on then.
In the third term, the Senate extensively discussed the legality of the cuts and the 2022 administrative agreement in particular. According to Senator Roovers (GroenLinks-PvdA), the minister was asked whether he acknowledges that he stands alone in his judgment that the administrative agreement is not legally binding and whether he acknowledges that the cuts hinder the conclusion of future agreements and undermine trust in the government. Senator Van Rooijen (50PLUS) asked whether the minister could indicate that the agreement is indeed not binding and whether it is true that the cuts to the sector plans have been repealed so they could be continued.
Volt Senator Perin-Gopie said that everything indicates that the administrative agreement is legally binding and that the Senate must return laws if the conclusion is that they are unlawful. Rarely have we had such a clear case where legality can be questioned, said Senator Van Apeldoorn (SP). He asked whether Minister Bruins had considered that the court could strike down the budget.
According to Senator Van Meenen (D66, also on behalf of OPNL), people are severely affected by the cuts in their current and future existence. He said that the Senate cannot afford to vote for a budget with such a substantial, unlawful component. PvdD Senator Nicolaï elaborated on the so-called funding decision from which the agreement consists, an agreement about the resources made available to the university. He said that the Senate must prevent a violation of the legality of this decision.
CDA Senator Rietkerk said that it is not up to the Senate to assess political choices made in the House of Representatives. According to him, the advice of administrative law experts is not unequivocally legal or illegal. The conclusion of the CDA is therefore that there is no question of illegality. According to Senator Talsma (ChristenUnie), it has become clear that the budget contains a legal vulnerability. He asked what the consequence of this is for the entire budget and whether the minister can absorb a setback of this magnitude.
In response to the question about the legality of the cuts, Minister Bruins replied that policy changes can form a circumstance whereby an agreement can be terminated. A cut is such a policy change and an administrative agreement is not legally enforceable. Bruins: It is lawful and I have done it carefully. We will have to seek trust again. The reliability of the government has been damaged, but that is something different from the legality of the decision.
During the third term, Senator Van Meenen (D66) submitted a tenth motion:
- -Motion-Van Meenen et al. on implementing the 2022 higher education administrative agreement in 2025. The minister advised against the motion.