The business community is very concerned about the cuts in education and research, says an open letter from employers' organization VNO-NCW. It is signed by large companies such as Siemens, Vodafone, Nationale Nederlanden, Airbus, FrieslandCampina and chip manufacturer NXP.

The letter played a major role Wednesday in a debate on higher education in the House of Representatives, as the administration and the four governing parties often defend the cuts by referring to the relief for businesses. But now even those corporations are attacking them, the opposition observes.

Anti-business

Luc Stultiens (GroenLinks-PvdA) rubbed it in. “The VVD has become not only an anti-education party, but also an anti-business party, and I wonder why that happened so fast.”

Unnecessary words, Claire Martens-America (VVD) thought. She stayed behind the cabinet plans. After all, there were also companies that threatened to leave the Netherlands if taxes were not lowered, she said. But she had to admit that she understood those companies' open letter “incredibly well.”

NSC MP Rosanne Hertzberger also stayed true to the coalition agreement, although she stated in relation to the open letter: “Yes, that message comes through loud and clear to us.” She suggested that the business community could take up the gauntlet and set up its own fund for research.

Long-study fine

One of the controversial cuts is the long-study fine for students who are more than a year behind in their studies. Hundreds of students took to the streets in The Hague last week to protest against it.

It is “a cynical means of closing a hole in the budget,” said SP MP Sandra Beckerman. She called the fine “a millstone around the neck.” Especially students with poorer parents take longer to study, she said. Or think of family caregivers and students who themselves are in a vulnerable position.

Jan Paternotte (D66) tried to find out in the debate which of the four governing parties actually wanted this fine, but got no answer. It was simply the outcome of the negotiations, he was told. “Who should I go to if I want to change something?” he asked.

Defend

The coalition parties did defend the measure. Surely it should be possible to complete one's studies within a reasonable time? Why, for example, do half of students at universities of applied sciences fail to complete a four-year degree within five years, Hertzberger wondered.

Her PVV colleague Patrick van der Hoeff also thought it was “very fair” that government funding would be reduced after a year's walkout. And then you can still make an exception for, say, caregivers or pregnant students, he thought.

Harsh

Minister Eppo Bruins also understood the protests. He wants to prevent the measure from becoming “disproportionate and harsh,” but does not yet know how. After all, this cut is written in and the more exceptions you make, the less the measure will yield.

Bruins himself had spoken to students from poorer families about the long-study fine, as well as top athletes, family caregivers and the sick, and they told him “really worrisome stories.” “It's a lot of dilemmas and there's a puzzle that needs to be put together.” He will send a letter before the OCW budget is discussed this fall.

It is not feasible to change the law before the 2026/2027 academic year, when the long-term study penalty is to take effect. But maybe it doesn't have to, he considered. “How to do this with legislative change? How to do this without legislative change? How quickly can a cutback be implemented?”

Grow

The cuts just hurt, the minister acknowledged. But he wants to ensure that education and research nevertheless remain strong, and that the sector “can grow again once more money is available in the treasury than at this point.”