The Council of State has issued a highly critical assessment of the plan to freeze social rents, advising against its submission to the Lower House. This negative judgment is a rare occurrence, signaling serious concerns about the proposal.

The Council deems the coalition’s plan to freeze social rents for two years as “carelessly prepared,” citing the haste in its conception. According to the advisory body, the bill was created under significant time pressure, leading to the omission of essential legislative steps and safeguards. This has resulted in “serious legal objections.”

One major concern is the unequal treatment the plan would create among tenants. The rent freeze only applies to those renting social housing from housing associations, excluding approximately half a million tenants renting from private landlords. The Council argues that this distinction between two groups in essentially the same situation violates the principle of equality. The required “objective justification” for this unequal treatment is lacking.

Furthermore, the Council predicts that lower rental income for housing associations will lead to the construction of 85,000 fewer rental homes. It will also reduce the number of homes made more sustainable by approximately 365,000. The Council views this as “at odds” with the government’s objective to address the housing shortage and its “constitutional duty” to provide adequate housing.

The Council also points out that the coalition parties appear to have underestimated the necessary compensation for housing corporations. The allocated 1 billion euros is insufficient to cover the anticipated losses. Housing corporations are expected to miss out on approximately 1.5 billion euros per year, which is only partially compensated. As a result, a significant portion of corporations may face financial difficulties in the short term.

The social rent freeze plan originated during late-night negotiations between the coalition parties. While the intention to help vulnerable tenants with rising living costs is acknowledged, the Council believes that insufficient consideration was given to the implementation and consequences of the measure.

The plan has already faced criticism, even from within the government. Given the strong objections raised by the Council of State, the likelihood of the rent freeze plan gaining sufficient support in the Lower House appears slim. Even if it passes the Lower House, it must also be approved by the Senate, where the coalition lacks a majority. This makes the future of the plan uncertain, potentially jeopardizing one of the PVV leader’s key election promises.