On 30 March 2026, the Minister of Finance submitted the Memorandum in response to the Senate report. The Minister distinguishes three categories of financial institutions:
- Banks and large investment firms
For this group, the definition of identified staff follows Article 92(3) CRD and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/923.
- Financial institutions with an identified staff definition in sector-specific EU legislation
This includes insurers, certain investment firms and premium pension institutions. For this group, the concept of identified staff must be interpreted in line with the applicable sectoral EU framework (and not the CRD framework).
- Financial institutions without an identified staff definition in sector-specific EU legislation
For, among others, payment service providers and financial advisers, the explanatory notes indicate that the CRD definition will apply. These institutions will need to determine an appropriate interpretation of identified staff themselves, whereby any future policy issued by supervisors is, in principle, not binding on the sector.
Finally, the Minister confirms that it is not possible to “split” roles: an individual cannot qualify as identified staff only in part.
Pay transparency update: Council of State advice
On 7 April 2026, the Council of State published its opinion on the bill implementing the Pay Transparency Directive (Directive (EU) 2023/970). While emphasising the importance of equal pay, the Council also raises critical remarks regarding the design of the proposal. The advice makes clear that implementation is necessary, but that the current approach raises questions around effectiveness, feasibility and legal robustness.
Key points from the opinion include:
- Regulatory burden & effectiveness
The Council highlights the significant administrative burden for employers, particularly in relation to reporting obligations and the implementation of job grading systems. It also notes that it remains unclear how the effectiveness of the measures will be evaluated, and that expectations regarding outcomes should not be overly ambitious.
- Implementation & deadlines
The implementation deadline of 7 June 2026 will not be met. In addition, the proposed date for the first pay reporting deviates from the directive, raising questions about legal permissibility and potential risks for the State. The Council emphasises that deviation from the implementation timeline is not allowed, meaning that employers with more than 150 employees should begin reporting from 7 June 2027.
- Supervision & enforcement
The Labour Inspectorate will only be able to assess whether pay reports have been submitted, not their accuracy, which is expected to limit the effectiveness of enforcement. The proposal also does not sufficiently justify why the option of (partly) centralised reporting has not been adopted, despite its potential to reduce the administrative burden.
- Monitoring body & privacy
There is still uncertainty regarding the designation and practical feasibility of the monitoring body. In addition, questions remain about the processing of personal data, including the handling of data relating to non-binary employees and the safeguards required under the GDPR when pay data can be (indirectly) traced back to individuals.
Conclusion
The opinion makes clear that transparency alone is not sufficient—the effectiveness of the regime will depend heavily on practical implementation and the quality of underlying analyses. In light of the Council of State’s remarks, amendments to the bill are likely, putting pressure on the intended entry into force date of 1 January 2027.
Want to know more? Please contact Naomi Reijn and her team.
