Proposition 53K1637

Projet de loi portant des mesures en vue de l'instauration d'une cotisation de solidarité pour l'occupation d'étudiants non assujettis au régime de la sécurité sociale des travailleurs salariés.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

June 28, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work youth employment social-security contribution social security

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 14, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, the draft law was discussed at the meeting of 6 July 2011. Joëlle Milquet, Minister of Labour and Equal Opportunities, has begun a presentation. It first reminded us of the current regulation. Currently, students are allowed to work 23 days in the months of July, August and September and 23 days for the rest of the year.

The solidarity contribution to be borne by the employers shall be 5 % and for the student 2.5 % in the period in which they work 23 days in the third quarter and for the rest of the year the solidarity contribution shall be 8 % for the employer and 4,5 % for the student.

The former Minister of Labour Peter Vanvelthoven asked the NAR to evaluate the regulation on student work to make proposals on the basis thereof to simplify the current system and provide the greatest possible legal certainty for all stakeholders and to make a proposal regarding the percentage of the solidarity contributions. On 27 February 2008, the NAR issued a divided opinion on this subject. On 12 February 2010, the core approved a draft proposal by the Minister of Labour in cooperation with her colleague of Social Affairs. A number of basic principles were adopted. The NAR also issued a divided opinion on this subject. They did not come to a unanimous conclusion.

The reform of the system takes into account two principles. First, the student is above all a student and not an employee with a special status. Student work should also not constitute a disloyal competition for the work of the low-skilled worker and the job seekers. The proposed solution is partly based on the principles of the existing Dimona applications and takes advantage of the possibilities offered by Dimona’s recent reengineering. The principle of Dimona therefore actually consists in informing the RSZ via electronic communication about the employment of the employee. The Dimona records the employment relationship between the employer and the employee with certainty in a uniform way. In addition to the draft law, there will also be a royal decision.

What does the bill contain now? First, an annual quota of 50 days against reduced contributions.

Second, a global solidarity contribution rate of 8.13 %: 2.71 % for the student and 5.42 % for the employer.

Third, the limitation to six months of student work under a student employment agreement is extended to twelve months. The consultation of the balance of the daily quota is possible for the student and the employer on the basis of a counter. The administrative burden arising from the proposed reforms remains limited to a strict minimum. The reform of student work will enter into force on 1 January 2012 and will be thoroughly evaluated by the NAR in cooperation with the RSZ and the Social Security Fund before 31 August 2013. In order to give the RSZ the opportunity to put everything in preparation for implementation by 1 January 2012, the government has requested the urgency for this bill.

Mr. Koen Snyders, general administrator of the State Service for Social Security, gave his explanation on how the RSZ will implement the principles of the reform of student labor. What are the sanctions provided for in the event of exceeding the fifty-day contingent? When a student has worked with one employer, there is a retroactive regularization of the entire period of employment. As regards the penalty in case of exceeding the quota of fifty days if the student has worked with different employers, employment from the 51st day leads to the calculation of the ordinary contributions. If a student works in a specific sector where occasional work is possible, he will first work his days as a student and then the specific scheme will be applied to him for the benefits that exceed the student contingent within the limits applied to that particular scheme.

In practice, the employer will make the Dimona statements for the student he is hiring. Work is underway on a user-friendly display in the electronic Dimona applications. The RSZ should also ensure that the database can be accessed by the student. The RSZ will also ensure that the contingent is kept permanently and almost instantaneously, as is the case with the second version of Dimona. The employer can make corrections at any time. The RSZ shall, in turn, automatically correct the quota if the number of days indicated in the Dimona declaration does not correspond to the number of days indicated in the original Dimona declaration, taking into account the established rules.

Specifically for the students, a website will also be developed, where all information about student work can be found.

Ms. Valérie De Bue and Ms. De Block indicate that the bill in question corresponds to a large extent to their proposed bill. Mrs De Block notes that there are still some differences. She wants to know whether it is possible in the future to express the explanation of student work in hours and not more in days.

Mr Vercamer notes that the draft law is largely consistent with his draft law. He raises the question of whether the contribution rate will be budgetarily neutral. He also proposes to take into account in the 2013 review the fact that student work should not pose a threat to other jobs on the ordinary labour market.

Ms. Van Moer points out that a student must first study, but that nevertheless many students will go to work to finance their studies. She therefore also advocates for a contract of work for a maximum of 400 hours per year, for example, avoiding the fact that a 4-hour working time will count for a full day.

Mr. Koen Snyders, general administrator of the RSZ, has responded to the pleas to express the declaration in hours rather than in days, but this is not currently possible because the RSZ declaration in hours is not possible at the moment.

Mr. Gilkinet and Mr. Calvo point out that the number of students has increased significantly in recent years and that, de facto, there has been some competition with the workers, for which the ordinary social contributions must be paid. They also request an evaluation. They submitted several amendments to this.

Mrs. Burgeon welcomes the bill, which simplifies student work and better adapts to reality.

Mrs De Block, however, remains opposed to the fact that the penalty for exceeding the quota should be the same for all students, regardless of whether they have worked for one or more employers. However, Mr Mayeur points out that an employer for whom the student worked the fully permitted period of 50 days does know that that period is exceeded if he works longer and that if the student works for more than one employer, only the last employer can know whether the 50 day contingent has been exceeded or not.

Eight amendments were submitted to the bill. No amendment is adopted. The text was adopted with 13 votes in favour and 1 abstinence.

Student work, as it was previously enrolled in the legislation, was from the beginning a misleading. The current status of job student was inconsistent and fragmented. In fact, there was not even a separate statute, for as a student one is employed as a servant, worker or servant with a student employment contract as a modality. That up to 23 days can be worked in the summer vacation and 23 days during the academic year with any penalties for both the employer and the student have caused problems from the beginning. The system is not very flexible.

In a previous life I worked in the social service of the University of Antwerp, where I was responsible for the job service, among other things. In that capacity, together with other representatives of student associations of the Flemish universities and colleges, and the Dutch speakers from Brussels, I visited various representatives of the Flemish political parties in our House and with various social partners. I have been familiar with the matter for years.

Let me be clear: a job student is a student, not a working student. A job student still has as its main activity that he studies. For a college or university student, this means that he is enrolled for at least 27 credits. Why do students want to work? Some of them do that to earn some extra pocket money. A number of others have to contribute to the cost of studying and another group wants to gain some work experience and attitudes to start working later.

Randstad also investigated whether job students are in the way of young job seekers. Some people claim that. However, the company came to the conclusion that there is no displacement effect.

The discussions in the committee were spicy and at times sluggish. In the end, we approved the government’s bill, and we will do so today. Nevertheless, we believe that the committee has missed an enormous opportunity to turn the student labour legislation into a real statute. With a backpack full of years of experience working in a student facility and with the knowledge of what the parties promised us, when they still did not know that I was also politically active, the N-VA made a bill for student work.

We tried to look at the student work in its entirety. This is about more than just looking at the salary, whether or not the RSZ contribution and checking whether or not too many days have been worked without RSZ.

We already find a lot in the government’s draft. For example, student contracts can be concluded for one year instead of six months. In addition, we learned in the committee that in case of violation of the 240 allowed hours in the second quarter, the second and third quarters would no longer be sanctioned through the child benefit, which is good.

However, we wanted to look at it even more broadly and therefore submitted a number of amendments in order to make adjustments and remove shortcomings in the present draft.

Students don’t really like to work in days. It is just the flexibility of a student that he can be deployed for shorter periods. Therefore, we would meet with the system to count in days. Counting in hours gives a lot more possibilities.

It is therefore advisable to record the maximum permissible work for students at 400 hours per year. If we approve that in Parliament, the RSZ must only ensure that the system is ready in time.

We would also have liked that the Labour Act would provide an exception to work in blocks of less than 4 hours. The student restaurant, a local cafe or restaurant, or even the grocery at the corner would be quite satisfied if they could work a student for an hour while they eat themselves. In this way, a student fills a free hour between two class hours usefully. The universities of Brussels and Leuven have already concluded CAAs to allow one-hour contracts.

Open Vld also proposed 400 hours instead of 50 days in its own bill, but it did not find it appropriate enough to support our amendment on this subject.

With regard to the tax burden of job students, we proposed to remove the income limit. Young people who only work under a student employment contract would thus be able to remain tax liable to their parents.

Through this we emphasized the concept of students who really have to pay for their studies, but also for this we found no support from the other parties.

In short, the present bill is ⁇ and definitely an improvement of what is currently legal, but yet it has not yet been adapted to the flexible possibilities of the students and neither to the demand for more flexibility of potential employers of job students.

N-VA will therefore continue to monitor the file, carry out regular evaluations and, if necessary, submit legislative proposals to Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. This reform has been discussed for several years. The agreement reached is in the right line of the proposal we had submitted on the subject in 2008.

The bill is the realisation of the agreement that simplifies the system while enhancing legal certainty for the benefit of students and employers.

In our bill, we advocated a simplification of the current system, too complicated, not flexible enough and source of legal uncertainty for the employer. We proposed a single scheme with the elimination of different rates of contributions for both periods. This regime would apply throughout the year with a maximum annual of 53 working days. For the latter, an identical solidarity contribution would be applied throughout the year, regardless of school holidays. The fixed rate of contribution would be between the two current rates and would allow for fiscal neutrality. The rates of 5.4% for the employer and 2.8% for the worker are the rates proposed by the employer organisations in the opinion of the CNT of 27 February 2008.

This more flexible system should allow students to work whenever they wish, outside of periods of compulsory attendance in their educational institution. So he could easily work on weekends, during Christmas or Easter holidays.

The draft under consideration is identical to the bill we had submitted, with the exception of some differences such as the possibility of entering the immediate employment declaration per hour and the limitation to only additional days if the limit of 53 days is exceeded and not to days provided as is currently the case.

The explanations that were provided in the committee as well as the presentation of the DIMONA application by the representatives of the ONSS have fully satisfied us. In fact, there is a real progress in terms of administrative simplification. We are also looking forward to the evaluation that will take place in 2013 and which will ⁇ enable the device to be improved. The main elements of our proposal are broadly reflected in the bill under consideration. We therefore welcome this long-awaited reform that we will vote with enthusiasm soon.

The existing regulation on student work has become complex and is especially difficult to control. This bill provides for a simplification of regulation and it is a response to the main concerns that we had entered in our own bill.

There will be greater legal certainty coupled with greater flexibility. You will have the option, in agreement with the employer, to choose the 50 days for the entire year. There is also a single rate of 5.42 % social contribution for the employer and 2.71 % withholding for the student. This is a very low rate. I therefore hope that the objective linked to it, in particular the fight against black labour, will be achieved.

It is especially important that the new electronic applications will allow for better control. We hope that this control will be performed effectively.

However, I would like to raise a number of concerns in addition to Mrs Kitir’s report.

The evaluation is scheduled after a two-year period, before 31 August 2013. We would like the following elements to be taken into account in the evaluation.

First, it is necessary to check whether the proposed contributions, which are very low, effectively contribute to the preconceived budget neutrality.

Second, it is necessary to examine whether the new regulation leads to the displacement of regular work.

Our group also has concerns about the Dimona statement. I have already mentioned this in the committee. The electronic application will allow the number of working days to be tracked accurately. The employer and the student will be able to check how many days have been performed and how many days are left. That is a very good thing, which makes the whole transparent.

However, adjustment is needed with regard to the following. The law stipulates that the transmission of changes to the RSZ can only be done by the employer. I think the student should be able to do that too. I have given the example of a student who is fired by an employer. If the employer does not pass that change, and the student offers to another employer, then he may be blocked by his former employer because the change was not passed on. The next employer could therefore assume that the student no longer has performance days and therefore cannot come to work with him.

Therefore, the student should also be able to be able to pass changes to the RSZ. This is stated in the explanation, but not in the law. You have pledged to arrange this through a KB and we hold you to that.

I come to my next consideration. The current regulations, such as the regulation on waiting time, should also be aligned with the new regulation on student work.

Finally, I would like to give you the suggestion to become unambiguous about the moment until which one is still a student. If you graduate on June 31, then you are obviously still a period of student. If you graduate on January 31, you lose your student status from day to day. This can no longer be done according to us. We must create unambiguity in it, so that it is clear to everyone. We must be coherent in this.

On the other hand, we can agree with the bill. We will approve it.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, our group welcomes the progress and measures developed in this bill. It was clear to everyone that reforms needed to simplify the current regime of student labor, much too complex, as this was often demonstrated and heavily contested. This bill largely responds to the demands made and previous speakers have recalled it. He gives an answer in four points. When reading the report, we were reminded of the following points: a fifty-day contingent, a single rate of contribution for employers and students, the possibility of concluding a six to twelve months extended student contract, and the establishment of a control system.

In addition, this bill respects a balance between different principles, such as budget neutrality. It has been reminded that a student is first and foremost a student. Students’ work shall in no way constitute unfair competition for low-skilled workers and job seekers. We therefore welcome all the benefits of this reform that simplifies the work of students during the summer or the rest of the year and that brings greater legal certainty, in particular through the computer application that allows to check the available quota.

In conclusion, our group, by voting on this bill, will contribute to developing a dynamic and more appropriate policy for student jobs.

Mr. Speaker, in social matters, we are used to see projects submitted unanimously by the social partners and for which Parliament acts as a consultation chamber. On this subject, however, this is not the case. This is not an easy subject. For everyone, the student work is sympathetic. We’ve all done a job, we’ve all found that it’s interesting to rub into the world of work through this, that it’s helpful to have a little more money and cope with a student’s many expenses.

However, the problem is considerably wider than seen by this small piece of the hornet. In fact, the project has different facets.

Some are positive, I will quote them:

- the expansion of access to family allowances that allows not to waste a whole year for a surplus of earnings, but only a quarter; this aspect leads to significant stress for many parents and students.

- the simplification of the declaration through the appropriate electronic system; if it works properly, the advantage will be interesting.

intensification of controls. This will be a real challenge: some studies, such as Randstad’s study that speaks of 13% of student black work, underestimate the reality of believing the confessions of many students who make their work weapons black, in the horeca or other sectors. This reform will only make sense with accompanying controls.

The core of this debate is that this work done by students is of two types: during the summer, it is essentially about replacing staff left on holiday; besides this, more and more, students become active in bulldozers in the proper sense. This phenomenon is no longer anecdotal, but has increased in recent years.

Even though this may seem normal given the increase in the number of students – which is positive – the numbers in our possession indicate that the increase in the student work rate is significantly higher than the increase in the study attendance rate. For example, in the first quarter of 2006 there were 36,000 students concerned for 95,000 students in 2010: growth is considerable, over the whole year instead of the holiday period alone.

This can lead to a substitution effect, competition.

More and more, some sectors such as cleaning or trade, have only a few employees and work mostly with students. One is on Thursday, another on Saturday. Some do it in the morning, others in the afternoon or in the evening. Companies employ 90% of students. Why Why ? It is much less expensive.

The proposed contribution schemes further reduce the cost of using student work during the year.

This leads to a system where students compete with the unemployed, especially with the low-skilled unemployed. When we analyze the proposed student work, it represents 80% of low-qualified work. When an employer can choose between a highly qualified student, highly graduated, full of energy because he works only a few hours a week, and a less qualified audience more difficult to frame, the choice is easy. There is a real replacement effect for a whole series of missions and the competition is increasing.

In neighboring countries such as France and the Netherlands, if students work, they contribute. They are workers like everyone else. When an employer chooses to hire a student, it could also hire an unemployed person as part of an interim mission. There is no substitution effect because the contributions are the same. Furthermore, the student who works contributes and constitutes rights. As we all know, careers are getting shorter. It is therefore important to start contributing early to have pensions or other rights (access to unemployment, etc.).

For us, that is where the black point of this reform lies. By increasing the opportunity to work during the school year and decreasing the contributions that will be due, the competition effect between low-skilled unemployed and student workers is accentuated. Unfortunately for us, I don’t think we will have to wait for the assessment you announce for 2013. I believe that the trend will continue to intensify: we will see more and more student workers with reduced contributions take the place of unemployed people who could have accessed work.

In addition, there is a risk that fiscal neutrality, which was calculated without shifting work over the whole year, will not be met: logically, more people will work throughout the year.

That is why we re-depose an amendment saying yes to student work, but occasionally, during the school holidays, during which there is a real replacement of the worker who goes on holiday by a student. On the other hand, for a recurring work throughout the year, it is necessary to give work to the unemployed or then engage the student as a worker. In addition, given the cost of studies, an ever-increasing number of students have to work.

Rather than facilitating access to student work, we need to work on scholarship systems and better access to graduate education. This will allow for better success as it is also known that it is the most disadvantaged young people who have the most difficulties to succeed in higher education.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had interrupted a little faster, but I did not succeed.

First, I would like to deny once again that students are expelling young workers or young job seekers from the labour market. So far, there is no study that has proven this. Rather, Randstad’s study proves just the opposite. Students are not suppressing young job seekers.

Everyone can interpret the Randstad study in their own way. Given the number of hours that Randstad agency allocates to student work, it has every interest in promoting it. It is a “milk cow” that allows it to make huge profits. They are not philanthropists. They are commercial companies like everyone else! The Randstad study is very clear. She does not lie! The way you read it is just different from mine!

Obviously, for the N-VA, Randstad’s word is God’s word! I do not read this study in the same way as you do. Given the number of student contracts, I regret that these are not given to young unemployed to enable them to access employment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond.

Randstad is of course not the only one doing studies on this subject. The OECD has also written a number of reports on the transition from education to the labour market in our country. These reports always show that we actually have a problem with the transition from education to the labour market.

Mrs. Genot, the reports also always address the student work.

During the evaluation, we must therefore examine and examine whether or not there is a displacement effect, which is not always equally obvious. We must work on the evaluation intended and verify whether the aforementioned displacement effect is effective or not.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Genot, you say yourself that it is because you interpret the study differently, because you probably wear different glasses than we do. We read that there is no displacement effect.

Second, it is recognized that students who have had student jobs can then just more easily enter the labour market and more easily take on a regular job.

You must know what you are doing. Do you want to guide people to a job or do you want to find ways to make no one work yet?

Mr. Chairman, Mrs. De Block, Mrs. Van Moer, you have no doubt more contacts with employers than I do. Do you really think, however, that when Company X hired a student to chew or cafe Y introduced a student to serve, they do so only for the sake of the beautiful eyes of the students involved and to help them specifically pay for their studies? No, they do that because there is a real labor need, which they try to fill in the cheapest possible way, especially through student work.

They are going to search and find. The current legislation facilitates their search. That is the reality. This is also what Mrs. Genot just said on the tribune and what I will tell later.

Several members would like to intervene, namely the Minister, Mr. Schiltz, Mrs. Rutten and Mrs. Van Moer, after you Mrs. Genot.

Mr. President, I would like to remind Ms. Genot of what I said in the committee. I can understand that there may be some fears. However, this project provides, in its terms, very important shutdowns. Thus, we objectively pass from 46 to 50 days; therefore we cannot say that the quota explodes.

In addition, the special DIMONA system that will be set up and access to the online account will allow control – you know that sanctions are provided in case of exceeding – much larger than is currently the case.

In addition, contrary to what you say, student work usually takes place either during holidays when workers are on holiday, or during the weekend, especially on Sunday, day of rest for workers with a normal schedule, or in the evening, in the horeca, for example. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is necessarily competition. I am not saying that the risk does not exist, but let us acknowledge that students do not necessarily compete with workers or job seekers, even if there is a need to be vigilant in this regard.

Finally, I would like to say that while we need to strengthen the qualification of young people and especially the least-favoured young people, the student job is an opportunity for them to improve their level.

The [...]

Ladies and gentlemen, let the Minister speak.

I have finished, Mr. President.

I would, however, like to refer to a ⁇ flawed connection of Mrs. De Block with the students of today, Mr. Calvo. Of course, you are much closer to that. Only one can ask whether a lack of previous work experience can sometimes also not lead to painful moments in the main activity later.

Let me go back to the particularity of the student job. The Minister referred to this. Mr. Calvo, this bill has been working on for four years. There are several legislative proposals from several MPs who have done studies and consulted the sectors. Both the trade unions, the employers and the employment services to which N-VA also referred have been consulted. Again, when the Parliament tries to come out with a nuanced compromise to help the matter move forward, I see a nnt from your group. There is only danger, there is darkness, ocharme the poor unemployed. Mr. Calvo, for the hours in which students are employed, you will find no other.

I would like to reply to what Mr. Calvo says. I have no contact with employers. Years after years I have worked with students: with, for and through them I have been looking for opportunities to give them a job for many years. I have nothing to do with employers in this area.

If at any given moment an employer needs a flexible workforce for several hours and there is a job student at his door that wants to fill these several hours flexibly, then he will be happy to do so. The young jobseeker could of course do that, but then he must perform more hours to get his salary than a job student who does that only to earn a few cents.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of access to work, we see this in France, in the Netherlands, where there is no system of discounted contribution for students, the junction is not made more difficult. It is the fact of ⁇ ining regular relationships that makes this transition easier. But this transition seems as easy in France and the Netherlands as it is in Belgium, where we opted for a different system.

It is stipulated that "for low-qualified young people, it is interesting to have a student job in order to have easier access to the labour market." According to the study conducted by the FTU in collaboration with young CSCs, it is interesting to note that the majority of student jobs are occupied by the most graduate students. In fact, they benefit from more flexible schedules, more compatible with their studies. However, for those with a lower level of education, this is less the case. They generally pursue full-time studies, for which a presence control is exercised. As a result, they access less easily to student jobs. Unfortunately, it is not those who have the most difficulties accessing the labour market who have the most access to student bulldozers.

Certainly, I understand that when you are in contact with students, they tell you they are happy to get student jobs. But I’m in contact with many former students, who are now young unemployed, and they tell me they need these experiences to inflate their CVs of young people entering the labour market. These small missions allow you to have a foot in the company and sometimes offer, subsequently, larger opportunities.

It is not only and multiplies the sectors, as, for example, some supermarkets express who employ 90% of students, that they create true work. It is not necessary to be amazed, to see this expansion, to see backward the number of workers and increase the number of jobists. It is mathematical!

Of course, the fate of the youth unemployed also affects us. Do you really think that it is a solution to deny those 60 % of students who have to do a student job to pay their pension or to engage in normal student-like social activities a flexible job and transfer to the young unemployed? Do you really think that limiting young people to study tout court will help them not to be unemployed later?

We do not want to limit employment. We simply do not want discounted jobs. With the rate of contribution offered here, a young student is much cheaper than a young unemployed. This is what poses a problem for us. France or the Netherlands have opted for other models: the bosses pay them at the same price, so there is no unfair competition.

You have made your choice. I understand very well that the N-VA, the Open Vld and the MR are enchanted. I understand less the support from other banks to this text.

Mr. Speaker, I know you may have another appointment, but I would like to say something about the student jobs. It is a file that has been demanding for many hours in the committee meetings, both in the House and in the Senate. It is really urgent now because if we want a new scheme for students by 1 January 2012, it needs to be approved by Parliament now. So it is a different arrangement than the 23 days in the holiday and the 23 days outside, something that could actually lead to a lot of misunderstandings. We go to a 50-day backpack at the same RSZ rate, so no longer with two rates depending on the period.

We have had extensive debates in all those years. A number of terms often came back, always from the same angle. For example, the expulsion effect was an argument to say that students would expel other people from the labour market. If one is allowed to work only 50 days a year and one looks at what jobs students are placed for at certain peak moments, then that is not correct at all. A Randstad study has shown this. As I said before, if one has worked as a student, then one is also easier to be hired. The CV then mentions that one already has work experience and one knows that one must compromise on the workplace and be able to stick to a number of elements. Those people find a job faster.

It is important that young people can gain work experience at various levels. Mr. Calvo, you are right, for me it is very long ago. However, I already knew when I was sixteen, after my first day in a GB, that I wanted to study for a long time. I said that at home too. That is a fact. All madness on a stick, the first job of a student is studying. The question here is why we can’t let the income limit jump. I am not in favour of this because we see a student job as complementary to the study. As mentioned above, students must first study.

I understand that some students must earn a portion of their study money, but there are other statutes for this, such as that of the working students or there are also individuals who receive a living salary while they finish their studies.

Although we are pleased with this bill, I have cited two things in the committee that we would have liked to see differently. First, colleague Schiltz has long since submitted a proposal to be able to work 400 hours per year, in order to increase flexibility. In the past, it was always said that it was impossible to check it and make an inventory of it. Due to the good explanation of the administration in the committee, the fact that an electronic counter is now in development and the Dimona declaration this seems to me a much more fine system. The spirits will still be able to mature to make this possible in the future. Mr. Schiltz, you are younger than me. You may still be involved here.

The difference between students who work with one employer and students who work with multiple employers was a battle point. The penalty for exceeding 50 days varies depending on the situation. I think it tends to discriminate, but the minister was not convinced. For the time being, I have put myself in this position.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, finding a compromise remains the art of the feasible. We know that this is not easy. We support this bill because it is an improvement for the students, because there is a fair arrangement and because it also brings some administrative improvements.

Madame De Block, I actually have an appointment, but it is at the French Embassy on the occasion of the national holiday! If you want to go with me, I invite you to dinner.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it has to do with your agenda and I will not play on the man like the Open Vld group, but I had registered with the secretary.

I will try to be concise. I would like to intervene in order to speak to this dynamic plenary session and also because this issue is close to my heart and strongly aligns with a target group that is also close to my heart.

A number of colleagues have rightly stated that the bill proposed by the minister today contains a number of positive elements, that this is the result of a discussion that has been raging for a while in this House and among our neighbors in the Senate, and that it contains a number of positive elements, such as an equal rate for social contributions, which will make everything clearer and simpler.

We have been able to check the electronic system in the committee. That system will allow for better monitoring and it will align with the expectations and needs of that specific target audience that communicates less on paper, but preferably through the digital media.

This design contains a number of good elements, but also a solid minus point, in particular the combination of the extension of the number of days, thus the extension of the number of hours, on the one hand, with the full release of the delivery of student work, on the other. This indeed creates and stimulates competition between the job student and the job seeker or the one who tries to get back on the regular labour market, whether or not successfully. Also in my area, the temptation is very great to have especially eyes and ears for the mouthy student who is working on his second or third master’s program, and who has something fun to do tonight and would like to finance it through student work. I understand that. However, it is also important to have an eye and an ear for a slightly less mouthful and slightly more vulnerable target group, in particular the young job seekers, who are threatened to be displaced by this bill and will get even more in trouble.

Colleagues, our group is constructive and gives you the opportunity to work out this minus point. We put here again our amendment to send the period in which student work is carried out a little stronger. We do not want to reduce the number of days, but rather provide for 35 days in the holiday periods and 15 days at the same reduced social rate during the year. During these holidays, seasonal work is carried out and there is a real need to replace existing workers. At that time, the extortion story plays less and there will also be less unfair competition.

I have little illusions about the intensity of a study career. My one is not so far behind me. Our proposal also does not exaggerate the pressure on the school career and will focus students especially on student work during the holidays when they are essentially less concerned with other things.

My colleagues, I will decide. This legislation increases the risk of competition between a mouthy and a vulnerable target audience. It releases employers for some of their responsibility to invest in training and retaining employees for a long time. These are people who are really structurally looking for a job and who are looking for prospects for prosperity.

Although this bill contains some good elements, we cannot fully support it. You can therefore expect an abstinence from our group, unless you support our amendment.