Chairman, I would like to address three points in this debate. Firstly, the – whether or not mandatory – internship allowance. Secondly, the SLIM scheme and thirdly, the outcomes of the labor market summit.

Chairman, where higher education students largely receive internship allowances, it remains at about 40% in vocational education. Let it be clear: that percentage must reach 100% as soon as possible. It is a token of appreciation for the intern, who not only learns a lot but often also participates in the organization and contributes there. It does not reflect good employment practices to then fob someone off with a bol.com voucher or worse; with nothing.

The key question is: how are we going to do this? Should there perhaps be a legally mandatory minimum internship allowance? Research has been done on this and the conclusion is: we cannot definitively determine if this is a good idea.

A mandatory internship allowance raises the simple question of who should pay it; the employer or the government. And for the CDA, both situations are actually problematic. A government that imposes a mandatory legal internship allowance on employers, who then also have to pay it themselves, does not take into account the fact that there are large differences between sectors and the (size of) companies. Between the local baker and the multinational. Moreover; one student needs much more guidance than another. An important risk is also that the number of internship places decreases if employers are less willing to take on interns due to a mandatory allowance.

It is also problematic if the government compensates employers. Interns also bring something to employers; they contribute to the organization. It is up to employers to reward interns appropriately for this. It would be strange if the government took this over and offered employers a free ride.

But what then? We see that insufficient progress is being made in collective labor agreements, while that was the ambition from the Internship Pact. And although the slight increase is positive, we are far from there. The minister says: I will watch it for a few more years. That is insufficient for the CDA. More action is needed.

Therefore, our proposal is to build in smart incentives that the government can use to encourage companies to provide an internship allowance. The incentives that exist now, such as the Practical Learning Subsidy Scheme and the Healthcare Internship Fund, are aimed at offering more internships, but do not have a link with the internship allowance. In countries around us, such as Germany and France, there are financial incentives to encourage employers to provide an internship allowance.

We want the cabinet to investigate how we can also build in such a financial incentive in the Netherlands and work out a proposal based on this. In this way, conditions can also be set for employers, such as cooperation with education in their own region, and specific companies (for example in SMEs) can be helped for whom it is now more difficult to provide an internship allowance. You could also target such an incentive at shortage sectors. Is the minister willing to investigate this and work out a number of options for the House? I would like to have a commitment from the minister on this.

Chairman, then the SLIM scheme. This scheme encourages entrepreneurs to invest in the development of employees, in collaboration with education. It actually comes down to the fact that this is currently the only instrument we have to improve the learning culture in the Netherlands – something that is urgently needed.

There is a rumor that the SLIM scheme is on the nomination to be cut in the Spring Memorandum. We have received a letter about this from 50 entrepreneurs expressing their concerns. Also because Minister Van Hijum announced on November 22, 2024, that he wanted to extend the SLIM scheme by 5 years.

My question is: is this true? And if so, can the minister with his colleague from SZW put an end to this uncertainty as soon as possible? Is an expansion of the scheme instead of abolition not more appropriate? I would like a response to these questions.

I conclude with a question about the Labor Market Summit last Friday, March 21. This minister was also present there. What concrete agreements has the minister actually made with the business community and vocational education to tackle shortages? And what concrete agreements has the minister made to better align the training offer in vocational education with the needs of the labor market? I would like a response.