Labor market and working life

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in the report.

Once again, the Tidö cooperation has negotiated a joint budget where all parties have been involved. It has been about both giving and taking – so also within the part we are to debate today, expenditure area 14 Labour market and working life.

Madam Speaker! I think it is a statement of strength that, despite loud critics who said the Tidö cooperation would never hold, one has once again succeeded in getting a budget through the Riksdag with a broad majority. This has been achieved throughout the entire parliamentary term – this, in contrast to previous governments, who, on the occasions they even managed to get their budget through, were forced to bargain with political savages with several million of the taxpayers' money.

Madam Speaker! A large part of the parliamentary term has had to be devoted to combating high inflation and a prolonged recession, which still characterizes the labor market with high unemployment. The structural unemployment is the worst. One has also had to struggle with the consequences of an uneasy world, but above all, one has had to struggle with the result of a poor and ill-judged policy pursued by previous governments.

Madam Speaker! Finally, one begins to see certain tendencies indicating that we are slowly moving up out of the recession, which, among other things, the latest report from Sweden's a-kassor clearly shows. The number of new applications for benefits from a-kassa continues to decrease. Since November 2024, the number of new applications for unemployment benefits has decreased by 16.1 percent.

The successive reduction in the number of new applications for unemployment benefits began during the summer and has continued with a clear trend during the autumn, which today corresponds to an unemployment rate of 6.7 percent. It is still too high, but it is a step in the right direction.

An indicator that is also very clear is that the number of warnings is decreasing significantly. This year's figures for November are the lowest since August 2023. This and many other indicators point to the fact that it is going in the right direction, slowly but surely.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that cyclical unemployment is best combated through the Tidö parties' measures to support domestic demand, strengthen households, and improve the conditions for our companies, for which we are now receiving a receipt.

But, Madam Speaker, the bigger problem is structural unemployment – long-term unemployment, which previous governments have created, among other things, with their flawed immigration policy and which will affect the Swedish labor market for a long time to come regardless of what measures we take.

At the same time as long-term unemployment is high, many employers have difficulty finding labor with the right skills. It doesn't matter, Madam Speaker, how many vocational trainings one creates when the individual lacks the basic skills and tools to be able to benefit from these trainings and to be able to take the jobs that are offered and in demand today.

Madam Speaker! It is here that the labor market policy differs most between the Tidö parties and the opposition.

The government and the Sweden Democrats have a clear work line with requirements for the individual from day one and with a significantly reduced immigration to give those who already today stand far from the labor market a reasonable chance to enter the labor market. Unfortunately, the opposition does not agree on anything except that they want to increase immigration and choose Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister – I consider both to be very harmful for Sweden.

We can take some examples, Madam Speaker.

Centerpartiet wants to significantly lower the unemployment insurance. Vänsterpartiet wants to raise the unemployment insurance. The Socialdemokrater believe deep down that the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have landed quite correctly, as the proposal in large parts is based on their own investigation.

Madam Speaker! Given that the Social Democrats are the leading opposition party, the drums sound rather empty, considering how the Social Democrats' budget proposal looks. They have not financed their initiatives at all.

The proposal to reject parts of the new unemployment insurance is heavily underfunded. If one is to return to the old tapering, billions are missing in the Social Democrats' budget.

The expansion of ineffective labor market training shall be handled within the framework while simultaneously adding trainee programs and state emergency jobs. Even here, large sums are missing. The establishment jobs, which the parties have developed, are actively pushed back by their own representatives at the top of LO. Promises have been made to abolish the care deduction and reduce working hours, even though it is known that it will never be implemented through politics and so on. These are empty words and promises solely to mislead the voters. This, Madam Speaker, is irresponsible politics.

I have still not gone into the other parties in the opposition, but the points of contact are few. They cannot even manage to talk to each other, or as the Left Party said: It is only for the Centre to chew on.

Madam Speaker! It is this disorder that shall be set against the Tidö parties' clear political direction. We tested the opposition's policy for eight years, which became a complete catastrophe for Sweden. We will suffer the consequences for several generations.

Madam Speaker! I choose not to go into the details regarding expenditure area 14, as the expenditure area will be broken down during the spring. At that time, we can debate the specific issues in more detail in combination with motions from the general motion period.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Magnus Persson speaks of the agreement between the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates. The Sweden Moderates are well the new constellation. Magnus Persson comes to the Riksdag and votes for the Moderates' proposal, and Ulf Kristersson gets to be Prime Minister. The price is paid by those who are affected economically.

I know that the parties are in agreement. I know that we have the Sverigemoderaterna today. Be careful about what you agree on, Magnus Persson! The people who now have their unemployment insurance reduced already after 100 days – in a time when Magnus Persson himself admits that we have cyclical unemployment that causes people not to get jobs within 100 days – are not so happy about the Sverigemoderata policy of reduced unemployment insurance.

Madam Speaker! They remember Jimmie Åkesson, who during the election campaign promised most solemnly that the a-kassa would not be lowered and that the Sverigedemokraterna would leave the cooperation if the a-kassa were lowered. Magnus Persson knows that a reduction of the a-kassa from 80 to 70 percent already after 100 days hits very hard against those groups who are affected by unemployment due to the economic cycle.

If it is a cyclical unemployment, Madam Speaker, why then lower the unemployment insurance already after 100 days? It is a reasonable question. Be careful in the constellation of what you agree on! It is nothing to boast about that one agrees on a lowered unemployment insurance. It is nothing to boast about that the people who have activity support – older long-term unemployed, who have struggled – now get to live on 6,000–8,000 kronor a month.

I understand that the liberal Minister for Employment is proud of that policy. But in the name of honesty – with all voters and citizens as witnesses – this was not what the Sweden Democrats went to the election on. It was not the Sweden Moderate policy that one went to the election on. One was to defend those who have activity support. One was to defend those who need unemployment insurance.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We did exactly what we promised, and we did what the Social Democrats failed to do in eight years: We succeeded in raising the ceiling in the budget. If one goes back and looks at previous budgets, one sees that we in Sverigedemokraterna have always said that we want a high ceiling and an increased tapering. It is not new policy, but that is what we have said all along.

It is very good that Ardalan Shekarabi brings up those who receive activity support, Madam Speaker. I have studied those people. I have also spoken with many of them, as many of them have called me. For many of these people, it is a pure effect of the Social Democrats' policy that they receive activity support, Madam Speaker. These are, in fact, the individuals whom you threw out of Försäkringskassan to dress up the figures, Ardalan Shekarabi. Your ministerial colleague Strandhäll gave the director-general the instruction that the statistics had to be corrected, and then these people landed in the lap of Arbetsförmedlingen.

If you speak with these people, you understand that it is they who are affected today. It is quite easy to find out; I have met them. They say themselves: Yes, we received compensation from Försäkringskassan – we had other grants, because we often have disabilities and more – but we were kicked out by the Social Democrats. Then we landed at Arbetsförmedlingen.

Ardalan Shekarabi and his party have contributed to creating this situation. These people ended up in a bind solely because one wanted to trim the figures at Försäkringskassan. At the same time, the director-general was fired because she did her job.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Let us assume that Magnus Persson is right and that everyone who has activity support has ended up in that situation because of the Social Democrats. Let us say that it is true – we shall proceed from that!

For the sake of the debate, we can therefore say that 100 percent of the 86,000 people who are now having their activity support reduced are in the situation of having activity support because of the Social Democrats. That does not answer the question of why the Sweden Democrats favor the Sweden Moderate policy where they kick those people who are most vulnerable in a situation of high unemployment. Unemployment is at the same level as during the worst month during the pandemic.

In what way does Magnus Persson's reasoning justify the fact that one is lowering the unemployment insurance and the activity support? There are 86,000 people sitting there, a good number of whom are watching the debate right now, and wondering if they should sell the house – if they even have a house. Some of them actually do; they live in the countryside. They now need to sell their house, or else they need to sell the car. They know, after all, that they will not manage on 5,000, 6,000, 7,000, or 8,000 kronor a month. They know that in February or March they will be dependent on social assistance because of the government's policy.

Remember, Madam Speaker: The social assistance decreased for eight years in a row. The turning point came when Johan Britz became Minister for Employment and we began to see the effect of the policy being pursued. Now there are more who are dependent on social assistance. With a stroke of a pen, the social assistance is now increasing, and 86,000 people risk ending up there. These are people who have done right by themselves. They are people who have worked, who have paid their unemployment insurance fee. Their crime is that they are long-term unemployed. Many of them are also older.

I did not get an answer to the question. Why were the unemployment insurance and the activity support reduced, Magnus Persson?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I must remind Ardalan Shekarabi that he is debating with me right now. He may debate with the Minister later.

I do not know if Ardalan Shekarabi does not understand what I am saying, Madam Speaker. We raised the ceiling in the a-kassa. We did something that you in the Social Democrats did not do for eight years and completely ignored, Ardalan Shekarabi. We worked entirely according to your own investigation and raised the minimum level in the activity support. That had not been done for 20 years. We also increased the tapering to create incentives to seek work.

We see now that unemployment is decreasing and the economy is turning. However – and this has to be rhetorical, because Ardalan Shekarabi does not have the opportunity to respond – Sweden had approximately the same unemployment figures during the boom when Ardalan Shekarabi and his party were in power. That laid the foundation for the situation we have in Sweden today, Madam Speaker. That is the basis for why we have ended up where we have ended up.

The great responsibility, therefore, lies neither with the Moderaterna nor the Sverigedemokraterna, but it lies with Ardalan Shekarabi and his comrades, who sat in the Government Offices and did absolutely nothing for eight years. Now it is going to sound like one wants to do the one thing and the other, Madam Speaker, but nothing will be done. We can take the quarantine deduction as an example. It will not be implemented; one will back down for the Centerpartiet and say that unfortunately, it was not pushed through because of Center.

You play the voters, you deceive them and you lie. That is bad politics, Madam Speaker, and it is ugly politics.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Let us go back three years to the months when the Tidö Government had just taken power. Unemployment has increased by 100,000 people since then, so let us lower the unemployment figure by 100,000.

There were those who then said that it is wrong to cut back on vocational training, Madam Speaker. There were those who said: "It is insane to cut back on active labor market measures and education that leads to jobs, because we now have a difficult economic situation. The risk is that unemployment will increase."

There were actually those who turned to the government, Madam Speaker, and said: "It is insane to abolish the investment support for the construction of housing, because a proper construction crisis will soon occur due to the economic situation. Make sure to stimulate construction so that the construction workers do not become unemployed!"

The government and the Sweden Democrats, however, completely ignored those comments. They ignored the expert opinions. Instead, they proceeded with record-large cuts in active labor market measures, vocational training, and labor market training. They cut back on places in training that lead to jobs, and they made decisions to stop all forms of investment support for housing construction.

We see the results today: 100,000 more unemployed and EU's now third highest unemployment. Spain and Finland have approximately the same – slightly higher – unemployment level as Sweden. Then comes Sweden, that is, in third place in the entire European Union. 100,000 more unemployed has given us that position. In the month of October, Sweden had the same unemployment level as during the worst month during the pandemic, when we were practically locked down.

It did not have to be like this. I would like to use my speaking time to turn to the Honorable Minister for Employment and address him and say: It does not have to be like this now. The Minister has, at least this week and next working week, the opportunity to, together with the government, during 2025, make decisions that help the people who have fallen into unemployment. This is not a crisis that God has given us, but it is a man-made crisis. It has been created through a policy that has prioritized incorrectly and allowed unemployment to increase in this way.

I would therefore like to ask the Minister to now make a decision that Arbetsförmedlingen shall actually use the resources that have been allocated to it, so that more people enter training programs that lead to jobs. Do not let Arbetsförmedlingen pay back the money that is discussed in the report!

Instead, ensure that Arbetsförmedlingen contacts the fantastically skilled training companies that exist in this country so that they offer training to the unemployed in occupations where we have a shortage of labor – where companies are screaming for labor. Do it! Build an alliance, a coalition, with the business sector – with the industries that are in need of labor. Ensure that the unemployed get into training!

It was wrong to cut back on labor market training, and it was wrong to start the mandate period by slaughtering training programs that lead to jobs. But it doesn't have to be that way; one can actually admit that it didn't turn out well and say: Now we are doing the right thing.

Another piece of advice is to ensure that a portion of the money that Arbetsförmedlingen is to pay back is actually used to help those young people registered at Arbetsförmedlingen to get a driver's license. In that group, 60 percent lack a driver's license. It is one of the easiest balls. If the government and Sverigedemokraterna do not think it is right to invest those funds, at least give the young people the opportunity to take out loans to get a driver's license! There are, after all, masses of companies in the transport industry that want to hire the young people, but the majority of them do not have a driver's license.

Why lock them in passivity and unemployment? Why let young people begin their professional lives with long-term unemployment when the government could actually already on Thursday make decisions to ensure that Arbetsförmedlingen uses its resources for the right things and does not send them back to the government?

Madam Speaker! Sweden does not need to be here – it is perhaps the most important insight that we should have. Sweden does not need to have 9 percent unemployment. We do not need to have half a million people outside the labor market.

Everything that was done during the last and the period before that, and the terms before those, was not good. My point today is not to say: Do as we did during the last term! My point is: Let us have an active labor market policy based on the needs that our business sector and our labor market have today, in Sweden 2025.

Fundamentally, we are a country that is too small for us to have the large, polarized conflicts that we have. Fundamentally, the government should reach out a hand to the opposition, gather all industries and gather all forces in society to find the right policies and the right measures to combat unemployment. What has characterized this mandate period, however, is passivity and misprioritization, and it has led us into the job crisis that we find ourselves in as a nation.

Let us change the policy! The first step is to set aside the prestige and actually admit that some decisions at the beginning of this mandate period were wrong. It is possible to rectify those decisions so that we get a policy by at least 2026 that allows more unemployed people to get into work.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! Ardalan Shekarabi raised his voice in his speech. He has been critical since day one. I do not even think the officials at the department were appointed when the criticism for passivity began to arrive.

I remember Stefan Löfven's promise in 2014 that Sweden would have the lowest unemployment in the EU. The result was that we had the third highest unemployment.

I also remember 2022, when inflation was 10 percent and gasoline cost almost 30 kronor per liter. I remember what it meant for the countryside and the companies. Electricity prices and food prices were raised. Unemployment was high even then. What we are living with now is the legacy of your politics, Ardalan Shekarabi, and so you stand here and accuse the government of passivity.

Let me tell you a little bit about what the government has done.

Most recently today, we heard that inflation has fallen from 10 percent to 2.3 percent.

Boverket reports that construction is starting to pick up pace. It is expected that 35,000 new homes will be built next year, and it will increase. This is fantastically good – even though it is from a low level, it is a step forward.

We have allocated 75,000 places in regional vocational adult education and 53,000 places in universities of applied sciences, as well as a national vocational education at the upper secondary level. We have introduced activity requirements and contribution ceilings. We have strengthened the job tax credit. We have reformed the AKAS. We are also lowering the employer contributions for young people.

Furthermore, we are improving the conditions for new-start jobs and establishment jobs and tightening the control of benefit fraud.

We see a brightening in the economy with falling unemployment for the fourth month in a row, but we are not satisfied. The offensive work from the government must continue.

I want to ask Ardalan Shekarabi: Is this passivity, according to the Social Democrats?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! There is no will whatsoever from my side or the Social Democrats' side that improvements should not occur – it is clear that we would like unemployment to go down next year. But is enough being done in relation to how high the unemployment is? No.

Here in the chamber, there are people who were present during previous crises, who experienced the 90s crisis and who remember Kunskapslyftet and other initiatives that ensured that people who ended up in unemployment were caught and that they received better skills during the period of unemployment and could then take the jobs that emerged. Compared to those types of interventions, the levels are catastrophically low. It is somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 people monthly who attend vocational training. At the same time, we have half a million unemployed. It is shameful – we should not be there. We should ensure that everyone who ends up in unemployment and who needs supplementary education receives that support in different ways.

For the groups that stand a bit further from the labor market and who would need special support, the folk high schools are a very important institution. They have historically played a decisive role in Sweden when it comes to support for those who are vulnerable in the labor market so that they can receive the right education and enter the labor market. They have had it really tough during this parliamentary term; it is not the case that this government has invested in them.

Actually, the most important measure of the failure is, unfortunately, that Arbetsförmedlingen does not even spend the money that has been received in grants. Despite the fact that we know this problem has existed year after year, a new policy for Arbetsförmedlingen has not been formulated. They have not had the conditions to assign people to the training they should receive, which means that money will be paid back to the government in a situation where these funds really would have been needed for us to be able to ensure that people get into work.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! Let us look at the policy that the Social Democrats are pursuing. Many of the proposals being put forward now are old, failed proposals. Some have even been removed because they did not work, even though they were costly. It is not just tax money that they are wasting, it is also about time, hope, and opportunities for people.

For example, you want to introduce the quarantine deduction, Ardalan Shekarabi. Some estimate the cost for this at 40 billion – there is a range between 5 and 40 billion. It is completely unfunded. This was something that the Social Democrats themselves introduced in 2019.

The trainee job cost 6 billion. You yourselves shut down this project because it was a failure, but now you want to bring it up again.

The extra services cost 29 billion. 5 percent went to regular jobs. You also want to pick this up again. People sat at home in apartments in Skåne, which we received reports about, but the municipalities raked in fully funded compensations.

You also want to implement the reduction of working hours, at a cost of 500 billion. Who pays that price? It is the nursing assistant or the nurse who has to run faster.

When it comes to driving licenses for young unemployed people, support is already being provided today from the industries and the employers.

Job contracts for young people already exist today in the form of the job guarantee.

I saw that Ardalan Shekarabi in an interview put forward child allowance as a solution to unemployment. Should child allowance to millionaires be a solution to unemployment?

Construction subsidies are not even wanted by the construction industry itself. This is money that goes directly into the pockets of the companies.

Under what circumstances does Ardalan Shekarabi think this is going to work now, given that it has not worked before?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Now my honorable colleague mentioned a number of different proposals that have been put forward over the years to meet a recession and get the economy moving. One such proposal was an increase in the child allowance, which was the method that our Nordic neighboring countries used to stimulate the economy so that we would not have 9 percent unemployment.

This government chose a different path and did not stimulate the economy. At the last minute, before the budget for 2026, the economy was indeed stimulated, but the government has allowed the recession to be prolonged in a way that has meant that people have unnecessarily ended up in unemployment.

I am not ashamed for a second that we are going to the election to abolish the damned care deduction, which affects workers and civil servants in the care sector. On the contrary, all parties should think so, because all parties were there applauding these people, who carried society on their shoulders during the pandemic. Everyone was in agreement that the nursing assistants, the bus drivers, and everyone else who were forced to go to work during the pandemic were heroes.

When I, as Minister for Social Insurance, proposed that we should introduce a quarantine compensation during the pandemic, it was welcomed here because it was so important that people should not lose money. Then we started the work to replace this with a removal of the quarantine deduction. But the first thing that happened when the government came to power was that it stopped the investigation work. After that, nothing has happened with the quarantine deduction during this mandate period.

It is said that it costs 40 billion or 500 billion. But it is a cost that the wage earners bear today. 100 percent of the risk is taken by the nursing assistant, the bus driver, the police officer, and the teacher. Is it reasonable? Is it reasonable that we, as the only Nordic country, should burden workers and civil servants in contact positions with this cost from day one?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I cannot help but be impressed by Ardalan Shekarabis's acting when he poses as a champion for the Swedish labor movement.

We are here to debate the budget, and I would like to have answers to some questions. In the Social Democrats' budget, a very large amount of money is being cut. To the labor market measures that they say they want to finance within the framework, they add other labor market trainings, such as trainee programs, state emergency jobs, and so on.

My question to Ardalan Shekarabi is therefore quite simple: Have you not calculated the costs for your proposals? Have you just thrown everything into the entire budget? It is very unprofessional if one wants to be a governing party aspiring for government power, especially when it concerns a budget before an election. The voters deserve to know what things cost and what they get. They do not want to buy a pig in a poke. You can promise whatever you want in your texts, but you do not put out crowns and öre on anything.

Some time ago, the committee visited Norway. Although Ardalan Shekarabi was not there, I can say that Norway deeply regrets that they do not have a quarantine deduction. Therefore, Norway is now looking at the Swedish model.

Of course, one can look at whether the care deduction should cover everyone or if certain professional groups should be exempted. But one cannot just promise and promise and then not keep it.

A well-known Social Democratic Member of Parliament said a while ago in a conversation with some people: We go to the election on the basis of abolishing the earned income tax credit, but then perhaps we lose in the negotiations with the Center Party. Then everyone is satisfied anyway.

Is that how the Social Democrats conduct policy, by lying and deceiving?

Please answer why you do not finance your initiatives!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Magnus Persson falls for the temptation to project his own problems onto another party. It is not the Social Democrats who went to the election on a platform of not touching the welfare fund and then came to power and subsequently lowered the welfare fund for hundreds of thousands of people. It is the Sweden Democrats. It is the Sweden Democrats who pursue a Sweden-moderate policy, not us.

One can have a lot of opinions on the Social Democrats' and Magdalena Andersson's ideology, and I respect that. One can have completely different ideological starting points. But one cannot accuse Magdalena Andersson of not having the economy in order. For seven years, I had the privilege of sitting with Magdalena Andersson in the government when she was first Finance Minister and then Prime Minister. One only has to look at the history. It was in order, and everything was financed. It was saved in the barns so that the resources could be used when they were needed, such as during the pandemic.

Magnus Persson is welcome to have views on our policy. We stand for the fact that we want to abolish the quarantine deduction, we stand for the fact that we think it is unreasonable to lower the allowance to 70 percent after 100 days and we go to the election to represent broad groups of wage earners in Sweden. We will of course also safeguard their interests in every negotiation.

But do not accuse the Social Democrats and Magdalena Andersson of not having a grip on the economy. If Magnus Persson compares how the economy has been managed by this government with how the economy was managed during the eight years Magdalena Andersson was Finance Minister and Prime Minister, it becomes obvious that there was order and clarity in the economy then. We should be grateful for that, because it has provided the opportunity to invest. The government has certainly made wrong decisions, I think, but there has been the opportunity to invest when it has been needed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not know whether I should laugh or cry. Order and discipline in the economy for eight years, says Ardalan Shekarabi. Several times you didn't even get your budget through. You had to pay a political wild card a number of millions to get your budget through. Does one have order and discipline in the economy if one doesn't even get one's own budget through in the Swedish Riksdag? No, one does not.

I am not standing here lying. The Ministry of Finance and the Riksdag's investigation service have shown that 2.7 billion is missing from your budget for the initiatives that are supposed to be within the framework. I want an answer as to why you do not calculate based on your own policy. That is, after all, what you run on election. During an election year, one should offer the voters what they want. But in the usual order, there are large, sweeping movements from Ardalan Shekarabi and the Socialdemokraterna. They promise everything to everyone, but they will not keep anything. That is how it works.

It is only to be regretted, for the biggest losers are the Swedish labor movement and the Swedish workers whom Ardalan Shekarabi claims to represent. But he does not represent them, for it is they who are affected by the Social Democrats' policy, i.e., those who go to work and toil, live in a villa, drive their car to work and have their leisure interests. The least these people can demand is that the Social Democrats are honest in their intent and in their budget and present what things cost and what they can and cannot afford. But they do not do that. Instead, they just fluff and promise everything to everyone, and that is how they have always done. It is, as said, only to be regretted.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Speaking of projection, it sounds like Magnus Persson is suggesting that it is we who rule Sweden. The Social Democrats are an opposition party. We come to the chamber every Wednesday and Thursday and vote, and we lose every vote.

It is the Sweden Democrats and the governing parties that rule our country. In all honesty, there has been a right-wing majority in the Swedish Riksdag since the autumn of 2006, as the last time there was a majority to the left in this chamber was the spring of 2006. In recent years, the Sweden Democrats have had a veto in politics. It is the Sweden Democrats' policy that is being pursued by Ulf Kristersson and the government. The Sweden Democrats have therefore had many opportunities to decide which policy should be pursued.

I must give the Sweden Democrats credit that they have always prioritized immigration issues. I have never accused Magnus Persson or any other Sweden Democrat of not prioritizing these issues. Immigration is an important issue for the Sweden Democrats.

But when it comes to the housing allowance, the tax deduction, the health insurance, and the labor market policy – all that which is crucial for that worker Magnus Persson talks about to be doing well – the Sweden Democrats have betrayed their promises and their voters time and again because immigration issues come before socio-economic issues concerning ordinary people's finances.

That is why we now have a reduced allowance for people affected by unemployment and 86,000 people who are forced into social assistance because their activity support is reduced. These voters and citizens are paying the price because Magnus Persson's party considers other issues to be more important than unemployment and the labor market. We can have an honest debate about that; I have no problem with that. But that is how it is.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

Today we are addressing labor market policy and the development of working life as part of the budget bill for 2026. The policy has a clear purpose: that more people shall work, that more shall be able to support themselves, and that Sweden shall strengthen its competitiveness in a time that requires renewal, responsibility, and reforms.

The government stands firm on the work line. It must pay to work. There shall be support for those who need it, but the requirements must be clear, the measures effective, and the path to self-sufficiency shorter than it has been for far too many years.

Sweden has for a long time had an unemployment rate that has been among Europe's highest. It is not worthy of a country like Sweden. And it is not sustainable for either the economy, the welfare, or social cohesion. The budget for 2026 addresses this through strengthened job tax credits, stricter requirements, better support to enter employment, and measures that promote transition, education, and matching. It is a policy that puts the individual's potential before passivity.

Madam Speaker! One of our greatest structural problems is that people lack the right skills for the jobs that actually exist. At the same time, companies across the country testify that they cannot find staff. It is a double failure.

The government takes responsibility by directing resources in the budget to vocational training and adult education that lead to jobs, more industry tracks and workplace-based education, fast tracks for shortage occupations and strengthened cooperation between the business sector, municipalities and educational actors.

Competence supply is not a side issue. It is a future issue for Swedish growth, productivity, and welfare. Here, this government is doing more than any previous government has done.

Labor market policy has long been too expensive and inefficient. Too many get stuck in measures that lack direction or connection to the employers' needs. The Government and the Moderates are now implementing a modernization: Arbetsförmedlingen shall focus on matching, not administration. Independent actors that deliver results shall be rewarded. All interventions shall be followed up significantly more clearly.

Strengthened establishment work is central. Sweden cannot afford a labor market policy that costs more than it delivers. We shall have a policy that leads to jobs, not statistics.

We know that there is an exclusion in Sweden, not least among foreign-born women, among young people who lack complete qualifications and among people who have been away from the labor market for a long time. The government's policy addresses this through stronger drivers for work, more intensive measures for those who are furthest from working life, language training in combination with jobs, requirements for participation in measures to receive compensation, and more simple paths into working life, where employers and municipalities cooperate.

Work is the key to integration – no project is stronger than the first job. Letting people get stuck in isolation is irresponsible. Helping people into work is both humane and necessary.

Madam Speaker! Working life is changing. Technology is changing. Industries and companies are changing. People change jobs more often and place higher demands on skills development. The Government's labor market policy reflects this by promoting transition throughout working life, strengthening the conditions for education in mid-life, enabling lifelong learning that is not just a word but a reality, and creating a working life where more people can grow in their professions, not leave them when the labor market changes. Security in working life does not come from braking development. Security comes from people being equipped to meet it.

It is not the state that creates jobs. It is companies – large and small, across the entire country. Therefore, policy must provide them with the conditions to grow and hire. The government's budget for 2026 does this, among other things, through tax cuts for work, which strengthens household finances and increases the availability of the workforce, but also through reduced red tape and simplifications as well as improved conditions for investment and expansion. More companies that dare to hire means more jobs for those who need them most.

We must also speak about the work environment. The government's position is crystal clear: No one should risk life or health in their work. This requires a systematic and preventive work environment effort throughout the entire working life, with a particular focus where the burden and risks are greatest, not least in female-dominated jobs.

Men and women face different risks in working life. A good working environment is therefore also a matter of equality. In sectors where women dominate, the organizational and social work environment risks are most widespread, and there, protection, support, and preventive measures should be prioritized.

Crime in the labor market creates insecurity, pressures working conditions, and undermines serious employers. Therefore, continued agency cooperation and intensified measures are needed to stop crime in the working life – an important link in ensuring safe workplaces and fair conditions.

The government's new work environment strategy for the years 2026–2030 is an important step toward meeting the challenges and opportunities that a changed working life entails.

Madam Speaker! Work is one of our most important society-sustaining principles. It is the foundation for welfare, for integration, for security, and for people's own freedom.

The government's labor market policy and work-life direction in the budget for 2026 is a clear message that Sweden shall return to work, development, and empowerment.

We heard today positive news that unemployment is now falling for the fourth consecutive month, to 6.7 percent. Youth unemployment also follows the trend.

Inflation has, through the government's policy, fallen from 10 percent in 2022 to 2.3 percent, and Boverket reports that housing construction is increasing, with 35,000 new homes this year. This is good and gives positive answers regarding unemployment, growth, and confidence in the future. Sweden is moving in the right direction, but we are of course not satisfied. Hard work continues from the government. That is how we strengthen Sweden.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Saila Quicklund, for the speech!

Two or three weeks ago, we had a seminar here in the Riksdag which we organized together with Almega, Utbildningsföretagen, Transportföretagen and Visita. The seminar was about the need that the affected industries have for labor and the ability that education companies have to train people.

We currently have low volumes regarding labor market training specifically, and we have had that during the recent years. That is why Arbetsförmedlingen is now going to send back several billion to the government. Arbetsförmedlingen is not able to use the resources in a way that means more people enter the training programs that companies are requesting.

Can Saila Quicklund be self-critical here? Is there reason to direct criticism at the Minister for Employment and the government regarding the management of Arbetsförmedlingen? It has been known that Arbetsförmedlingen has difficulties given the conditions they have to use the money. We in the opposition have pointed this out throughout the entire mandate period and said: Do things now! Ensure that the resources are used! Cooperate with the municipalities! Look at the driving license side! Could there be other things that are simpler and that involve the resources being used in a way that gives companies better opportunities to find the competence they are looking for?

Are Saila Quicklund and the Moderates self-critical regarding the order and passivity that we have seen at the Ministry of Employment during this parliamentary term?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ardalan Shekarabi, for an extremely important question!

This is not a new scenario. It also occurred during the Social Democrats' time in government. In itself, it is utterly tragic that every third place in the vocational training programs has stood empty at a time when companies are screaming for labor and so on, but it also shows how large the structural unemployment is.

Many people do not have the opportunity to enter those types of educations because they are not prepared for it. Here, the government has an extremely important part to address. It is about people being made employable, but also about them being able to step into those types of educations.

Now a new concept is being tried when it comes to healthcare education, even if it is not large sums. Even in the municipalities, training for nursing assistants, healthcare assistants and so on is ongoing. Now a new part is also emerging within the health and care sector with service assistants, which allows newcomers to enter the healthcare sector faster to then study further to become nursing assistants. I believe in that very much. The government is also investing 30 million on more places in the healthcare education.

We have discussed the driving licenses in the exchange of remarks. I do not believe in this that certain youths should be given a driving license. Many employers already pay for it for their new employees if it is required. Youths toil and work during the summer to be able to get a driving license, as many of us have done. Today, you could do something like resign, and then you get a driving license from Arbetsförmedlingen. I do not believe in that part. It already exists within the industries.

The directives to Arbetsförmedlingen are: Use the money for education! They have the resources. It is a matter of them having to allocate them.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that the honorable colleague raises the issue of preparations for labor market training.

As it stands, the group that is far from the labor market would need preparatory measures, preparatory training, language training, and social training in order to then be able to attend job-related training. The problem is that this government has cut back on such measures.

I would gladly take my colleague to some of the folk high schools in this region, which are good at this. They have always been good at seeing the whole person and helping the whole person to prepare so that one can enter a vocational education.

The folk high schools have had a really tough time during these three years, as we have seen the passivity from the Ministry of Employment and the government's side. It has resulted in that we do not have particularly many who undergo that type of preparatory measure. We would need to get tens of thousands of people into the preparatory measures so that they can then undergo training that leads to vocational skills that enable them to take the jobs that hopefully will emerge.

I also believe that we have a lot to learn from the municipalities governed by Social Democrats and Moderates together. There are quite a few such municipalities all over the country, where Social Democrats and Moderates actually work together to find solutions so that efforts are directed towards those groups who are far from the labor market and who need this support.

The problem is that the municipalities have no funding for this. It is a state commitment. Labor market policy is the state's responsibility. The municipalities then have to take from elsewhere to enable that type of investment. I think it very clearly exposes why the government chose the wrong path when it cut the training programs at the beginning of this mandate period. Is there any self-criticism among the government parties on this issue?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that even the Social Democrats must be self-critical, because much of what we see today is a consequence of that government's actions.

I listened to a P1 interview with a woman who had lived in Sweden for 20 years. She had attended seven SFI courses and needed an interpreter while she sat there. She wanted to enter the labor market and had at some point worked for a day at a preschool.

What a failure! How could we have left people like that? These are people who want to go out and work. Many of these women, who do not have the language skills, have had perhaps four, five, six children. Who can manage that logistics? Of course these women – and the men, of course – must enter the labor market.

We have now set a maximum of three years for the Sfi education to increase the quality but also to ensure that development occurs during the process. That has not been the case – listen to the woman who has completed seven courses and still cannot speak the language! What a failure!

The folk high schools shall also work with SFI or Swedish education. On the other hand, we have cleared out the educational parts, but there have also been educations that do not lead to jobs. Here, we are raising the quality of the measures so that it is primarily educations that lead to jobs that shall be prioritized.

One must look at why one makes cuts. It can also be quality improvements to hit the mark, and that is typical moderate politics. We value every krona so that it lands correctly and is effective. It is the taxpayers' money we are handling, and that requires it.

In many ways, we agree that this is important. We need to broaden the training. Those who are part of the structural unemployment, in that group, must be prepared in a different way. We agree on that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Tidö government has introduced what is in practice a poverty reform. The government argues that the high benefits constitute a barrier to people working. The reasoning is simple but all the more incomprehensible. The Tidö government argues that the poorer people become, the greater the chance they have of entering employment.

But the government's own expert agencies reject that lowered benefits would lead to higher employment. Neither the Fiscal Policy Council nor IFAU find support for the idea that a benefit ceiling would get more people into work. The member himself pointed out in his speech that the single largest problem on the labor market is the structural skills shortage.

My question to the member is: Why is your government pursuing a policy that lacks support from its own expert body, and why do you choose poverty as a tool when the Fiscal Policy Council instead requests education, strong mediation efforts, and real paths into employment?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! Poverty for me is when people do not have a job to go to. It is also an equality issue that everyone gets out onto the labor market and becomes a part of the community. It is here our ideology differs.

Miljöpartiet wants to raise taxes for workers by 10–11 billion. A nurse is to be penalized even more for everything over 50,000. They say no to the job tax credit. They say no to ROT. They want to make it more expensive to hire. They are therefore not for what we are driving – to lower the employer contributions for young people so that they can more easily get into jobs. It will result in more bureaucracy and more money for administration for Arbetsförmedlingen.

We are introducing the contribution ceiling, as we know that when the contributions exceed a salary, it is no longer profitable to go out and work. Is that the development the Green Party wants to continue with? That has been your policy. Has it been successful? What incentives should we have for people to enter the workforce?

I visited Skåne a week ago. There, the unemployment is very high. At the same time, it said on a large banner: "Apply for a job in Norrland!" It is completely uninteresting – people do not want to move. It is not possible to continue with that policy.

Poverty is not having a job. Here our parties differ.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet want more people to enter employment. We want to expand the labor market training, we want to expand the subsidized jobs, and we want Arbetsförmedlingen to have a greater presence throughout the country. This is what both IFAU and the Fiscal Policy Council point out.

The poverty reform lacks support from experts and research. Despite this, the government chooses to proceed with it. In what way does more poverty contribute to more people in work, given that there is no connection between people becoming poorer and them getting into work?

I think it is interesting that the member brought up the example of Skåne. Miljöpartiet wants to increase labor market mobility by introducing a relocation grant so that people can move to where the jobs are. The Tidöre Government does not want to do that.

My question remains. Why does the government continue to pursue a reform that lacks support in the evidence, and why are you using poverty as labor market policy? When do you intend to start investing in what actually gets people into work?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! I could repeat what I answered in the previous statement. We spoke about poverty, and I have given my picture: People who enter work move from poverty to something else that implies not only social community but also a value of an economic nature. It is that work line we are running.

With what we are now introducing – activity requirements to seek relevant jobs and a benefit ceiling so that it will always pay to work – our strategy is to try to get people into the community and into jobs.

One could summarize the Green Party's line of action like this: the state educates, the state employs, the state decides, and taxes on real jobs shall be raised. The Moderates' and the government's line of action is: companies grow, people work, and welfare is strengthened through that.

Here we have different views. I do not think we will get any further in the reasoning. I have been clear about how we view this and what constitutes real poverty. We do everything to ensure that people now enter education and become a part of society. We are already seeing positive trends. Much is, however, also driven by inflation, which the government has worked very hard to bring down.

I do not think we would have had this picture if we had had a Social Democratic government where the Green Party had been included. I know we would not have had it. Then you raise taxes. Then you do not create incentives for people to get into jobs. Then you continue with the subsidy line.

That is over now. It is the work line that applies. Every person must also receive individual support via Arbetsförmedlingen. Everyone is worthy of a place in the community. We believe in everyone.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I cannot vote in favor of any budget proposal because the Left Party's budget proposal exceeds the established total expenditures. I have, however, submitted a special statement.

Madam Speaker! When we today debate expenditure area 14 Labour Market and Working Life, we do so in a social situation where unemployment is sticking, where long-term unemployment has become a permanent shadow over the labour market and where insecurity is growing both for those who have a job and for those who are seeking one. In such a situation, one could have expected the government to present a new policy that strengthens protection, invests in people and gives more opportunities to work, educate themselves and develop. Unfortunately, that is not what is on the table.

The government's budget is instead characterized by cuts, by an almost reflexive suspicion of people without work, and by a kind of over-belief that the market, if it is only given a little more right-wing medicine, will solve the inequality, the skills shortage, and the unemployment. Those who are affected are, of course, completely ordinary wage earners, the unemployed, young people, and foreign-born. All of Sweden is weakened when the government chooses this path.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet sees people as an asset, not a burden. We know that a society functions when everyone is able to contribute – when the competence in welfare, industry, and the entire working life grows, when the unemployed receive a reasonable economic security and a real chance to return, and when we invest in education, matching, the work environment, and a functioning party system. It is this fundamental view that permeates Vänsterpartiet's budget for the labor market and working life.

Let me start with the unemployment insurance, that is, the unemployment insurance fund (akassan). For us, it is a central part of the Swedish model. It should be a transition insurance that provides security in case of unemployment and stability for the entire economy.

The government's line has been to weaken the social safety net step by step, let it be eroded and make life more insecure for people who are already in a vulnerable situation. The new social safety net that came into force in October has lowered the compensation for many and made the rules more complicated. It is a policy that increases the pressure on individuals but does not create a single new job.

The Left Party is going in the opposite direction. We propose that the ceiling in the collective agreement is raised and that the compensation is strengthened. It is not just about justice; it is about people daring to change jobs, daring to educate themselves, and daring to speak out when working conditions are poor. A strong collective agreement benefits the entire labor market by giving employees bargaining power and reducing the risk of wage dumping.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to active labor market measures, the government is, worse, making some significant cuts. Matching services are being abolished or minimized without any better way to support individuals being presented. Arbetsförmedlingen is given a continued unclear and unstable mandate, even if the labor market minister we now have admits that it has been chaos-privatized. We have not received a clear message on what the agency is actually supposed to do and how to support those who need support the most.

At the same time, Sweden faces major competence needs. We have companies that cannot find labor. We have a public sector that is crying out for trained staff. It should be obvious to meet these needs by investing in people – in education, in career changes, and in real labor market training – and not through Steg till arbete, where one assembles and disassembles Ikea furniture and sorts screws.

Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes a substantial expansion of labor market training. More people must be able to and dare to take the step toward the shortage occupations that exist within industry, healthcare, energy, public transport, and other areas where the jobs are. We want to strengthen the opportunities for regular education for the unemployed. This is what is required if Sweden is to hold together and continue to be a competitive country.

Madam Speaker! The work environment is another area where the government's policy is going slightly in the wrong direction. The increased sick leaves, the growing work environment problems in welfare, the construction sector and industry, and the increasing mental ill-being require significant political action. We know that every krona invested in the work environment yields manifold returns in the form of fewer injuries, higher productivity, and higher quality in the work.

Madam Speaker! We must also speak about the growing gaps in the labor market. Foreign-born individuals and persons with disabilities now have very difficulty gaining a foothold. Youth unemployment is still high. The government's response has primarily been subsidized employment, suspicious private matching companies, and more control. But one does not solve structural problems with point interventions and mistrust.

Vänsterpartiet wants to work long-term instead. We propose investments in real jobs in the welfare sector, in green investments that create employment across the entire country, in education, and in an active industrial policy. One could, for example, develop Samhall to once again become a good actor that puts rehabilitation and employment at the center, not profitability goals.

Madam Speaker! Another fundamental difference between Vänsterpartiet and the government concerns the view on workers' power and conditions. The government and Sverigedemokraterna are pushing for weakened trade unions, greater power for employers, and more exceptions in labor law. I also perceive that they have turned a blind eye to the problem of yellow unions and unserious actors who attempt to bypass the Swedish model. This is a policy that threatens wages, conditions, and security.

Vänsterpartiet always stands up for the Swedish model. We want to strengthen the unions' position, increase the opportunities for education during paid working time, improve protection for fixed-term employees, and stop a development where unserious actors are allowed to compete by undermining collective agreements. A strong Sweden is built on strong workers.

Madam Speaker! The overarching problem with the government's budget is that it reduces people to costs. It treats the unemployed as a problem, not as individuals with will, capacity, and potential. This government is pressing down on benefits, cutting back on support, and placing the responsibility solely on the individual instead of taking a societal responsibility. The result is reduced security, poorer matching, and a more divided society.

Vänsterpartiet's policy is based on a different view: that people are the country's absolute greatest resource, that everyone wins when more people are able to work, develop, and participate, that a labor market built on security and equality also becomes much more efficient and robust, and that Sweden can be better than this – and deserves better.

Madam Speaker! We present a budget that invests in people and in the jobs of the future, not in short-term tax cuts, which strengthens security and increases opportunities for those who are furthest from the labor market, which takes the work environment seriously and which puts education and competence at the center. It is a budget that builds upon the Swedish model that has made our country strong, equal, and successful. This is a path that creates a stronger Sweden – a Sweden where more people work, where fewer are left behind and where the working life holds together.

But this government offers cuts, blame-shifting, and a policy that drives the country apart. It is not enough. It is time to change the government.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

Today we face the government's budget proposal for expenditure area 14 Labour Market and Working Life. For the Christian Democrats, it is important that the labour market is not just about statistics, wages and employment, but also about people – about individuals who want to contribute, develop and feel needed.

We see work life as more than a way to support oneself. The workplace is a place where people create meaning, where everyday life is shaped, and where we develop our relationships and our skills. It is here that we can put our values into action: respect, solidarity, responsibility, and consideration. Being part of a workplace does not only mean economic security but also a sense of being seen, needed, and valued.

Madam Speaker! The government's budget proposal contains several initiatives for the labor market, which previous speakers have already pointed out. The government's labor market initiatives for 2026 focus on getting more people into work and providing better support to the unemployed.

The largest allocation within the budget area goes to job creation and activity support. But the Swedish Public Employment Service (Arbetsförmedlingen) also receives a reinforcement of 7.8 billion for matching and support. The support for new-start jobs and establishment jobs is also expanded to facilitate new hires. The transition and competence support is reinforced with approximately 3 billion kronor for education and career change.

The Christian Democrats want to see a labor market where there is room for the individual, where we invest in education and skills development, and where people receive support to find their place. No one should feel that they are just a number in a system. We want to see a society where the human being comes before the system.

Madam Speaker! The care of the workforce – if one may put it that way – is about more than economic incentives. It is about creating workplaces that take into account people's different circumstances, that promote balance between work and private life, and that ensure everyone can participate on their own terms. A secure workplace contributes not only to production but also to people's well-being and to the stability of the entire society.

We also want to emphasize the value of everyday life. For many people, it is at the workplace that daily meaning arises. It is there that we learn, grow, and feel appreciated. A policy for working life must therefore take into account human needs for both security and participation. No workplace functions without people. And no human being thrives without the opportunity to contribute and feel significant.

The Christian Democrats' view on the labor market is based on the view of humanity. Every human being has an inherent value and shall be treated with respect. Our ideology tells us that society has a responsibility to ensure that everyone, regardless of background and circumstances, can participate in working life. It is therefore why we want to see more opportunities for skill development, more paths into the labor market for those who are far away from it, and more support for those who need help combining work with family and care.

Madam Speaker! When we discuss and debate the budget and the labor market, it is not just about crowns and öre. It is about how we as a society protect people, how we ensure that everyday life becomes sustainable, and how we create conditions so that more people can feel pride in their work.

The Christian Democrats stand for a labor market where the human being always stands at the center and where work is more than a task – a place for value, community, and development. Therefore, we will continue to work for a labor market policy that looks at the whole human being, not just the labor force – a policy that safeguards both care, everyday life, and values. In the end, it is people, not budget items, who create society.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Since the Riksdag has already reached a decision on the budget frameworks, with a different content than the Center Party wishes, I abstain from the decision regarding this expenditure area. I will instead speak about what we would have wanted the money to be used for and invested in. It seems to be good, because given the beginning of this debate, the Center Party has a significant role in Swedish politics – that is what we were told. It is good that more than we ourselves think so. Here, therefore, comes a small declaration of goods from the Center Party.

Sweden needs continued reforms on the labor market so that we will be better equipped in the future. Not least, reforms are needed to reduce the division on the labor market, because despite a fundamentally good starting position, Sweden has one of the Western world's highest unemployment rates. Closer to 356,000 people are openly unemployed or enrolled in labor market policy programs. We have weak growth and a falling rate of new entrepreneurship. Furthermore, Sweden has gone from being a climate role model to becoming a country that accounts for significantly increased emissions.

Madam Speaker! What we need is a policy that seriously addresses these problems and restores some faith in the future. It is something that is missing in Sweden, especially among our youth. In the Center Party's budget proposal, the focus is placed on three areas: jobs, the climate, and the countryside.

We have for a longer period developed unacceptable geographical injustices. It concerns differences in school results and, lo and behold, mortality in treatable diseases. How can it be that the average life expectancy is lower in the countryside than in our larger cities? It is completely unreasonable.

We must invest in welfare. We do that by creating more jobs and making it easier for our companies. In order to succeed in ensuring that more children see their parents go to work, the door to the Swedish labor market must be opened wide. Unemployment is corrosive for the individual. It also contributes to large costs for society and is a waste of our human capital.

The Center Party has been a driving force in the introduction of historical reforms in the labor market with a modern labor law, matching, and the reception of newcomers. We unfortunately think it is going in the wrong direction now.

This government is increasing the costs of hiring. People are being shut out from the labor market. The costs of hiring must be lowered through lower employer contributions – not just during or ahead of an election year. It must constantly be cheaper to hire. Effective employment support is also needed.

Madam Speaker! We will certainly talk more about integration next week, but it is so linked with today's unemployment. The integration of newcomers needs to be accelerated, partly through expanded establishment jobs, which we look forward to seeing.

After the Tidö government phased out the intensive year, the Center Party argues that a kind of vacuum has emerged in integration policy. We advocate for a new model that we call a "new start year": a mandatory intervention where everyone who has not had a job for three years in Sweden shall participate in a new start year, with full-time studies in Swedish. This shall be combined with internships and matching. After completing the new start year, one is automatically entitled to an establishment job for a rapid entry into the labor market. For those who, after long-term unemployment, do not participate in the new start year, it will be reflected through lower benefits.

Intensive care needs to be supplemented, however, with a reformed SFI that has a stronger focus on getting people into the working life. We want to transform SFI. We even want to rename it to job Swedish. The focus should be on the student starting to work. Through cooperation with the business sector, a clearer orientation towards jobs, and an individual plan, the first question when one arrives at their first lesson, for example, could be: What do you want or can you work with? Then the purpose is to learn enough Swedish to manage that job.

The important reform that Arbetsförmedlingen started a number of years ago, and which the Centerpartiet was involved in driving, we do not think the Tidö government has managed. Instead, the agency has rather gone back to working as they did previously. But the Centerpartiet still thinks that the unemployed have a chance to receive better support from efficient, result-based actors – a bit of right-wing medicine, as Ciczie said – who receive compensation based on how well they succeed in mediating jobs in the long term.

Then you might think that the actors didn't convey that many jobs. No, but in the name of honesty, Arbetsförmedlingen didn't either, at the time it happened.

I do not believe that Arbetsförmedlingen as an authority is successful with one size fits all. I believe it is better with several smaller, local actors and better exercise of authority. Arbetsförmedlingen should therefore devote itself to the exercise of authority in the form of supervision and management of these actors.

Labor market policy also depends on Arbetsförmedlingen being present in all parts of the country, both where there are large labor needs and where vulnerable people have a great need to be able to book physical meetings. AF has, however, in recent years choked off resources to the smallest local offices, despite clear directives in regulatory letters, as I understand it, to re-establish local operations across the country. It is a trend that must be broken. We even know and see that local service offices around the country are being closed down. Here, there must be a change.

Madam Speaker! One area within the policy for working life is wage formation, which is evaluated every year. We know that the wage gap is increasing again after having slowly decreased over decades. Here, the government states that "several of the criteria used in the assessment of wage formation were achieved during 2024. The government states that although the trend of reduced wage differences between women and men seems to have stalled in recent years, the wage differences have decreased in a longer time perspective, which has contributed to increased economic equality."

I don't really know if I agree with that interpretation. It is a bit like with the environmental goals: emissions are increasing now, and we are missing the environmental goals. But further ahead, in 10–20 years, then we will reach them.

Think if we were to have the same reasoning when we discuss violence against women or crime! We will have to see what the pay transparency directive leads to. I believe there are several of us here who hope that it will be a help in removing the structural wage gap that exists between women and men.

An area that I want to praise the government for is the work against labor-related crime. I have great confidence in the centers being built up around the country, which we have talked about and partially visited. But I want to add one thing. Do not forget that the centers should also be tasked with identifying crime victims! You cannot just hunt down the companies that use criminal labor and leave the crime victims aside. In the best of worlds, the social services are involved and do what they are supposed to do to protect the crime victims. But that is not included in the mandate. That needs to change.

Madam Speaker! I think that, on the whole, the Tidöregering's labor market policy is unfortunately characterized by a bit of passivity and somewhat murky priorities. Despite several parties in the Tidöregering adopting the epithet conservative, the job policy they pursue is anything but conservative. The costs of hiring are being raised instead of lowered. And stricter rules for labor immigration are endangering industry after industry, which I just read about in a newsletter.

The problem that too many foreign-born people stand outside the labor market, the Tidö parties seem primarily to want to solve by having those who are considered not integrated receive money to return to their former home countries. It is a proposal that the investigator himself believes will not work, but rather will exacerbate the integration problems and make it more difficult to enter the Swedish labor market.

Furthermore, the fact that the government repeatedly singles out certain groups creates even greater rifts in society, which risks increasing exclusion. It will have consequences for our country for a long time to come.

I thank you and refer to our special statement.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Helena Vilhelmsson for the speech.

Speaking of priorities, as mentioned in the presentation, I have a question for the Center Party and the member. In your budget proposal, you suggest a significant cut in the grants for wage subsidies. The wage subsidies go to individuals who are disabled. They are one of the weakest groups in the labor market. The employment rate among people with disabilities is approximately 50 percent.

I wonder how the Center Party intends to act when one wants to slaughter the wage subsidy by approximately 10 percent and save 2 billion kronor on those individuals who have it the toughest on the labor market.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We have discussed Samhall many times in the Committee on Employment. It has been a subject of discussion for many years. Are the right things being done? Is the goal being reached? Do we get bang for the buck by investing in Samhall?

Labor market measures must, regardless of whom they are intended for, deliver good results for the target group and must not lead to unhealthy competition. Reviews have, as mentioned, been carried out. We think that Samhall should be looked at again. Is an effective disability policy being run that is purposeful for the group we are talking about, or are there other ways?

The National Audit Office has pointed out that the management of Samhall has had too great a focus on commerciality, which has also led to unhealthy competition. The question then is: Can Samhall work in some other and much more efficient way to get people out of other companies?

I agree that this is a very tricky question. But we mean that Samhall should be audited completely again. We believe that the operations can be conducted in a much more efficient way for the disabled. In that way, the companies get a capacity that is currently unutilized.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Madam Speaker! What the Center Party proposes in its budget motion is a cut next year of approximately 2 billion kronor. Let me clarify my question. How many fewer people with disabilities does the Center Party think should be able to receive wage subsidies next year?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! How many fewer? We believe that Samhall's operations can be organized in a different way. If Samhall contributes to unhealthy competition and furthermore does not fulfill the goal that people with disabilities should receive meaningful employment, we must organize the work in a different way. Samhall or others may be able to establish proper contacts and organized cooperation with companies that can, in a correct, good, and productive way, utilize the resource that our many people with disabilities represent. Today, they do not have meaningful employment, despite the fact that we give Samhall this assignment.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is in a situation with historically high unemployment and a labor market policy that is not functioning as it should. The government's failure is costly for the individual, the business sector, and society. It is noticeable in every municipality that lacks employment service officers. It is noticeable in long telephone queues to Arbetsförmedlingen where job seekers cannot get through. It is noticeable among all those who try to enter the labor market but are hindered by deficiencies in the system.

The basis for a functioning labor market policy is that the authority that is to provide support is actually accessible. It is not today. Arbetsförmedlingen's local presence has been dismantled. When the local presence disappears, the necessary resources required to be able to provide the right support in a timely manner also disappear.

In 2019, Arbetsförmedlingen had staffed offices in about 170 municipalities. Today, Arbetsförmedlingen is only present in 81 municipalities. A further 81 municipalities lack presence and cooperation solutions entirely. The number of employment officers has decreased by 31 percent. It is an extremely worrying development, because at the same time as this is happening, Sweden has the third highest unemployment in the EU.

The results are clear. People cannot get through on the phone. They are bounced between case officers. Their cases lose momentum. Unemployment is prolonged. I have met job seekers who have lost months solely due to a lack of processing, not a lack of will. It is inefficient and disrespectful toward the individual human being. For every week that passes without a decision, people lose both motivation and faith in the future. Employers seeking competence also have to wait longer than necessary.

Madam Speaker! The government's failure must be rectified. Where the Tidö government cuts, the Green Party builds up. Citizens must be able to trust that society is there when it is needed. That is how the social contract is protected. The Green Party therefore adds 300 million to the Arbetsförmedlingen's administrative grant. The purpose is to re-establish a local presence that actually works and so that people can meet case officers who have good knowledge of the local and regional labor market. In practice, it is about shorter waiting times, more physical meetings, and faster interventions. We also want, in the long run, to give the agency greater flexibility and freedom to use the funds where they are truly needed. It is not acceptable that Arbetsförmedlingen pays back money they have received when Sweden has mass unemployment.

But it is not enough just to have an accessible authority. Even the labor market policy tools must be sufficient for people to be able to move forward. They are not today. The Government explains the low volumes in the labor market trainings by saying that Arbetsförmedlingen sends back money and that the unemployed cannot take advantage of the trainings. It is a strange reasoning. The Government chooses to point at the individual when it is its governance that is failing. If people cannot participate in a training, one should strengthen the preparatory measures, not cut back on the trainings.

Today we have over half a million unemployed, but the number of people receiving labor market training is at a historically low level. A central cause is the government's management. Arbetsförmedlingen is supposed to increase referrals to Rusta while simultaneously increasing referrals to education. In practice, these goals work against each other, and the training comes later in the assessment chain. This is not a result of individual caseworkers' decisions but of the policy that the Tidö government is pursuing. Furthermore, the government only allocates around 30 million to targeted labor market training in a situation of mass unemployment, which is completely insufficient.

The government has the same pattern in other parts of politics. Criticism is directed downwards, never towards its own governance: It is due to the unemployed person's unwillingness. It is the parties' fault. It is because of the high benefits. A clear example is the establishment jobs. In two years, only 87 people have been employed. I want to assert that it is not the parties' fault but that it is the government that has failed once again. Arbetsförmedlingen lacks clear mandates to assign job seekers to establishment jobs. In today's mass unemployment, it is remarkable, because the establishment jobs could have given tens of thousands of people work.

A further failure appears in how the Tidöregeringen has designed the a-kassan. When people become unemployed, the safety nets must function. The steep tapering in the new a-kassan does the opposite. It removes the security needed to be able to seek work under reasonable conditions. The government's steep tapering of the compensation after 100 days creates a great economic uncertainty for people in a situation where unemployment is already high and matching is weak.

The Green Party chooses a different path. We halve the reduction from 10 to 5 percent and add 300 million kronor for this. It creates a more stable transition for those seeking work and reduces the risk that people are forced to accept mismatched, short-term employment.

Madam Speaker! When the Tidö parties concluded their agreement, there were no labor market issues included at all. This is striking, because labor market policy is one of the state's most central tasks. We have now seen the result after more than three years of their policy: a major failure from the government and a mass unemployment that is the third highest in the EU. The Sweden Democrats, who are the largest party in the Tidö government's base, have even demanded that the labor market issues be taken from the Liberals. It says everything about how weak the Tidö government's labor market policy is and how extensive the failure has become.

Sweden deserves a better labor market policy that gives people the opportunity to move forward in life, a policy that is active and present and ensures that everyone who can has a job to go to.

Madam Speaker! Since our budget exceeds the limits that the Riksdag has established, I do not participate in the decision, but we have submitted a special statement.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has too high a level of unemployment. I am glad that we can debate that question today.

People with disabilities are severely affected. Those with experience who are older encounter ageism in some cases. There are mothers and fathers who wave the children off to school without themselves having a job to go to.

The worst thing is to be unemployed for a long time. It is actually life-threatening. When I received this fine trust, I simultaneously received a thought-provoker from the statistics. It is about how we talk about the statistics and how we measure things.

Madam Speaker! At the Public Employment Service, you are counted as long-term unemployed after one year. One year is a long time. Today, 123,000 children live with at least one parent who has been unemployed for longer than a year.

Most of these long-term unemployed parents have a non-European background. During the previous government, Sweden received 320,000 asylum seekers over eight years. This was combined with a failed integration policy without any thought for the consequences.

Every other unemployed person today is foreign-born. Here, society needs to take a step forward. Otherwise, the exclusion we see today risks being passed on as an inheritance.

That everyone who can also must work is crucial for the economy as a whole. But we know what unemployment means for the individuals. It is mental ill-health and an increased risk of alcohol abuse. Therefore, it is actually the social-liberal perspective that is more important.

Quite a while ago, I was one of the drivers behind the formation of Alliansen, or Allians för Sverige. At that time, half a million people were early-retired for the purpose of improving the social democratic government's statistics.

Then we introduced the work line. It was needed then, and it is just as relevant today. But the challenge looks different. Now there are many unemployed people who lack vocational skills, and there are very many unemployed people who lack sufficient knowledge of the Swedish language.

That is why the work line begins with education that leads to jobs. We are investing, for example, in 11,000 more training places for professions such as nursing assistants and electricians. It can become a first job for those who have not completed upper secondary school and a new chance for those who have become unemployed.

But we also have high expectations that those who are seeking a job and do not have their own means of support take their responsibility and attend the training courses that are offered.

With the government's policy, it will also become more profitable to work. We are lowering taxes for everyone who works and makes an effort. We are reforming the unemployment insurance (a-kassan). It is something that my own party, Liberalerna, has fought for for a long time.

Madam Speaker! Before the reform we have now made of the unemployment insurance and the activity support, one could receive 22,000 kronor a month in compensation without any real upper time limit. In what way is it fair that the person who sets the alarm clock in the morning and toils, and perhaps works as a caretaker or personal assistant, receives approximately the same amount in wages as the person who does not support themselves?

We are reforming the benefit systems so that we stop giving up on people, so that the 123,000 children with long-term unemployed parents can see their mother and father go to a job, an education, or an internship. The passivity must be broken.

I want to thank my Tidö colleagues for that we are carrying out these reforms together. We are doing this together, with order and discipline in the state finances and a stable course forward.

On the left side, they want to do the opposite. The left side wants to raise taxes for those who work. When taxes on work and entrepreneurship are raised, fewer jobs will be created. The increased taxes are then to be used to increase benefits for those who do not work.

Some think that asylum migration should increase, even though we already today have a strained situation with segregation and exclusion. It is not the right path for Sweden.

The right way is a subsidy system for more people in jobs, with the right education that leads there. The right way is lower taxes for all who educate themselves, behave, and care. The right way is that more children see their parents go to work.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister spoke in an interview on Sunday on Sveriges Television about berry picking as an alternative when the report was about academics affected by unemployment. It was one of the suggestions that came up when it was spoken about engineers, architects and communicators who are unemployed.

I would like to ask the Minister for Employment: Is it the government's policy regarding the growing and worrying unemployment among academics to refer academics to berry picking? Or is there any ambition anywhere in the Government Offices, any proposal anywhere in some box at the Ministry of Employment, to develop a labor market policy aimed at the group of academics who are now affected by unemployment?

Is there any will to support the newly graduated youths who leave colleges and universities and begin their professional careers with long-term unemployment? Can the government at least consider some of the proposals that the opposition parties have put on the table?

We submitted the proposal for state emergency jobs for young academics who are newly graduated. We should at least help the young academics get that line on the CV during the unemployment so that they can then enter the labor market. Or is berry picking the Minister for Employment's answer to academic unemployment today?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ardalan Shekarabi, for raising that question!

The government is presenting policies to break the long-term recession we are in. The recession means that new groups are affected by unemployment – including, to some extent, academics, and including, to some extent, recent graduates. In addition, there are people who have an education that would normally lead to jobs.

What worries me is that the Social Democrats, in their budget alternative, invest less than the government does in breaking the recession. Ardalan Shekarabi reminds me more and more often of the politician who had a speech script. In the margin of the speech script, he had written: Here the argument is weak, raise your voice.

Ardalan Shekarabi talks about that you want to think anew. Do you have anything new? All we see are higher subsidies, higher taxes and old failed measures. Saila Quicklund explained pedagogically the list that you repeat. In addition, it is what you propose is not even financed, as Magnus Persson explained.

Ardalan Shekarabi says: My point is not that we should do as we did during the previous mandate period. But no one understands what Ardalan Shekarabi's point is.

Ardalan Shekarabi is welcome to explain what it is that is innovative. What is the Social Democrats' point?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Imagine if the Minister for Employment could imagine spending some of his time developing proposals that truly combat unemployment and not the unemployed!

Is there no answer and not a single proposal in any box at the Ministry of Employment that aims at the growing unemployment among young academics? I assume that the Minister for Employment has read our proposal on reserve jobs for just young academics.

Does the Minister for Employment realize that a displacement effect occurs when young academics are forced to take jobs other than those they are qualified for? Does he realize what it does to the chances of the long-term unemployed to enter the labor market? Is there any desire to see the consequences of what the reduced unemployment insurance does to the group of academics affected by unemployment at a time when we know that the downturn makes it difficult for people to return to work?

Is the Minister for Employment aware of the fact that the reduction of the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) that the government and the Sweden Democrats implemented also implies a cap of 70 percent on income insurance which academics and other wage earners have themselves financed through their trade unions?

Is there any awareness in the government, Madam Speaker, that the lowered unemployment insurance and a cap on privately funded income insurance means that academics are forced to take jobs for which they are definitely overqualified? Should we not instead invest in opportunities that give academics a chance to get jobs they have been educated for?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Madam Speaker! I am not quite clear on Ardalan Shekarabis's contribution.

We need to get the wheels turning faster in our country. Therefore, we are presenting a policy aimed at breaking the recession. To ensure that there is more money in people's pockets so that they dare to consume, to make it cheaper to hire, to make it simpler and more profitable to run businesses, to make food cheaper and to make electricity cheaper – that is the right policy for Sweden.

With every passing day, it becomes increasingly difficult to take Ardalan Shekarabi seriously. Doesn't the member think it feels a bit strange that you have presented a number of old, tried and failed proposals again? You say that you are going to think anew, but you present old proposals – which you cannot even manage to finance in your own budget alternative. I would personally find that a bit empty.

I look forward to standing here one day when Ardalan Shekarabi and the Social Democrats present new, powerful measures to truly reduce unemployment. I long for that day.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! It was entertaining here on the evening branch. Thank you very much, Minister for Employment Johan Britz, for your speech!

It becomes so clear that I never really know how my relationship with the Liberals should be. On one hand, there is much in the Liberals' history and in our socialist history that is the same, that is to say that we always protect people who have it hardest. We have always been in agreement on, for example, LSS and all protective legislation and justice legislation.

On the other hand, one doesn't really know where it tips over into people having to largely blame themselves for not having it good. I never know where that line is.

People talk about how they want to combat ageism while simultaneously largely ignoring the people who are now 55 and 60 plus, who are the ones who are now becoming the poorest as a result of the rapid tapering and the reduced activity support. I cannot reconcile this.

The Minister for Employment talks about parents who wave goodbye to their children and then themselves do not go to work. Furthermore, there are a huge number of children who never see their parents because the parents do nothing but run between two and sometimes three jobs. We have a labor market that is completely crazy. We have a fixed-term employment issue and the entire platform economy that makes people chase around for hourly jobs and still cannot support themselves. But the government does not want to regulate and rectify this so that everyone can be able to get a secure job.

Can Johan Britz imagine figuring out for me how I should navigate here?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! How is one to navigate here? I will try my best to provide a somewhat clear map of the terrain.

For the Liberals and the center-right, it is always more important to have a job than not to have a job. It is number one. For the Liberals and the center-right, it must always pay off to educate oneself and make an effort. For the Liberals and the center-right, equal outcomes are not the most important thing; instead, it is opportunities for all people.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! I didn't even have time to start eating my popcorn!

It should pay off to have a job; that is obvious. It should pay off to get an education, but it doesn't. Generally speaking, men have always had higher incomes than women, even when they barely have any post-secondary education. It is interesting. Sexism is a major problem in the labor market. In any case, it does not pay off for women to get an education, but it perhaps pays off a little better for men.

Everyone should really be able to have a job. But how can one believe that they can whip and force people to take a job even though they just become even poorer from it? There is an incredibly large black market labor industry, and we have a huge number of people running around, especially in our platform economy, with lousy conditions. There, one could regulate so that it would at least be enough to have a job to be able to support oneself.

I thought of one more thing the minister said, namely that we on the left side – it is unclear who the minister meant, but perhaps it was me – want to raise taxes to give the money in subsidies. That is obviously not true. We must raise taxes for those who earn excessively much to finance the welfare. The government does not show at all how it intends to do that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Madam Speaker! There is a difference in the view on growth, a dynamic in the economy and this that people can move, educate themselves, come up with new things and so on. It is that – our growth – that finances our welfare.

The Nobel Prize winners in economics talk about growth. Everything is about 1.5 percent every year. That is what we strive for, and that is what will finance the welfare today and tomorrow.

Let me still say, for the sake of safety, that we are against unexplained pay differences. We are against sexism. We are against undeclared work.

But then one also has to ask what we are doing to, for example, meet the shadow society that has emerged in the wake of an asylum migration where those who receive a rejection do not return but stay in Sweden. These people are exploited on the Swedish labor market. We do not know how many there are. It could be up to 100,000, and some say it is 20,000, but somewhere in between it probably is. That type of measure, to deal with the shadow society, we are also fighting for.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Employment, for being here and for the fact that we can debate late in the evening shortly before Christmas!

I will begin by reporting from a round table discussion with Sweden's Women's Organizations that we have participated in today. We discussed the – the minister mentioned it himself – catastrophic statistics regarding the establishment of foreign-born individuals in the labor market. This concerns primarily women, whose unemployment figure is around 40 percent. It is a catastrophe without equal or a disappointment without equal.

Sveriges Kvinnoorganisationer has produced a report. I recommend that the Minister read it. It arrived today, I believe. It is fantastically good, thorough and structured. There, it is stated, which we naturally know, that the labor market policy is fragmented. It is difficult to navigate for people who were not born and raised in Sweden – it is difficult for us too. And it has been stated since earlier by the Commission for Equal Living Incomes – it submitted a report a few years ago, my bible – that both the labor market policy and the migration policy disadvantage women, both purely economically and structurally.

I mentioned in my speech that the requirement of 90 percent regarding the maintenance obligation that one is introducing makes it almost impossible for women, who in large part are family migrants, to eventually get a job. Now, one should not maintain the divided labor market in Sweden, but however it may be, the women-dominated occupations today hardly reach those wage levels. And we know that women are already today to a higher extent family migrants.

My question is: Can the Minister for Employment say anything about how the discussions and thoughts are progressing regarding how to address the enormous uncertainty that we see and the enormous unemployment figures for foreign-born women?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Helena Vilhelmsson, for a very pressing question! It concerns the situation for foreign-born individuals on the Swedish labor market.

One must have two thoughts in the head at the same time here.

We have many foreign-born people who are working. We must not forget to remind ourselves of that. But when we talk about this issue, we often do so from the outside, so to speak, the perspective of unemployment and exclusion. Then the picture is dark and clear. It is the foreign-born who are the large group of unemployed. The lion's share of them are long-term unemployed, and the women in that group are particularly vulnerable.

We must work according to the plan the government has. We must ensure that there are training programs that lead to jobs. Language skills are completely central. Becoming a bus driver takes 20 weeks. You do not need to have a high school diploma, but you must know some Swedish.

Sfi, which has been mentioned here earlier, is in many ways a catastrophe. Just a few weeks ago, I met individuals who had studied Sfi at level C and who could hardly tell about their family situation, what they were called, where they lived and what occupations they had had previously. So we cannot have that.

One problem, not least with the language courses, concerns the volumes of asylum seekers who have come to Sweden. With those volumes, it is the case that when you attend an SFI course and are going to learn Swedish, you only encounter Swedish in the classroom.

We all know what it is like to learn a language. Everyone who has tried to learn German in junior high school knows that if you do not listen to German all the time, you will not make quick progress. The problem is that people are not immersing themselves in the Swedish language. There we have a lot to do.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I absolutely share the Minister's view when it comes to the fact that SFI needs to be reformed. As I said from the rostrum: I think that SFI should be linked to a job. If you want to and have the opportunity to work within the hotel and restaurant industry, make sure to acquire the Swedish so that you can manage that job, go out and immerse yourself in Swedish, as the Minister says, every day. Then perhaps the rest will follow of its own accord.

But what I am looking for are the more structural injustices and the structural barriers that actually exist here. The low labor force participation among foreign-born women is not a law of nature. Many come from a culture that is already very unequal, and this is maintained in Sweden by the systems we have and the policies we pursue.

Again: We already have an extremely divided labor market in Sweden today. It is nothing that we should strive for. But I am thinking about whether women still seek out where women work. If I have understood it correctly, it is like this: When one is to undergo training today in, for example, health and social care or study to become a nursing assistant, one can apply for CSN support. But when it comes to male-dominated occupations – the minister mentioned truck drivers or whatever it was – it is included in labor market training. It is therefore a financial advantage. So we cannot have that.

In the report from Sveriges Kvinnoorganisationer, there are many proposals. I can mention some, which the Minister is welcome to comment on. Sveriges Kvinnoorganisationer proposes an integration bonus. Can one have an equality bonus in the parental insurance, perhaps one can have an equality integration bonus. Or one perhaps can simply have compensatory measures until the gap is closed, i.e., larger subsidies for women to get women into labor market policy programs. Or one can simply set sharp goals, as the commission also suggested a number of years ago. 50 percent of the labor market funds shall then go to women and 50 percent shall go to men. It is a mandate that Arbetsförmedlingen has to handle.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Madam Speaker! We touched on a few different things here, but one thing we are doing is that we are currently reviewing the range of measures that Arbetsförmedlingen has in its portfolio. If the member thinks it is difficult to keep track of all the different measures that exist, I can say that even those who work at Arbetsförmedlingen think so. This is one thing to do, but at the same time, every measure that exists has its own background. One cannot, therefore, just remove things and believe that it will not have effects. But it is possible to do more there.

I think the idea of studying SFI and doing some vocational training or an internship at the same time is very good. It is a direction we are working in. We are trying to see what more of such combination courses, as we call them, we can find.

That people come from an unequal culture is a huge challenge here. I am ready to look at all the good ideas, so to speak, but we know how difficult it is to change a culture or the consequence of a cultural affiliation, perhaps one could say.

You said that the report you mentioned shows that it goes more to, so to speak, male-dominated occupations than to female-dominated occupations regarding vocational training for the unemployed. I find that interesting. I would like to look further into that. There might be some aspect concerning, for example, that one can have labor market training when it comes to some male-dominated jobs, for example, training to be a bus driver, because they are shorter than six months. A nursing assistant training is longer than six months. In that case, it falls outside the framework for labor market training. I don't know exactly, but let's ponder and look further into this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that the Minister for Employment says that he is not aware that there is an oversupply of vocational training for men, because it appears in the progress report that the Minister has received from Arbetsförmedlingen. I think it is very strange that he is surprised by what Helena Vilhelmsson says here.

Madam Speaker! We have mass unemployment in Sweden today, while participation in labor market training is at historically low levels. When Arbetsförmedlingen recently reported back to the government as to why the volumes are not increasing, they pointed out two very clear obstacles.

The first is the conflict of objectives that the government itself has created. The authority is to allocate both to Rusta and matcha and to education. Arbetsförmedlingen explicitly writes that Rusta and matcha come first in the assessment chain, which means that job seekers are referred there in the first instance even in cases where labor market training would be more accurate.

The second thing they pointed out is that the instructions for the labor market trainings are personnel-intensive and require resources that the agency completely lacks. It is well known that Arbetsförmedlingen is missing in large parts of the country. It is a systemic error that the government is aware of but allows to persist.

My questions to Johan Britz are therefore: What does the Minister intend to do to resolve the conflict of objectives that Arbetsförmedlingen points out, and what measures does the Minister intend to take to ensure that the lack of local presence and resources no longer prevents job seekers from being assigned to labor market training?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

I do not think there is anyone in here who thinks that Arbetsförmedlingen functions well enough. It is among other reasons why the government has tasked Arbetsförmedlingen with referring more people to regular education. There is also money set aside for labor market training, to which more people should be referred. More people need to attend vocational training in order to be able to take the vacant jobs that exist. The government has also increased Arbetsförmedlingen's administrative grant in the budget that we are discussing right now.

One of the reasons why Arbetsförmedlingen functions poorly is, however, the governance during the previous mandate period and the eagerness for privatization that the Socialdemokraterna and Centerpartiet stood for. It has caused valuable time to be spent on privatizing parts of the operations instead of supporting the unemployed. We are now turning this around. I believe everyone wishes it would go a bit faster, but our direction is, in any case, clear.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Government says that the administrative grant to Arbetsförmedlingen has been increased, but it is a drop in the ocean.

Arbetsförmedlingen was dismantled in 2019 due to the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna budget. After that, Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna entered into a cooperation with Liberalerna and Centerpartiet. I was part of those negotiations, and I must still say that Liberalerna were pushy. Liberalerna wanted to go significantly further with the privatization than what is a fact now. The State Secretary's colleague Gulan Avci was very eager to privatize, so I do not think the State Secretary can shift the blame there.

I think the privatization is unfortunate, but it is still Johan Britz who is the Minister for Employment today. It is Johan Britz who has the power to change things. I experience that the minister is not answering my question. What does the minister intend to do to remove the obstacles that Arbetsförmedlingen points out in its report back to the government?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you again for the discussion.

I believe I was quite clear anyway: The direction in which the government is now steering Arbetsförmedlingen is a direction away from the privatization zeal that prevailed during the previous mandate period. We may not be completely in agreement on everything regarding how Arbetsförmedlingen should be governed, but the government will, of course, gradually return in the usual channels, that is, via regulatory letters and in other ways, to steer in that direction. There I believe we are reasonably in agreement.

We want an employment service that works well for those who need support. I would personally like to see a situation where Arbetsförmedlingen is even better at early identification of persons who run a higher risk of long-term unemployment, and perhaps that is something we can develop in the future. Such work is being done today, but it is possible that it can be done even better. The most important thing, however, is that Arbetsförmedlingen functions, that is, breaks the risk of long-term unemployment.

I do not want people to end up in long-term unemployment, because it is dangerous. It is dangerous for the individual, and it is bad for Sweden. It is bad for our society. There, Arbetsförmedlingen needs to do more, and believe me: We will return with more measures to make Arbetsförmedlingen function better.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! A large part of this debate has been about how we get more people into work. It is crucial both for people and for society that unemployment is pushed back so that more people get the opportunity to contribute, earn their own money, and shape their own future.

If work is to be a part of a better life, it must, however, be a good job with fair conditions and a work environment that holds up. Going to work should never mean that one risks their life or their health. Yet, that is exactly what happens week after week. Research shows that several thousand people every year die prematurely from work-related illnesses and injuries, and already this year, 45 people have lost their lives in workplace accidents on the Swedish labor market. It is not worthy of a modern labor market.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Work Environment Authority's large-scale mapping, The Work Environment 2024, provides a clear picture of the situation. Almost every other person experiences too high a workload. Women are more frequently affected by pain and exhaustion, while young men are more often exposed to heavy lifting, vibrations, and noise. Within construction, warehousing, and transport, safety is lacking. Within hotels and restaurants, there is no time for breaks, and young women are particularly vulnerable to threats, violence, and sexual harassment. At the same time, only half experience that the work environment problems that are raised are addressed.

Madam Speaker! This picture is reinforced in conversations with safety representatives and trade union representatives. The fundamental systematic work environment work is lacking. Risks are not investigated often enough, and action plans and follow-ups are missing. Some employers lack knowledge; others lack will. In some cases, it is about deliberately reducing safety to press costs. This does not only hit the employees but also all serious companies that do the right thing and take their responsibility. When some cheat with safety, an unhealthy competition is created where those who do the right thing are disadvantaged.

Madam Speaker! Laws must be followed, otherwise they lose their power. Therefore, the supervision regarding the working environment is absolutely crucial. The ILO recommends one working environment inspector per 10,000 employed. Our Nordic neighbors already live up to this, but Sweden does not and lags far behind. We Social Democrats therefore propose in our budget alternative an additional 50 million kronor to Arbetsmiljöverket to increase the number of inspectors and strengthen the supervision.

Madam Speaker! Safety representatives are central to the work environment work. They identify deficiencies, demand measures, and can stop work if there is a risk to life and health. The regional safety representatives fulfill a particularly important function at small workplaces that lack their own safety representatives and where the work environment work otherwise often risks falling into the shadows.

The resources for the regional safety representatives have however been eroded over time, which risks reducing their presence at workplaces with great needs. Therefore, in our budget option, we propose a reinforcement of 30 million to the regional safety representatives. We also want them to be able to operate at more workplaces.

Madam Speaker! We want welfare to have enough resources to create better conditions and a sustainable working environment for everyone who works there. In our budget alternative, we therefore strengthen welfare, in contrast to the Sweden Democrats and the government, who underfund municipalities and regions.

Stress and high workload are today among the greatest work environment challenges. Sick leave for mental ill-health has doubled in ten years. When municipalities and regions are forced to cut staff, the burden on those who remain increases.

This becomes painfully clear when Arbetsmiljöverket inspects healthcare. Three out of four workplaces do not meet the requirements of the Work Environment Act. The workload is unsustainable, and measures are not being taken.

Too many who work in the welfare sector experience every day and every week that they do not have enough time to be there for the children, for the elderly, and for the sick. They experience that they do not suffice to comfort a restless child, and that they cannot take the time to talk with the lonely elderly without skipping the break that they so much need. They experience that they do not have time to be compassionate, to explain, and to support relatives and the sick.

Madam Speaker! No one wants those who are to take care of us when we are at our most vulnerable to constantly have to feel that they could have done more if they had only had the time and the energy. As Jonna Bornemark says in the documentary De otätbara: Everything that is truly important cannot be measured. The quality of care does not lie in minutes and schedules but in relationships between people, and those cannot be optimized through efficiency.

If those who carry the welfare are to be able to provide the care and treatment that we expect, we must also give them a reasonable opportunity to manage it without wearing themselves out. They must be able to work full-time throughout their lives until retirement.

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that today we face great challenges in the Swedish labor market, not only in the form of mass unemployment but also in the form of serious deficiencies in the working environment at far too many workplaces. Despite the fact that reports and reviews year after year have clearly described the problems, the government has not taken any decisive initiatives. The capacity for action has been lacking during the Liberals' time at the Ministry of Employment. Despite the fact that the problems are well-documented and despite the fact that there are investigated and completed proposals that could strengthen the working environment, it seems they have no idea what can be done about the problems.

Sharper requirements, more frequent controls, more inspectors, stronger safety representatives, and resources that make it possible to work sustainably are needed. The problems are known. What is missing is the political will to do something about them.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! Labor crime is a poison that has unfortunately spread in Swedish society. It means that people are exploited and suffer greatly. It is a result of the pursuit of greater profits, and it targets people in weaker positions. Labor crime is something that society must combat, and it must do so with force.

Much has been done to combat crime in the workplace, and that is good. The workplace crime centers that the previous Social Democratic government established, and which this government has continued to expand, are important for strengthening the joint work between authorities. However, there are signals that the mission is unclear, that leadership is lacking, and that more must be done for the authorities to cooperate better.

This is extremely important. The work that has been initiated must not go to waste; it would be a betrayal of all those people who are exploited and suffer every day.

Madam Speaker! There is agreement in this chamber that work-life crime must be combated, but unfortunately, we do not always seem to be in complete agreement on how. It is, for example, regrettable that the government chooses to reduce the funds that the parties in the labor market have been able to apply for to combat work-life crime. It is often, if not always, the parties – and not least the trade unions – who know at which workplaces conditions are ignored and people are exploited. Not to take advantage of that power is a mistake.

The delegation against crime in the working life has submitted a number of proposals. It is important that the government proceeds with these, because crime in the working life is, as stated, a poison. Crime in the working life is a result of the increasing pursuit of ever greater profits by unserious companies and unserious employers.

It is money that drives crime in the labor market. Ruthless people exploit people in their pursuit of more money.

Madam Speaker! The idea was perhaps once good – at least it sounded good. Deregulation and the free market would create more prosperity for people. It has certainly done that too, but it is for a few.

In the wake of this highly conscious approach, white-collar crime has spread. In order to get to the bottom of the problem, we must dare to acknowledge what is the root cause. The root cause is an almost fundamentalist blind faith in various deregulations and the superiority of the free market.

Now we stand here with the result. A mobilization must occur, but to cure the disease we must also dare to talk about the root cause itself. It is important that we do not place the blame in the wrong place – that we do not place the blame on, for example, the Polish worker whom I read about in Sydsvenskan the other day. He was found severely hypothermic, walking along the E65 road near Ystad. He had had his passport seized by his boss after five months of illegal work. He had not received a salary. During the last nights before he was found by a police patrol, he had also been forced to sleep outside. He was part of a large network of illegal construction that was revealed after this.

Madam Speaker! This is, of course, only an example of a crime that has spread and continues to spread in Swedish society. Sometimes it takes such forms. Sometimes it takes the form of a young girl in her first job who does not receive her salary, or the form of a young guy who injures himself at work, becomes disabled, and is left to his own economic fate. This is fundamentally a result of the ruthless and brutal pursuit of more profit and more money. It is completely unacceptable.

Workplace crime harms people and is a threat to all the serious employers who want to do the right thing and who want to behave properly. It is also a threat to all workers who want decent wages and tolerable conditions.

Crime in the labor market drives down conditions and leads to wage dumping for all workers across the entire Swedish labor market. It threatens our entire labor market model – the Swedish model that we are so proud of.

We must do everything we can and use all available resources to combat crime in the workplace. We cannot be satisfied with the situation as it is. It is at least not us Social Democrats.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few brief words about the Labour Court.

Approximately 3 million kronor are missing for the Labour Court to be able to avoid significant cuts in its operations. The Labour Court is a fundamental part of the Swedish model, which, as we have said, we are usually so quick to defend and which we are usually proud of in this chamber. The Labour Court simply must be funded.

The Minister has indeed left the chamber, but my appeal to the government and the parties that support the government is one and only one: Solve this, and solve it now!

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 16 December.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)