Labor market policy and unemployment insurance

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report and the rejection of the motions. The Sweden Democrats have a special statement in this report. We will continue the work of developing and driving an effective and sustainable labor market policy, including an enhanced unemployment insurance, in future political collaborations. We will therefore return to these issues in other contexts.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is still struggling with high unemployment, even though it is now decreasing very sharply in its own way. The number of registered persons has decreased by 18.2 percent over the last year, according to the Swedish Worke Employment Agency's own report. People who are registered with the agency now enter jobs faster, while at the same time, employers are having difficulty finding staff with the right qualifications who want and can take a job.

It is particularly long-term unemployment that is the problem. A large proportion of those registered as job seekers with Arbetsförmedlingen unfortunately lack basic or upper secondary education. They also lack other competencies and skills that employers demand today. Unemployment, as well as the risk of being affected by long periods without work, is higher among those who lack completed upper secondary education.

Mr. Speaker! Lack of knowledge in the Swedish language also constitutes a risk of long-term unemployment. It is pleasing that one also sees here a clear effect of the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas measures, as the time for foreign-born individuals to find work has clearly decreased, which can be compared with previous governments' failures. The greatest problem is still in the Social Democrat-governed municipalities; for example, the "model municipality" Malmö stad stands out with an unemployment rate of almost 13 percent despite thousands of vacant jobs, many of which are so-called simple jobs that do not require further education.

Mr. Speaker! There are no shortcuts into the Swedish labor market. Subsidized employment is a clear example of that. As soon as the subsidy ends, the employment is terminated in a majority of cases. Subsidized employment has for decades been the instrument that has been used. It is something that should be reviewed, as they have cost billions with poor results as a consequence. This is also shown by the latest initiative, the so-called establishment jobs. Here, one needs, Mr. Speaker, to take a decisive action and a proper rethink linked to management and purpose. There also lies a great responsibility on the labor market's parties, who have been involved in developing the reform.

Mr. Speaker! Instead of subsidized jobs where the individual has to leave the workplace on the same day the subsidy ends, we in Sverigedemokrater want to see more workplace-based training positions that give the individual the opportunity to gain useful work experience in combination with theoretical studies. We want to create the conditions for the parties to be able to build a Swedish apprenticeship system. Internationally, there are several different successful variants of this.

The possibility of creating a Swedish model for such employments needs to be created based on the conditions that exist in the Swedish labor market. The parties shall be involved in everything from the design of the apprenticeship positions to the selection of candidates. An apprenticeship employment shall not be limited to any specific category of job seekers but shall be guided by needs and opportunities to acquire the training.

Mr. Speaker! We have long advocated for a fee-free state fund financed solidarily via the tax slip. Already today, the fund is largely financed by tax revenues, which means that everyone who is employed already contributes to the system. In that case, it is only right that they also get to share in it in the event of unemployment.

The new unemployment insurance is based on income instead of hours worked. It is a step in the right direction. It reduces the administration for the individual and guarantees correct payments, as the income data is retrieved from Skatteverket. The risk of fraud is minimized, which is one of the major gains with the income-based unemployment insurance. But much can still be done, and we will continue to work to improve the unemployment insurance. We are not averse to reviewing and adjusting parts of the existing proposal.

Mr. Speaker! It is very interesting with the proposal for a committee initiative that the Social Democrats have chosen to submit in the committee. We thought that it would be broad and contain various proposals for changes in the paragraphs, for example, the paragraph that is linked to the trade unions' supplementary insurance. It is an issue that we would have gladly discussed. But, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is raised is the reduced tapering during days 100–200, the period when most return to work. Otherwise, the reform is not mentioned with a single syllable, despite the loud criticism against the reform in its entirety.

This shows, Mr. Speaker, that it is only about pure, contentless poster politics and a cynical game. One struggles to get across that unemployment is increasing when everything points to the opposite, solely to keep the conflict alive. Shall we be honest, Mr. Speaker, the Social Democrats agree with the Sweden Democrats and the government in this chamber on most issues. But one searches with a lantern to find conflict. That is why one tries to keep unemployment alive. One does not even manage that, however.

What does this mean then, Mr. Speaker? As said, the Social Democrats want to show outwardly that they have a conflict with the government. At the same time, they know that it will be difficult to negotiate the issue with the parties they have been clear about wanting to govern with after the election. The Social Democrats' spokesperson on labor market policy was very clear in an interview with one of our largest evening newspapers. His dream is that the Social Democrats should govern with the Moderaterna, preferably with the support of the Centerpartiet, the party that wants to cut the unemployment insurance the most. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet want the opposite but consider themselves to be part of Shekarabis and Andersson's government base.

Mr. Speaker! The questions are very many, and it is beginning to be time for the Social Democrats to tell the voters what the party actually wants. If the Social Democrats do not want to say anything, we will remind them of it every single day until the election.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Persson, for the speech!

I would like to move Magnus Persson from the political game and the support for the Moderates' labor market policy to the reality that the unemployed have right now because of Magnus Persson's and the Sverigedemokraternas policy.

The allowance was lowered. Already after 100 days of unemployment, the replacement level is lowered to 70 percent. A cap is also set on the income insurance. It affects ordinary people, real people. This is not about political games, Mr. Speaker.

It is people who are having difficulty paying the rent. It is construction workers who are unable to manage their finances because of the unemployment caused by the policy pursued by the government and the Sverigedemokraterna.

This happens despite the fact that Magnus Persson and Jimmie Åkesson so clearly stood in the election campaign and said: We will not lower the cash register. Jimmie Åkesson did not stop there, Mr. Speaker. He said: If the Moderates lower the cash register, we intend to leave the cooperation.

Now the allowance was lowered on October 1. After 100 days of unemployment, the compensation level is lowered to 70 percent. Even the private income insurances that people have taken out become worthless.

The people who receive that reduction feel it. For them, it is not a game. It is not any political poster politics. For them, it is real changes that involve deteriorations of the economy.

I now pose the question to Magnus Persson: When do the Sweden Democrats intend to stand up for their promise not to lower the sickness benefit? Do the Sweden Democrats intend to reverse the reduction of the sickness benefit, which means that Sweden now has among the worst replacement levels in all comparable countries?

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know what to compare Ardalan Shekarabi with. It is the same mantra all the time. It reminds me a bit of the hackspette in Kalle Anka's Christmas on TV on Christmas Eve: Arapapapapapapapapapapapapadia! There is nothing new in the debate.

I say it for the thousandth time. Sverigedemokraterna went to the election on a promise to raise the ceiling in the cash register and raise the minimum level, and that is what we have done. We raised the ceiling, and we raised the minimum level. That was something the Socialdemokraterna had not done in 20 years. We went to the election on the basis that it would be financed with an increased tapering. It is no secret. I have said that all the time.

Mr. Speaker! What is very interesting is that Ardalan Shekarabi stands here and preaches about the income insurance and so on. It was not mentioned with a single syllable, Mr. Speaker, in the committee initiative that was placed on the table in the Committee on Employment.

The only thing that was raised in that initiative was that they wanted to slow down the tapering from day 100 to 200. It is the period where most people enter employment after having been on benefits. It is very remarkable.

If these questions had been as important to Ardalan Shekarabi as he stands here and claims they are, one would have submitted a broad committee initiative that addressed the entire reform. But that was not done. One submitted a watered-down version solely to conduct, as I have said all along, pure placard politics on this issue.

If one is to be truly honest, Ardalan Shekarabi disregards the unemployed in the long run. For him, power is more important, and in that case, it is a matter of keeping all doors open. This is clearly demonstrated by the committee initiative that was submitted in the Committee on Employment.

(Applause)

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Mr. Speaker! In psychology, there is talk of projection. One has a guilty conscience because one has betrayed the people who voted for them. One has betrayed the promise given to those people: We will not lower your taxes.

Then you walk around with a guilty conscience, knowing that it is what you have done to retain power. It is what you have done to have this government base and let Ulf Kristersson be the Prime Minister. Then you attack the Social Democrats. We voted against the reduction of the AKAs.

I am giving Magnus Persson a new chance. I will be stubborn. It is nothing compared to in Kalle Anka's Christmas. I will be even more stubborn. This concerns ordinary people's economic security.

Does Magnus Persson understand that the reduction of the tax credit from 80 to 70 percent already after 100 days affects ordinary people? This also applies to a considerable number of people who voted for Magnus Persson because of the promise that the Sverigedemokraterna gave them.

Does Magnus Persson understand that it is impossible to live on the new levels that the activity support entails for long-term unemployed elderly people? Does Magnus Persson understand that?

If the answer to that question is yes: What do Magnus Persson and the Sverigedemokraterna intend to do to undo the reduction and deterioration of the welfare that the Sverigedemokraterna have just implemented?

What measures do Magnus Persson and the Sverigedemokraterna intend to take? Are you waiting for us from the Socialdemokraterna to present a new proposal, a new committee initiative, or will you take responsibility for the promise you gave to the Sverigedemokratiska voters before the 2022 election?

(Applause)

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I understand how it feels, Ardalan Shekarabi. Unlike Ardalan Shekarabi, I have had to live a period of poverty in my life when I was laid off as a construction worker. That is somewhat the difference between us, Ardalan Shekarabi.

I have a grounding in the labor movement and in the world of work among ordinary wage earners. Ardalan Shekarabi does not. You have never had a real job. You do not know what it is like to be unemployed. You have never felt it. You have never had that knot in your stomach with a mortgage, having just had a child, and having lost your job. But I have. Do not stand here and lecture me on those issues, because you have absolutely nothing to contribute there.

I think we have done a good job with the [labor] market. We see now that more people are entering the workforce despite the recession. More foreign-born people are entering the workforce. It is something that the Social Democrats have completely failed at, even though the large immigration that they pushed through from 2015 onwards is the biggest reason why we have the situation on the Swedish labor market that we have today.

The proposals that we have pushed through with the government are yielding results. We now see clearly that the number of people registered at Arbetsförmedlingen is decreasing. We will soon be down to the same levels among Swedish-born unemployed as Ardalan Shekarabi and his supporting parties had during a boom. It will be interesting to see what he will contribute to the debate going forward.

I am satisfied with the work we have done. We want to continue working and make it even better. It is about getting people into employment and into work and not getting people into benefits. There is a work line, and there is a benefit line.

Here, one can clearly hear that the Social Democrats prefer the benefit line over the work line. The voter group of Swedish wage earners and Swedish workers has been abandoned for a long time. It is clearly noticeable in the degree of organization within trade unions and so on, where fewer and fewer people choose to organize themselves due to the Social Democrats' policy.

(Applause)

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Mr. Speaker, honorable members of the Riksdag and honorable citizens!

Yesterday, new statistics from Statistics Sweden were released, compiling the statistics for unemployment during 2025. It is a dreadful reading. Unemployment also increased during 2025 just as it did during 2024 and 2023. Now we have three years behind us with growing unemployment.

Unemployment increased by 30,000 people during 2025 compared to 2024. It is truly remarkable given that it is not quite the trend one sees in other comparable countries, with the exception of Finland. It is Sweden and Finland that are the sick children among the welfare countries in Europe.

They are countries that, through an active policy, have worsened the conditions for jobs and growth and at the same time made decisions to worsen the economic security for those affected by unemployment. It can be a deliberate policy to lower wages. If one increases unemployment and lowers the allowance, one reduces the possibility for people to receive wage increases in the future.

Lower the taxes and accept a record-high unemployment, and you hinder the possibility for trade unions to negotiate wage increases in the coming years. What happens affects many wage earners.

Mr. Speaker! Unemployment is not just a problem for those who become unemployed. Unemployment is a problem for all of us. It is a fact that we now have the third highest unemployment in the European Union. It is a fact that 100,000 more people have become unemployed since Ulf Kristersson became Prime Minister.

It means that there will be less money for welfare. It also means that we will have poorer conditions to finance school, healthcare, elderly care and the investments that are needed for our society to grow and for Sweden to be able to be a country with prosperity and welfare also in the future.

Jobs and unemployment is an issue that belongs to all of us and affects all of us. The policy that has been pursued during this mandate period has led to the fact that we now have three years behind us with increased unemployment. That policy is not sufficient. We have the most passive Minister for Employment we have had in modern times in Sweden. At least that is happening at the Ministry of Employment. The Minister for Employment is not on the speaking list, and not even the party that the Minister for Employment belongs to is included.

Ulf Kristersson has thus handed over the labor market issues to a party, the Liberals, which severely mismanages labor market policy and which has not even managed to have any long-term perspective in the management of labor market policy. We are now on the third labor market minister this mandate period, and we see the result – unfortunately.

I wish I could stand here today and see that we have a good position and favorable conditions. I wish I could stand here and say what Magnus Persson said earlier in the rostrum – that there is some kind of satisfaction with the development. But I am not satisfied when unemployment is the third highest in the European Union. I am not satisfied when 100,000 more people have become unemployed during the last three years. I am absolutely not satisfied that, among others, the new groups that are now affected by unemployment – construction workers, architects and other groups who were not in unemployment before this economic trend started – now have their benefits reduced in the midst of this situation.

Instead of pursuing an active labor policy with a focus on entrepreneurship, education, and growth, the Sweden Democrats and the government are stepping in and lowering the unemployment benefit and worsening the economic security for those affected by unemployment. One might still think they would stop there, but they do not. They also make private income insurance policies taken out through trade unions worthless and set a cap on those as well.

In practice, this means that people who have paid their premiums and their fees to the private income insurance and who have done the right thing and worked but have become unemployed are hit by an economic shock. Imagine that someone's house is on fire, and the person who owns the house has done the right thing and paid their home insurance. But in the middle of the fire, the insurance company gets in touch and says: We will not do anything about the fire, and we are worsening the terms for your home insurance.

It is precisely this that the Sweden Democrats and the government have done with unemployment and the unemployed during these years. It is noticeable in this month's payment for those people who had the misfortune of being affected by unemployment in the month of October.

Mr. Speaker! It is time for a different policy with a focus on jobs, growth, education, entrepreneurship, and full employment – that which has made Sweden what it is. The focus must be on everyone being included and contributing. Everyone who can should work. We must have that goal before us when we make political decisions regarding the jobs policy and the education policy. Those who nevertheless are affected by unemployment shall have economic security. One should not have to sell one's home and one's car when one becomes unemployed, but there must be a fund that enables transition and economic security.

Against that background, I move for approval of reservation 12 of the Socialdemokraterna.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ardalan Shekarabi, for the speech! It is the same thing we have heard all the time, but, Mr. Speaker, we are going to sort out this number juggling.

Ardalan Shekarabi raised SCB's figures in January. One must be clear that unemployment always increases in January regardless of whether it is a boom or a recession. Now we have a very deep recession, even though it is heading in the right direction.

The figures in January are due to temporary jobs during the autumn coming to an end. I took the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to print out figures from Arbetsförmedlingen and other sources, including SCB. Temporary employment within trade, logistics, hotels and restaurants before Christmas and New Year, for example, ends in January. We see seasonally reduced activity in many industries, including construction and tourism. The construction industry is very weather-dependent; I know that from my own experience as a construction worker. The companies always lay off workers in the autumn and winter, because it is known that the order intake decreases. Then they start working again in March April. The training sessions pause, which causes some hourly employees to disappear from employment.

Arbetsförmedlingen is very clear about this and describes that January is the month when one has the highest number of registered unemployed, regardless of the economic cycle, while May is the month when the number is most often lowest.

One is welcome to keep tinkering with the figures as one likes here to make it sound like everything is miserable. I am absolutely not satisfied, but I still pose the question to Ardalan Shekarabi: How does he view the budget if he is to govern with M and C?

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Mr. Speaker and Magnus Persson! I believe Magnus Persson misheard. I did not refer to the figures for January, but to what Statistics Sweden presented yesterday, which concerned the compilation for 2025. There, Statistics Sweden stated that unemployment increased for the third year in a row and that it increased by 30,000 people between 2024 and 2025.

We are also happy to discuss other figures for this year, and I really hope that unemployment falls. It will most likely do so as well, but Sweden will continue to have very high levels and be among the countries in the European Union with the highest unemployment. It would be remarkable if we had a fourth year with even higher unemployment. That must not happen, and that is what I really hope for.

The housing crisis is an important issue for us. The Social Democrats are a party that was formed by trade unions in 1889, and our purpose is to ensure that we get a society that is equal and secure also for wage earners. Therefore, we will always focus on the goal of full employment. We shall fight unemployment and have an active labor market policy to do this, and we shall also have economic security for those who are affected by unemployment.

The unemployment insurance is an important part of the Swedish model. It does not only affect those who are hit by unemployment, but it is also about creating conditions for wage increases for those who work, within the framework of the Swedish model's negotiations. If we did not have economic security in the event of unemployment, wages would be pressed down, and the unemployment insurance therefore also has this effect on our labor market.

The unemployment insurance will therefore be a priority issue, and it has always been for us. I promise Magnus Persson that we will do what we can to undo the deteriorations that the Sverigedemokraterna have just implemented for Sweden's wage earners and entrepreneurs.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I unfortunately have to correct Ardalan Shekarabi once again regarding his figures. I have also printed out the statistics from Arbetsförmedlingen which show how it looked in 2025 linked to how it looked in 2024. It shows very clearly that in 2025, 23,000 more people went to a job and 4,000 more people went to studies compared to 2024.

The Swedish Public Employment Service's report is very clear, and it is hardly an authority that we should doubt, Mr. Speaker. It is well-established and usually visits the committee every year to present its reports. The report clearly shows that the number of people who got a job compared to the number who were registered in the employment service increased by 18.2 percent in 2024.

Mr. Speaker! You must stop this number-juggling, Ardalan Shekarabi. It might convince your own party strategists and election workers, but you are trying to deceive the Swedish people.

Even though it is going slowly, it is going in the right direction. For those born abroad, for example, unemployment has decreased by almost 4 percent from 2024 to 2025. It concerns those who have obtained a job from having been long-term unemployed. It is therefore going in the right direction, regardless of what Ardalan Shekarabi says here in the rostrum.

The question remains, Mr. Speaker: What is Ardalan Shekarabi's dream government? Is it to govern with the Moderaterna and Centerpartiet, who want to weaken the a-kassa even further, or is it to govern with the Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, who want to raise the a-kassa significantly? I think that Ardalan Shekarabi owes the voters an answer.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must correct Magnus Persson again. I have not said that it is a negative trend during 2026. I truly hope that we do not get another year where unemployment grows. I hope that this will be a year where unemployment begins to fall. But even if it does, it will continue to remain at high levels, according to the government's own forecasts.

The statistics I am referring to are on the Swedish Statistics Bureau's website. That was the presentation yesterday. Magnus Persson should also check there and take in all the figures, not just those that favor his narrative. We have a reality. People out there do not relate to Magnus Persson's or my narrative; they relate to reality. Do they have a salary or not? Do they have work or not? Do they have a savings account they can live on or not?

The development here has been catastrophic over the last three years. Magnus Persson must also see this. It is surely not reasonable that Sweden has the third highest unemployment in the European Union? It is surely not reasonable that we today have 100,000 more people who are unemployed than when Ulf Kristersson became Prime Minister? It is surely not reasonable that masses of new groups are affected by unemployment? Groups that were established on the labor market are now entering unemployment. It is surely not a good development for our country?

Regardless of whether one is a Sverigedemokrat, socialdemokrat, or moderat, one should be able to acknowledge that this is bad both for the country and for the people. Then politics must take its responsibility.

Magnus Persson cannot reasonably think that the Minister for Employment and the department have done a good job during this mandate period. We have half a million people who are unemployed. It is 6,000 people monthly who are in labor market trainings that lead to jobs. How can it be so bad? How can it be so bad in the management of the labor market policy that we cannot even use the resources that the Riksdag has given to Arbetsförmedlingen so that they can train people?

(Applause)

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! Ardalan Shekarabi speaks about the need for a new policy, after having devoted a large part of his speech to explaining how it should pay more to not work.

When the Social Democrats last governed Sweden, they went to the election with the goal of having Europe's lowest unemployment. Some way into their time in government, they left that goal behind because they completely lacked the reforms to reach it.

When we took office, the Social Democratic government had left behind a situation with high inflation, a declining economy, and eight years without structural reforms in the labor market that could have improved the situation regarding reducing unemployment.

Now the Social Democrats say they have a new plan. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, one must ensure that the social safety net, the compensation for those who do not work, is increased. It is not a surprising promise from the Social Democrats. Then one promises a new policy. I felt hope in the bench when Ardalan Shekarabi began to speak about the need for a new policy – but then the speech was over.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I intended to give Ardalan Shekarabi the opportunity to explain what the new policy to combat unemployment is, beyond the proposal to increase the allowance. This we know, based on how the labor market functions, will structurally lead to more unemployed.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Oliver Rosengren for the question.

I have great respect for Oliver Rosengren's knowledge. I also want to emphasize here that the unemployment insurance is an insurance. It is taken out by the individual employee or entrepreneur and is financed partly with the fees. There are requirements for work in order to, at a later stage, if one is affected by unemployment, be entitled to benefits.

Oliver Rosengren knows all of this. Oliver Rosengren would never dream of standing here and judging home insurance or household insurance. Not even health insurance would Oliver Rosengren judge. But there is always disparaging talk about the unemployment insurance fund (a-kassan).

Who knows – one day I or Oliver Rosengren could be hit by unemployment and become dependent on the unemployment benefit. Unlike what Magnus Persson said earlier, I have actually had unemployment benefits during a period when I was hit by unemployment between the notary service and the job I subsequently got, and I am very happy that it was an unemployment benefit that I could pay the rent with. If the rent were not to be paid because I cannot manage to live on my unemployment benefit, that is bad for me, but it is also bad for the whole society. Oliver Rosengren should take that in and not let the ideological moderate blinkers stand in the way of realizing that the unemployment benefit is an important part of our model for living and organizing society.

The Social Democrats have plenty of ideas on how unemployment could be combated more effectively. The most important thing is actually to turn to the business sector. Two weeks ago, I sat for a full day with Transportföretagen: Which training programs would they want the Arbetsförmedlingen to procure and have the unemployed attend?

There are a huge number of good ideas from Transportföretagen, Visita and many other industry organizations regarding training that leads to jobs. The problem is that there are only 6,000 people, Oliver Rosengren, who are in labor market training due to the failure at the Ministry of Employment.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is not quite clear what the Social Democratic agenda for combating unemployment actually looks like. A large part of this speech is also devoted to explaining how the compensation for those who do not work shall be increased and why it should be done.

A-kassan is not an insurance. A-kassan is a transfer with insurance elements, absolutely. The fee one pays for the unemployment insurance finances the administration of the insurance, not the compensation. The compensation in A-kassan is financed by the taxpayers, regardless of whether one is a member of A-kassan or not.

That is not how any other insurance works. Had the akassa been an insurance, the entire akassa would have been funded by the collective that the members of the akassa constitute, and that is not the case. Therefore, there is still a point in keeping one's tongue somewhat in check when it comes to the construction of the akassa.

It seems that Ardalan Shekarabi and the Social Democrats believe that if one visits some industry organizations and asks them which educations are needed, everything will be resolved. If one increases from 6,000 to a few thousand more in labor market training, everything will also be resolved.

The Social Democrats often forget the major expansion of vocational adult education that we have carried out during the mandate period. Here, the big problem is not a lack of resources, which both Arbetsförmedlingen and several other agencies state. The problem is that there are people missing who participate in the training. On average, every third place has stood empty since 2017. What did the Social Democrats do about it? Nothing, because they are terrified of setting clearer requirements that those who are without work must make an effort to become employable and get into work.

One would have wished that the Social Democrats had learned the lesson from eight years of lack of demands and lack of reforms and now come with a political program where they had reconsidered their lax policy and instead moved forward with new reforms that could truly address the problems. But unfortunately, that is lacking, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Mr. Speaker! There was a time when the Moderates liked to work with and talk about jobs, growth, entrepreneurship, and education. There was a time when the Moderates prioritized issues concerning the economy, the jobs, and actually listening to the business community and ensuring that the education system delivers the skills that are in demand in the business community.

It is however no longer a focus on such things. Now the Moderaterna have been transformed into some kind of delivery machine for the Sverigedemokraterna – though not in issues concerning the cash, demonstrably.

It is time to focus on jobs and growth. In that case, there is nothing wrong with sitting down with industry organizations and the business community and asking them which educations they are requesting. How could the transport industry contribute to fewer unemployed people and at the same time manage its own competence supply?

The problem is that this government does not do such a thing. The problem is that Ulf Kristersson placed this large, important area in the hands of liberals who unfortunately show total incompetence. Therefore, we have three lost years when it comes to unemployment. Therefore, we have three years behind us with growing unemployment. Therefore, we have the third highest unemployment in the European Union.

This mandate period is a lost mandate period in terms of jobs and growth. But I truly hope that the next mandate period will be something else. I hope that we once again focus on full employment and on working together with the business sector to combat unemployment and so that our companies can manage the skills supply so that our country's economy grows again in a way that benefits everyone in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! Unemployment is too high. Sweden has far too many people who are not getting what they deserve.

Our economy shall always be open to those who want to participate and make an effort. But Sweden is also built on the idea that work is not just something one does if one feels like it. It is a duty and an obligation that we have towards our community. We need to help each other. We need to pitch in. One must know, Mr. Speaker, that this country has risen from difficulties by us working and striving together, in solidarity, side by side.

The restoration of the work line is this mandate period's most important project. When the government took office, inflation was high, the economy was sluggish, and growth was at Europe's bottom levels. Three plus one and one plus three both become four. There, the order does not matter. But in economic policy, it is a bit more like when one gets dressed in the morning. It matters whether one starts with the socks or with the shoes. We, Mr. Speaker, had to start by combating the high inflation in order to then be able to ensure that we tackled the sluggish economy.

What do we see now? Yes, six months in a row with falling unemployment. We see a growth that has risen from the bottom of the barrel in the EU to the top league in the forecasts for 2026. Historical investments are being made in infrastructure and record-breaking initiatives in research. The defense is being upgraded to both secure the border and put people to work.

Mr. Speaker! The government's policy ensures that the economy turns upwards. But for the Moderates, labor market policy is not primarily about stabilization. It is not primarily about smoothing out economic cycles. It is about fundamentally changing Sweden and our economy so that it functions better. That is why the reform at the center of this debate is so important.

The reform of the unemployment insurance fund structurally improves our economy and the functioning of our labor market. Swedish and international research clarifies how an unemployment benefit should be constructed to become optimal. It must balance between two important goals. One goal is to ensure economic security and the opportunity for people to take the right job when they have become unemployed. The other is to ensure that people have short periods of unemployment. After a period, it is more important that one takes a job than the right job. It is more important that one works than that one allows oneself to be supported by others.

The A-kassa should be designed so that it decreases over time in order to strengthen the incentives throughout the entire period of unemployment. Data shows that job-seeking activity increases before a tapering off because people know that it is extra important to make an effort to seek work as the compensation will soon decrease. That is how reality and people's behavior turn out.

Mr. Speaker! The sharpened tapering of unemployment benefits is an important part of the restoration of the work principle. But that is not all in this reform. It also involves a shift to an income-based unemployment insurance. It reduces the risk of fraud and errors, and it reduces the bureaucracy for both employers, the unemployed, and the unemployment insurance funds.

Mr. Speaker! Perhaps the most important part of this reform is easily forgotten. It is that the activity support now also contains drivers for work through tapering, clear requirements and expectations. A reduction is made of 5 percent per 100 days down to a floor – which we have also raised, in contrast to what the Social Democrats did when they governed Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates, of course, want more. When it comes to jobs, we always want more. Therefore, we have made decisions on a new economic policy, where we move forward with clear reforms to reduce unemployment. Sweden needs to move away from today's situation where the unemployed fall between the cracks and the costs are on the shoulders of the municipalities. We want a unified function that assesses work capacity and gives instructions to the authority that will then be responsible for which activities are needed.

We have proposed that a new state unemployment benefit be established, based on the activity support, which can replace the social assistance paid out to many who are currently unemployed. Half of all those who receive social assistance do so for reasons of unemployment, even though social assistance is a particularly unsuitable benefit if one has the capacity to work because the marginal effects are one hundred percent. Therefore, we have instead proposed that everyone who has unemployment as a barrier to subsistence shall receive an unemployment benefit based on the activity support.

We have proposed that the housing allowance should be reformed, that a series of different reforms of the measures should be made, and that vocational training should be consolidated into a new national vocational training where yrkesvux, labor market training, and piloten are merged with NY so that the resources existing in the system can truly be put to work.

The Social Democrats described that the volumes of labor market training do not reach high enough. I described that the resources within vocational adult education are not being put to work; every third fully funded place stands empty. We must get this right. We must ensure that the person who is unemployed because they lack education trains for work.

Mr. Speaker! The situation on the Swedish labor market is a result of far too many years with far too few reforms. The resources exist, but the reforms must also be put in place. We do not intend to give up until we have full employment. We do not intend to give up until everyone who can work is working and everyone can live on their wage.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude with a few relationship tips for the Social Democrats and Ardalan Shekarabi. Last week, Ardalan Shekarabi said in a podcast that his dream government was with the Moderaterna. I know the Moderaterna relatively well. We have had a close relationship for perhaps 17 years. I therefore know a few things about the Moderaterna that I intended to take the opportunity to share as advice, tips, or recommendations following that love letter or that question-chance note, as one might describe it as.

The Moderates as a party would like to have a common idea with their partner. We would like to have a common project. We would like to be moving in some kind of common direction. We have therefore found a group that we see we can make a big difference for Sweden with and have written the Tidö Agreement. Down with immigration! Up with growth! Down with the shootings! We want shorter healthcare queues, new nuclear power and an upgraded defense. It is also the case that we have gotten our partners to agree to something that we actually didn't think they would agree to. One must still say that is relatively successful. We knew they were a bit skeptical about our view on the unemployment insurance fund, but that reform is now in place.

In a successful relationship, one learns from each other. But what do the Social Democrats do? Well, they say that they would like to govern together with us. The following week, however, they hold a press conference and launch a frontal attack against the akasse reform. It is as if they do not understand that for the Moderates, it is the content of the policy that determines the relationship. The Social Democrats do not seem to understand that it might not be a good idea to attack one of the most important reforms that the party they want to govern together with has implemented. But I feel a bit sorry for the Social Democrats, who are going to try to get Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet to form a government base. In that case, it is clear that one can become a bit desperate.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Oliver Rosengren, for the speech!

I want to congratulate Oliver Rosengren and the Moderaterna for succeeding in getting your policy through. However, I think that policy is directly harmful to the country's wage earners and entrepreneurs. But you think otherwise and believe in lowered unemployment insurance, which you have been honest about. Oliver Rosengren has participated in debates and actively fought for the unemployment insurance to be "structurally reformed," that is to say, lowered.

Jimmie Åkesson and the Sverigedemokraterna, however, promised most solemnly that they would never agree to lower the a-kassa. It was a very clear promise during the election campaign. ”If they lower the a-kassa, I will leave the cooperation,” said Jimmie Åkesson. But then he sent a greeting to the Moderaterna when they had their meeting where he said: ”Now I am going to go and debate your damned a-kassa reform.” He had, after all, voted for the reduction of the a-kassa.

I want to give Oliver Rosengren a chance to explain to all of us and to me why it is good that the unemployment insurance is lowered from 80 to 70 percent already after 100 days of unemployment when we know that a large part of the unemployment is due to the economic cycle. It is not that people do not want to work or have jobs, but the economic cycle has resulted in fewer jobs. Why is it then good to lower the unemployment insurance and the income insurance from 80 to 70 percent already after 100 days of unemployment? Why is it good that the person who became unemployed on October 1st receives a reduction to 70 percent in the payment that arrives now?

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has for years been built by people who set their clocks in the morning and look out the window and see that it is pouring rain, but still get on their bicycles to their grueling jobs in home care. We have students who sit down with complicated linear algebra to get through the engineering program, invent a new screw, and start a new ABB. But for the Social Democrats, there is always a voice for, above all, those who do not work.

We have decided to be the voice in Swedish politics that never gives up on those who work. In every single situation where we have the opportunity to prioritize, we shall choose the one who constantly works and strives. We shall prioritize the one who sets the alarm and gets up, drives the children, works a little overtime, or takes an extra shift to shorten the healthcare queues. It is their side we shall stand on.

That is why we are lowering the tax on work. The difference between working and not working shall become greater. We believe it is fair that it pays more to work.

Mr. Speaker! An unemployment insurance that is designed in such a way that the compensation is tapered over time leads to increased job-seeking activity. A very well-established correlation in the labor market is that if one applies for more jobs, the probability of getting a job increases. We have designed the a-kassa in this way because it is more efficient but above all because it is also more fair.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it is important that we have the humility to realize that even those who work can become unemployed. Even I and Oliver Rosengren can be affected by unemployment. The question then is: Should one, in that case, have a financial security or not?

Due to the government's incorrect policy, which has been pursued for three years, construction workers, architects, and many different groups – new groups – are now being affected by unemployment. This policy has caused unemployment to increase by 100,000. They need an active labor market and job policy and growth to get the chance to work, but also economic security so that they can pay the rent.

Is it reasonable to lower their compensation level to 70 percent already after 100 days? We know that many are not able to find a new job within 100 days in this economic climate and in this situation. Is it reasonable to force people to sell cars, homes, and other assets just because there is a theoretical desire to have as poor an a-kasseersättning as possible?

Should we not focus on helping people into work and ensuring that they have economic security during the period when they are unemployed? Is the Fiscal Policy Council's analysis not correct, that is to say, that what is required right now is not lowered unemployment insurance and poorer security, but educational initiatives that ensure that the unemployed obtain the skills that are in demand by employers?

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it is right to carry out the reform that we have implemented, because it improves the functioning of the labor market. Politics is unfortunately not always about being able to give every person exactly the news she hopes for at that exact moment. Without politics, leadership is about standing by the fact that the medicine is sometimes bitter but that it is needed to solve the problem. So it is in this case.

An unemployment insurance fund that is phased out is, of course, not something that those who are unemployed at that very moment perceive as what they desire, but it is what is needed to solve the problem.

Politics is, ultimately, Mr. Speaker, a matter of prioritization. For the Social Democrats, the priority always lies with those who do not work. For the Moderates, the priority lies with those who work.

One does not need to strain very much, even though we like to strain ourselves, to find out that it is true. One can read about it in the Social Democrats' budget: The care day shall be abolished. The A-kassa reform shall be torn up. This costs money. One needs to decide whether one thinks these kronor should go to those who work or to those who do not work.

The Social Democrats have decided to place the emphasis in their economic initiatives on those who do not work. The Moderates have decided to place the emphasis in their economic initiatives on those who work. This is perhaps the most important difference in Swedish politics.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Social Democrats are jealous of us. They are going to put together a political government where Nooshi Dadgostar wants to be Finance Minister, where Daniel Helldén has demanded that there should be no new nuclear power, otherwise the Green Party will not join, and where the Center Party wants to cut even more in the a-kassa and tear up the Swedish model. I understand that one becomes a bit jealous if one is a Social Democrat, and I must say that I sympathize with you for that.

(Applause)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is currently in a very serious labor market situation. Unemployment is becoming entrenched. Households are being pressured by skyrocketing prices. What does the government do then? It dismantles the entire labor market policy and weakens the unemployment insurance.

Let me be clear: Unemployment is not an individual failing. It is a socio-economic and political failure. Labor market policy should therefore reasonably not be designed to cast suspicion on people, but rather to equip them, strengthen them, and create real jobs with secure conditions.

For Vänsterpartiet, the starting point is clear. The labor market policy shall be solidarily financed, be legally secure, and be equal across the entire country.

Today we unfortunately see the opposite of this. Arbetsförmedlingen has been dismantled, privatized and fragmented. The result is some kind of patchwork of actors of varying quality with very lacking control.

The Left Party's position is that the largest part of the mediation activities should return to public management without a profit motive. Matching should reasonably be a core task for the state and not a market where tax funds become a business model. Equivalent support must also be guaranteed regardless of where one lives in the country.

The authority must, of course, be rebuilt with its own competence, with a local presence and with the ability to provide individual support. It is an investment in employment, productivity, and cohesion.

Mr. Speaker! This government's line is based on the notion that stricter requirements and economic pressure create stronger incentives for work. But what it does in reality is increase vulnerability without improving the matching on the labor market, because when people are forced to accept any job – regardless of conditions, education level, or health – wages and working conditions are also pushed downwards.

Sanctions, activity requirements, and suspensions hit hardest those who are already furthest from the labor market. These are people with disabilities, lacking language skills, or poor health. Incentives based on insecurity do not create more jobs, but a more unequal and very segregated working life.

The A-kassan has been eroded for a long time, and the replacement levels lie far below the actual incomes of many wage earners. The ceiling lags behind. The qualification requirements have been tightened. For more and more people, unemployment means an abrupt and dramatic loss of income. This is happening at a time when households are already very heavily pressured. Food prices have risen sharply, housing costs have increased. Electricity prices, fuel costs, and interest rates have gone up and eaten up all margins.

For many families, the finances are already strained when the salary arrives. When it is suddenly replaced by an unemployment benefit that does not cover the fixed expenses, yes, then the entire everyday economy collapses.

This is not about any small adjustments. It is about people who are forced to empty their savings, sell their cars, cancel their children's extracurricular activities, or in the worst cases, turn to social services. An unemployment insurance fund that is not livable is transformed from a transition insurance into a poverty trap.

Mr. Speaker! Even if the government has wanted to turn a blind eye to the social consequences for these people, one could at least see the socio-economic effects? When hundreds of households experience reduced purchasing power, our entire economy is affected. Demand in trade decreases. Local companies lose turnover. Unemployment risks becoming entrenched.

What is so good about a functioning unemployment insurance is that it is a stabilizer. It dampens economic cycles by maintaining consumption and thereby also employment. To deliberately weaken the stabilizer in a situation with high inflation or an uncertain economy is not a responsible economic policy.

Furthermore, a weak unemployment insurance also affects wage formation. When people do not have financial security, the balance of power across the entire labor market shifts. More people are forced to accept worse conditions and lower wages, which naturally also drives insecurity and, in the long run, risks undermining the entire Swedish model.

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party wants to strengthen the unemployment insurance fund, raise the replacement levels, improve accessibility, and reduce the gap between previous income and unemployment insurance benefits.

Mr. Speaker! Let me tell the government: Security is not the opposite of the work line. Security is a prerequisite for people to dare to change jobs, further their education, and seek jobs that actually correspond to their competence.

We also need a review of today's employment support. The number of support forms should be reduced, the rules simplified, and the accuracy increased. Subsidized employments are very good and should be a way in. But they must not be a permanent low-cost sector in companies.

Unemployment is not evenly distributed. It is higher among foreign-born people, among people with shorter education, and in certain regions. It is higher among people with disabilities. This requires targeted measures but also a strong national responsibility.

In conclusion: Labor market policy is ultimately about power and about security. It is about people having power over their livelihood and security to cover the bills when life takes an unexpected turn.

When the safety nets are weakened, inequality increases. This is not only morally problematic, but it is also economically very inefficient.

Vänsterpartiet chooses a different path. We want to see a strong public employment service and an unemployment insurance that is livable when prices rise. We want to see investments that create jobs across the entire country. That is the only way we can build a robust labor market and a strong social economy – not by making the unemployed poorer, but by making society richer.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Unemployment has increased in recent years. It is about young people who have left upper secondary school without complete grades and about newcomers who want to work but do not yet fully master the language. It is about experienced industrial workers whose jobs disappeared when production moved and about persons with disabilities who can work but need the right support.

Behind every figure there is a human being – a parent who does not go to work in the morning and a child who does not see the pride in that mom or dad is needed at a workplace. It is a loss for the individual, for the family, and for Sweden.

But unemployment, Mr. Speaker, is not a uniform problem. Therefore, we cannot have a uniform solution either. The reasons for unemployment look different, and thus the solutions must also do so. Some need wage subsidies and guidance. Others need to complete high school. Someone needs to strengthen their Swedish, and another needs to supplement an academic education to match the labor market. Someone needs a clear push forward with requirements for different activities.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party believes in the human will to work. Our task as politicians is to remove the obstacles – not to moralize over those who stand outside. It requires more individual solutions. We need fewer square-shaped regulations. We need simplified forms of support, and it should never be wrong to study whether it leads to jobs. It should be possible to study part-time. It should be possible to combine work and a complementary education. The support should not cease just because one has taken the first available job, if the goal is for one's competence to be fully matched.

Mr. Speaker! We must also dare to speak about mobility. Sometimes the jobs are in another municipality or another part of the country. Then we need better relocation support, compensation for dual housing, and functional commuting. It must be possible even for those who have a family.

Mr. Speaker! As has been said, it is not we politicians who create jobs – it is the entrepreneurs. In Sweden, it is primarily small and medium-sized enterprises that hire. Therefore, it must become easier and cheaper to hire. That is the reason why the Center Party has long pushed for reduced employer contributions for young people, and we want to make them permanent. We do not want to do as the current government and have them as temporary election promises. Entrepreneurs need long-term conditions, and if the costs risk being raised next year, they will not dare to hire on a fixed-term basis. Then it will become summer jobs instead of secure employment.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must also dare to trust small companies, even those without collective agreements. If they do not have collective agreements, it must not mean that they are shut out from wage subsidies or establishment jobs if they want to employ a person who needs to enter the labor market.

At the same time as we believe in the companies and invest in the companies' opportunities, the entire system must function. Therefore, it is important for us that Arbetsförmedlingen is present locally and that it is an agency that follows up on how the independent actors deliver in terms of their assignments. It is about job seekers and employers being matched, that they should find the right fit and find each other. The actors who get people into work should remain, and those who do not deliver should be removed. That is how simple I think it is.

Mr. Speaker! For the Center Party, the starting point is clear: People want to work. Companies want to grow. The task of politics is to build bridges between them. We do this with individual solutions instead of standard packages, with long-term conditions for entrepreneurs instead of temporary reforms, and with trust in people's drive instead of suspicion. More people in work strengthens the individual's freedom, the family's security, and Sweden's competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker! This is the line of action that the Centre Party stands for.

I would like to move for approval of reservation number 6.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in a situation with high unemployment and a labor market policy that is not working. The government's policy is costly for the individual, for the employer, and for the economy. It is noticeable to the person who loses their job and who sees the compensation fall. It is noticeable to the family whose finances collapse after a few months of unemployment. It is noticeable to the employer who cannot find the right competence. It is also noticeable in the statistics. Unemployment has remained at high levels while matching problems are increasing. This means that people are left without work while companies lack labor. It is the definition of a policy that is not working.

The basis for a functioning labor market policy is simple. It must lead to work. The government's so-called work line does not do that. The government has not prioritized reforms that create jobs. It has prioritized a poverty reform. The focus is on benefit ceilings and reduced compensations, not on how more people should enter the workforce. The government has replaced an active labor market policy with moralizing politics. In fact, the list of propositions at the Ministry of Employment has essentially been empty for more than three years with this government.

Mr. Speaker! The A-kassa is a transition insurance. It is intended to provide stability when a person loses their job and time to find the right job. It is intended to provide security so that people can seek work where their competence is actually needed. It is intended to provide space to transition when the labor market deteriorates.

But the steep tapering of the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) does the opposite. After 100 days, the compensation is reduced significantly. The security decreases the longer the unemployment lasts. The uncertainty increases just when people need stability. It creates stress. It worsens the matching. It leads to short-term solutions instead of sustainable solutions.

At the same time, Sweden is in a situation where unemployment is driven by both cyclical and structural factors. It is about a tough economic situation, about a technological transition, about skills shortages, and about regional imbalance. These are problems that require active measures, but the government's response is passivity upwards and pressure downwards.

The government often points out that children benefit from seeing their parents go to work. The children who primarily benefit are those whose parents are doing well and who are not stressed to the point of breaking because the money does not suffice. The government's poverty reform and the worsening of the unemployment insurance will lead to more children seeing their parents look for cans to pawn instead of going to work.

Mr. Speaker! Arbetsförmedlingen is missing in half of the country's municipalities. At the same time, the government has closed over 30 service offices that partially compensated for the lack of local presence. The unemployed today find it difficult to get in contact with a labor officer, and those who do manage to get through are instead informed about return grants. This is what the government calls the work line: on one hand, a non-existent labor market policy, and on the other hand, an agency expected to handle migration policy.

The government's line of work does not lead to jobs. It creates poverty. At the same time, this government has been irresponsible with the public finances, according to the Fiscal Policy Council, by borrowing money and increasing the state's debt – not for investments that could have created jobs, but to lower taxes for those with the highest incomes. That says something about the priorities.

A pattern recurs in the government's policy: When the results fail to materialize, the criticism is directed downwards – towards the unemployed, towards authorities, and towards the parties. But the responsibility does not lie downwards. It lies ultimately with the government.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet chooses a different path. We want to make the a-kassa more stable by slowing down the phase-out and creating a safer transition. We want to strengthen Arbetsförmedlingen's local presence. We want to introduce a relocation support so that more people can actually move to where the jobs are. We want labor market policy to once again be about more people getting a job, not about suspicion.

A functioning labor market requires stability in the transition. Stability creates mobility. Mobility creates matching. And matching creates growth.

Mr. Speaker! Unemployment is not fought through economic pressure. It is fought through functioning systems and active reforms. Sweden needs a labor market policy that gets people into work, not a policy that plunges people into poverty.

With that said, I move for approval of reservation 3 and reservation 14.

In this speech, Mats Berglund (MP) agreed.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask a couple of questions to Member Leila Ali Elmi.

The Green Party describes in the debate that Sweden is not only facing a recession but also problems with the structure of the labor market. The matching problems are a significant part of our challenge.

If one looks at the relationship between vacancies and unemployment, one can see that the curve, so to speak, has shifted outwards per decade for a long time, that is to say that the labor market has become less tight or less well-functioning. The matching is working worse. If one then examines how that pattern is distributed across the Swedish population, one can state a few things, Mr. Speaker.

One thing is that the majority of the structural problems on the Swedish labor market are based on the fact that we have failed with integration. The other thing is that the problems that we primarily see exist in groups that have immigrated to Sweden, who perhaps have a short time in Sweden, who have a short education with them from their home country and who also have problems speaking Swedish.

The Green Party proposes that we should return to a migration policy that leads to the problems being exacerbated. Large groups would then come to Sweden again and contribute to these structural problems, which we are now trying to solve. We have actually succeeded in pressing down unemployment also among foreign-born. Here, the Green Party now wants instead to return to a migration policy that is irresponsible. This is what they expect to do together with the Social Democrats.

How do you actually intend for this to help when it comes to the problems on the labor market?

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to thank Oliver Rosengren for the question.

We are not actually debating migration policy now. This debate is about the unemployment insurance and the supply of skills. But I am proud that the Green Party stands up for the right to asylum and stands up for a humane migration policy. That being said, I want to ask a question that concerns the debate that we have here in the chamber.

Mr. Speaker! The government has borrowed money after lowering taxes for high-income earners while simultaneously worsening the unemployment insurance. I want to ask why Oliver Rosengren has chosen to prioritize tax cuts over investments that could actually strengthen the labor market in a time of high unemployment.

In a previous exchange, Oliver Rosengren mentioned that the previous government had not made any structural changes. Can Oliver Rosengren mention one of your labor market reforms that has actually created more jobs and gotten more people into work?

(Applause)

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

If we start with migration, the functioning of the labor market is naturally affected by the composition of the workforce. Therefore, migration policy and immigration play a very large role for labor market policy.

Miljöpartiet wants to return to a policy that supplements with subsidy immigration. Consequently, the Swedish labor market would function even worse. Groups that have difficulty integrating and establishing themselves would thus come to Sweden in a situation where we have not yet achieved sufficient order in the integration policy.

We still have areas of exclusion and large groups who have been in Sweden for a long time without learning Swedish, without educating themselves for available jobs in our labor market, and without making enough effort to enter employment. Miljöpartiet wants to return to an irresponsible migration policy, and it will lead to even higher unemployment.

The Green Party asks what we have done to boost the economy and improve the structure of the labor market. Let me make a few points, Mr. Speaker, even though it was only one reform that was requested.

The unemployment insurance reform that we have discussed today will lead to lower unemployment. The equilibrium unemployment in the economy will fall when we make these types of structural changes. Furthermore, we have made a very large investment in infrastructure, typically an investment that one might imagine Miljöpartiet would also be in favor of. 200 billion, or 20 percent more for infrastructure, drives our economy.

We have also made record-breaking investments in research, which contributes to economic development and growth. I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that growth is a concept that does not come entirely naturally to the Green Party, but it is growth, after all, that lays the foundation for us to get new jobs and can lower unemployment. A combination between a policy that structurally improves growth and simultaneously strengthens the expectations of the unemployed lowers unemployment.

(Applause)

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! To flee is a human right, and Miljöpartiet stands up for people's right to flee war and seek sanctuary. The right to asylum is not based on whether one is compatible with the Swedish labor market. It is a human right. That is what I want to emphasize.

In a situation with high unemployment, the government chose tax cuts over labor market reforms. It is a political prioritization. The Member of Parliament listed the deterioration of the unemployment insurance and the introduction of benefit ceilings. That is not something that drives people to work; it drives people into poverty.

I asked for a larger labor market bill primarily for the purpose of creating more jobs. The unemployment insurance fund does not create more jobs. Can the member mention a single labor market reform during the three years you have governed Sweden that actually creates more jobs?

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: Since this was a closing remark, Oliver Rosengren has no opportunity to answer the question.)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to move for approval of reservation 5 in the report.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 19.)

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