An unemployment insurance based on income

Magnus Persson (SD)

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

According to the OECD, 20 EU countries have a higher [measure] than Sweden. Sweden shares 21st place with Hungary. Of the Nordic countries, we are last. This clearly shows, Madam Speaker, that [the measure] is not an issue that has been prioritized by previous governments.

For the Sweden Democrats, the transition allowance is a transition insurance that shall contribute to security between two jobs or studies. Unfortunately, the transition allowance in the debate has sometimes received a label as some kind of benefit. It is only to be regretted that we have had that debate, because it is not true.

The proposal is that the compensation shall now be based on income instead of on time worked. This means that the person who has had a higher income will receive a more adjusted compensation. It is a logical change that takes into account today's labor market where forms of employment vary, and the change is welcomed by many, both employers and trade unions, even though there is criticism—sometimes sharp—towards certain parts of the proposal.

Madam Speaker! Significantly more people will have the opportunity to receive the benefit, which will lead to financial relief for the municipalities. The Sweden Democrats and the government are raising the ceiling to 34,000 kronor per month. The individual no longer needs to chase employers for employer certificates, as the information is retrieved directly from the Swedish Tax Agency. By having the information retrieved from the Swedish Tax Agency, incorrect payments and fraud are also countered, which unfortunately were very commonly occurring with the old system.

Madam Speaker! The proposal also implies a sharper tapering off for those who are unemployed for a longer period. This is a step in the right direction to encourage a quick return to work and reduce the risk of long-term unemployment. But it is also the part that, seen in the referral responses, has created the most debate and criticism.

The work line must be protected while security is strengthened. It is important to remember in the debate that the majority of wage earners who receive unemployment benefits have a new job or education within 100 days, which is shown very clearly in IAF's reports.

Madam Speaker! It entails a great cost for the municipalities when the unemployed are not covered by the unemployment insurance. The new proposal will mean that more people are included in the insurance, which will lead to an improved economic situation for many municipalities. One must remember, Madam Speaker, that the a-kassa is not a lifelong solution. It is a security in times of unemployment, and the goal should always be to get people back into work and education. But as with all other major reforms, problems will surely arise ahead, so we will certainly have to return to certain parts of the proposal.

Madam Speaker! What is the opposition's view on the proposal that the government and the Sweden Democrats have agreed upon? The proposal is based on an old Social Democratic investigation, and the criticism from S is not so strong. They seem quite satisfied with large parts of the proposal. Notable is the criticism regarding the phase-out after 100 days and against the lack of an equality analysis. I can agree with a certain part of the criticism; perhaps something was missed when the equality analysis was not included. I can accept that.

The Center Party, one of the Social Democrats' coalition parties, wants - contrary to the Social Democrats' ambitions - to lower the ceiling to the level it was before the pandemic. Other parties within the opposition want to see a completely new proposal and have a completely different view on the fund than both the Social Democrats and the Center. It is clear, Madam Speaker, that the opposition is very divided on this issue.

When the Sweden Democrats and the government succeed in negotiating common solutions despite different opinions on the issue at hand, it is an actual sign of strength, while the other government alternative is also deeply split on this issue. The only thing that unites the opposition in Sweden today is that they want to see Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister. Otherwise, they do not agree on anything.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! We will not accept any deterioration of the welfare state, said Jimmie Åkesson during the election campaign. This has been documented several times.

Here we just heard the member say that the previous government has not prioritized the AKAS at all, while what he has to come up with is an increase of the ceiling by 1,000 kronor. The previous government raised the AKAS ceiling on two occasions, by several thousand kronor each time. This line of argument, therefore, does not hold. This cannot be prioritizing the AKAS; it is doing something else.

Most workers do not reach 34,000 kronor a month, and those who do are still losing now compared to a couple of years ago, this being due to the fact that inflation and wage increases have been higher than that for the group at the ceiling. This can hardly be called particularly large improvements.

It is true, however, that we are buying the transition from a time-based to an income-based allowance. There is no conflict there. On the other hand, there is a conflict in how one views Swedish workers and their need for security. When one creates a steeper tapering at 100 days and does not raise the ceiling significantly, it implies substantial deteriorations for large groups.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not, of course, agree with Patrik Lundqvist in his description. Nevertheless, I think that this is a step in the direction of a modern account.

We are raising the ceiling. The Social Democrats have not succeeded in doing so for a while, and with the current government option, you will not succeed either.

I understand that Patrik Lundqvist has views on the phase-out, but one must see the allowance as a transition insurance. It is an insurance and not a benefit. The figures are very clear: The majority of wage earners get a new job or employment within 100 days. That is how it is. We want to get people into work. That must be the reason why one has an insurance.

I do not want to see the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) as a benefit. I understand that Patrik Lundqvist wants that view on it, because there are quite a few people who are outside the unemployment insurance today whom one might want to funnel into some form of benefit. When one cannot find anything else, the unemployment insurance works. I think it is a pity.

I know how it is. I myself have lived on unemployment insurance for a period in my life. For six months I lived on unemployment insurance. I had just bought a house and had a child. I was laid off during the construction crisis in the 90s, so I know exactly how this works. I was hunting for a job all the time, and I found a job.

It is easy to blame the fact that we now have a recession in Sweden, but we have had that before as well. We are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Now people are starting to be hired again. I believe that this is a good reform for Swedish workers and Swedish wage earners.

The average wage for Swedish workers is over 34,000 today. You yourself come from IF Metall. Metalworkers, industrial workers, construction workers and many in healthcare also earn that money. Sure, there will always be people who in some way are affected by reforms. It is never ever possible to make proposals that benefit everyone. So that's just how it is.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! I agree with the member that this is an insurance. It should exist to create security for Sweden's working population, for those who risk unemployment in the economic downturn that we are currently in and are facing in the future. We do not know what it will look like. That is perhaps what is the biggest problem here.

This a-kasse change aims to - that is what you hear if you listen to all the government parties - to create incentives for those who become unemployed to seek work, not to give them security when they need it so that they can keep their house and so that they can pay for food and everything else that one actually needs even when one becomes unemployed and during the time one is seeking a job.

People need that security for their own sake, so that they can feel they can provide for their family. That security was also needed so that society could keep moving forward during major recessions, during crashes, or when bankers, for example, fiddle with various loan funds that cause people to become unemployed completely without any fault of their own.

I understand that the member is satisfied and happy. He needs to present himself as such, even though he has agreed to these rather substantial deteriorations. There are absolutely many who earn above the ceiling, and we need to raise the ceiling much more. This is hardly a ceiling increase, as said, and there are substantial deteriorations in other areas.

One can also reflect a bit on the press conference when this was presented, where the big drum was beaten because the clearance was not extended. Where did it actually come from? Which parties were it that wanted to extend the clearance, and how far did they want to do it? The Sweden Democrats presented it as if it were their victory that the clearance was not extended, but who actually wanted to do this?

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can say that the other parties we negotiated with wanted to extend the grace period, but we did not. We kept it as it was. You can thank the Sverigedemokraterna for this. If it were not for the Sverigedemokraterna, it would have been extended. Now you have received an answer to that question.

I think we land quite correctly in this proposal. Then there will always be things to tweak. There are a number of things that I am also dissatisfied with, but in a negotiation, that is how it goes. You don't get through everything you want.

I really think that the Sweden Democrats stood up on this issue, and we can stand by the promise we gave. We do not want to worsen the unemployment insurance. It could have looked significantly worse, Patrik Lundqvist, if the Sweden Democrats had not held firm in this negotiation. I am very satisfied with the proposal, and I believe that in the long run it will be very good. It will reduce fraud. It will reduce the waste of money. It is just a matter of adapting.

When it comes to the fact that wages will be raised and that the ceiling is to be raised, I can say: I have no problem discussing ceiling increases with the Social Democrats, but the Social Democrats are not allowed to discuss substantive issues with the Sweden Democrats. That is what is a big problem. Your party leader has once again forbidden you from talking to us. My door has always stood open, since day one. But unfortunately, you are not allowed to talk to us. We can gladly stand here and discuss what we want to do, but if we are to find common solutions to things, we need to discuss them.

Now I am discussing and negotiating with the government parties, and it is going quite well, I think. We are holding our ground. We are the social conscience in a conservative government, and I am happy about that. Patrik Lundqvist and the Socialdemokraterna should probably be glad that the Sverigedemokraterna have an influence in the government, because it could have looked significantly worse.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind everyone that everyone speaks through the Speaker, which means that "you" and "you" [singular/plural] are not used in the debates.)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have previously promised their voters that the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) would absolutely not be worsened. Magnus Persson has said in several interviews that the level of the unemployment insurance was absolutely not negotiable. He has even said in the newspaper Arbetet that the unemployment insurance could become an issue that breaks the Tidö agreement. But apparently, most of it is negotiable, according to the Sweden Democrats.

Then my simple questions are: What does Magnus Persson say to his voters now when one has agreed to negotiate deteriorations that one said one would never ever agree to? Why should the Sweden Democrats' voters trust what Jimmie Åkesson and Magnus Persson say before an election when they do something else when the election is completed?

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not agree with Ciczie Weidby's description. I truly believe that the Sweden Democrats stood for what was said. We contributed to increasing the ceiling on the unemployment insurance fund. The "Karensen" is not changed. I think we landed quite well. We have negotiated quite well in this issue. I therefore do not buy the narrative of the betrayal debate, which one tries to stick onto the Sweden Democrats in this issue, Madam Speaker. It could have looked significantly worse.

I wish Ciczie Weidby good luck in future negotiations with, for example, Centerpartiet when negotiations regarding unemployment insurance and the like are to be held, as you are in the same government base.

I do not buy the negative description that Ciczie Weidby raises in this debate. I think we have landed well. I am never satisfied. I will never be. Yes, it could have become a government crisis, but we pressured the government to agree to some of our demands, so there was no government crisis. We negotiated our way out of that crisis. That is how it works. I do not buy the criticism, Madam Speaker.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Magnus Persson can, of course, buy exactly what he wants. I am only proceeding from what I have noted that the Sweden Democrats have previously said and what has been very important for them.

Magnus Persson says very often: Yes, but we have raised the ceiling. But it is only a couple of hundred kronor, right? At the same time, the unemployment insurance becomes much worse for very many of those people who have very low incomes. Very often it is also those voters who actually believe that the Sverigedemokraterna will be their voice. But now they perhaps know that they are not.

Madam Speaker! In what way do Magnus Persson and the Sverigedemokraterna mean that a lower compensation, for example, is supposed to increase the gap between the unemployed's skills development and the labor market's requirements? I think it is good that we examine the Sverigedemokraterna's cards here and know that a vote for the Sverigedemokraterna is a vote for Ulf Kristersson and a classic bourgeois policy. It will not change. No matter how much Magnus Persson says that one has pushed Olle into a corner, Olle is in that case incredibly small, and it is still the government's policy that applies.

Madam Speaker! This is, as said, important. Regardless of whether Magnus Persson buys this or not, I think he is obligated to explain to his voters how this improves things for people who are trying to get between two jobs but who risk being evicted from their homes in between.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Ciccie Weidby paints a horror scenario. I do not agree with her description. I have a completely different view of Swedish workers and Swedish wage earners. I truly believe that Swedish workers and wage earners want to work. If one becomes unemployed, one wants to find a job. I therefore see no problems with this. We have, for example, a report from IAF stating that the majority find a new job within 100 days.

Okay, people fall between the chairs. That's how it is. It always happens. But, Madam Speaker, I do not buy the description that the Left Party paints here – that it would be a complete catastrophe.

I believe it will turn out very well in the end once the proposal has fully settled in. One thing that is not mentioned in the debate, Madam Speaker, is that the proposal opens up for significantly more people to gain access to the unemployment insurance fund.

It becomes a rhetorical question, as Ciczie Weidby cannot answer, but the left must think it is a fairly good reform. It facilitates, for example, for the municipalities by ensuring that people do not have to go on social assistance and the like.

It is a step in the right direction. Then it will always affect people who do not get what they want; that is how it is. But I believe that Swedish workers really want to work and want to have a job.

If you want a job, you eventually find a job. It can take 20 days, 30 days, 101 days or 150 days. But if you want to work, you find a job. I know that from my own experience.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! We are now facing the biggest change to the unemployment insurance fund in a very long time, perhaps since the state made its entry with support for recognized unemployment insurance funds in 1935.

Some of the changes are good, and many were initiated by the previous government in an investigation that the current government bases its changes on. One such thing is, of course, the overall change from an unemployment insurance based on time to instead basing it on salary.

It is about the ceiling being raised by 1,000 kronor during the first 100 days. It is about more people getting access to unemployment insurance, even if it can be said to be a truth with some modification, which I will return to later.

Madam Speaker! There are also parts that we Social Democrats are very critical of. It concerns how the current government and the Sweden Democrats have chosen to cut and worsen [the system] at the same time as they are restructuring it. According to the Riksdag's investigation service, one and a half billion is being saved at the expense of all those who pay into the insurance and work in Sweden.

I do not intend to go into much detail on the parts where we agree with the government's proposal. Instead, I will devote the time here to the parts where we do not agree. I therefore move for approval of our two reservations in the matter, reservations 2 and 6.

But before I go into our principled views on the proposal we are handling, I also want to take the opportunity to speak a little about why we have chosen not to have any sharper proposals for changes in the matter, Madam Speaker.

We have during the process tried to get clarity on how calculations have been made for what different parts of this proposal cost. It is information that we in normal cases would have been able to obtain via the Riksdag's investigation service but which the government has chosen to withhold.

This is a completely new system. The history is also not available. We cannot look at previous years and see a direct transfer from what the current system means. The government has refused to share those calculations. It has also not wanted to explain why it does not do so. I had an interpellation debate with Johan Pehrson where I asked those questions and he absolutely did not answer them.

Since we are a serious party that takes these issues very seriously, we have not wanted to guess and present proposals here today regarding raised ceilings, adjusted phase-outs, or other changes. We do not have any solid basis that allows us to say what it would cost and how it would turn out. Therefore, we must return to such changes in the future.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the ceiling in the unemployment insurance, it is naturally good that it is now being raised. It compensates for the fact that part of the tapering becomes stronger, and it clearly means that a few more will receive an unemployment insurance that is closer to 80 percent of the income than they otherwise would have received. But it has surely not escaped anyone that we have had a significant inflation and that the unemployment insurance already previously did not deliver sufficiently good security for far too many people?

Just the other day, LO announced that they see a larger scope for wage increases next year than they have in many years, this because the owners' share of the profit has increased for five consecutive years. The owners' share of what the companies in Sweden produce has thus gone up, and the workers' share, the wage, has decreased.

It depends partly on the fact that the labor parties took responsibility in the name of fighting inflation and kept wage demands down. But for that, it is now time to receive a compensation. In a responsible manner, LO and the other trade unions will demand back the profit shares that were waived for the fight against inflation. The companies have actually raised prices more than both inflation and wage increases.

What does that have to do with the ceiling in the unemployment insurance fund? Well, it means that the adjustment of the ceiling is quickly eaten up by the fact that Sweden's wages are going up. One could say that the increase that is occurring now does not even cover the wage increases that have occurred since the last increase and that it is, therefore, lagging behind from the very beginning.

If one also calculates for next year, i.e., the year when the change will come into force, the increase hardly constitutes a compensation for the wage increases that an individual with 33,000 kronor per month is expected to receive next year. It hardly keeps up, Madam Speaker. It will therefore not be more people who come under the ceiling, but those who today are above it will continue to be so. Fewer than today will receive 80 percent of the wage.

We Social Democrats want instead that more people should receive 80 percent of their salary. LO aims for 70 percent of wage earners to have 80 percent of their salary in unemployment insurance and also wants the unemployment insurance to be indexed against wage development. It would be an not unreasonable development, and in any case a goal. Sweden is one of the world's richest countries. It is completely insane that we, who were once a pioneer country regarding workers' security, are now falling further and further behind.

Madam Speaker! On the whole, as we have said, we are positive about the unemployment insurance fund being made income-based, but it is not positive for everyone. Groups with low incomes but who have been employed for a long time, which previously gave them unemployment insurance, now risk being left without, even though the government has introduced alternative rules to get more people into the unemployment insurance fund. It hits a bit differently.

It is about groups that work part-time or have low wages despite working full-time, who have difficulty reaching the total income requirement but would have had no problems reaching the working time requirements that exist today.

According to LO's calculations, it nevertheless concerns tens of thousands of people. That is far too large a group, in my opinion. A solution to that problem would be to abolish the requirement on total income. That would give this group of wage earners who today have access to unemployment insurance continued access in the future as well.

There is also a risk that this hits women harder, who in general are those who have both low wages and more part-time work. But what the situation is with that, we do not know, Madam Speaker, because the government has chosen to opt out of doing the equality analysis that one is supposed to do.

To get around these problems and still provide more access to unemployment insurance than today, the government has introduced what is called the alternative rule for qualification. It is a decent solution, one could say. But it entails certain problems.

People who, admittedly via the rule, qualify for unemployment insurance risk in many cases of receiving such a low compensation that they fall below or just above the thresholds for social assistance. Even though it is good in several ways that they receive compensation, it is mostly a redistribution where it is actually the municipalities and their social assistance units that receive a lower cost rather than people receiving increased security. It is funds that are taken from the people who qualify for unemployment insurance and given to the municipalities instead of being used in the unemployment insurance system. That is something one can also reflect upon.

We need to return to this in the future. I am quite sure that it will not turn out well. Even though it gives the government an opportunity to say, as it does here today, that more people will receive unemployment insurance, there are several problems with that. One is that people do not receive increased security despite having qualified for unemployment insurance.

Madam Speaker! Unemployment insurance is often discussed, as here, from the individual's perspective. Of course, it is one of the more important ones. But there are also other aspects. The whole society and even those people who are not at risk of becoming unemployed benefit greatly from unemployment insurance. One of the reasons it has great support in society is that even people who keep their jobs benefit from it. Those are the parts the government is now presenting. It is therefore about the counter-cyclical effects of unemployment insurance.

We are now in a year that during the spring has been characterized by a recession and warnings. Above all, the construction and timber industries, but also healthcare and elderly care and other industries have been affected. LO expects that around 50,000 more will become unemployed this year. These are naturally gloomy figures for us here and for those who run the risk of becoming unemployed, but also for the whole society. There is a risk of ripple effects when lower incomes for people result in lower purchasing power and further worsen the economy.

We thankfully do not have this unemployment insurance today, and it is a year until it is introduced. But play with the thought that we face a prolonged recession after this reform! Then more of those who become unemployed will find it difficult to find jobs within 100 days. Then their further reduced benefits will also put extra downward pressure on the economy.

We also know that such situations hit some harder than others. Those who are older generally have a harder time returning to the labor market when they become unemployed than others. For those with lower education, it takes longer to return. We know that, Madam Speaker, and that is also why this is a great betrayal of large groups in the Swedish labor market.

Everything, as everything else, is surprising, or perhaps not surprising but damn bad, that these aspects were not taken into account when the new a-kassa was developed. This and, of course, the question of conducting a gender equality analysis, which is even a legal requirement for the government to do during legislative changes, are aspects that it seems the government just wants to turn a blind eye to, even though it affects the entire society, from companies to individuals and the state, negatively.

Madam Speaker! On average, it takes 79 days for men and 71 days for women who are laid off in Sweden to find a new job. We have heard similar things earlier today. A majority will therefore not be affected by reduced incomes due to the tapering in this government's proposal for a new unemployment insurance - if all is calm and fine on the labor market.

It will also not have any major effects on people's willingness to seek and take a new job. The talk about incentives is yet another fabrication to lower people's security. People are, in fact, mostly like you and me - they want to do right by themselves, and they want to be able to support themselves and have a job to go to.

Despite that, or perhaps precisely because of it, this proposal is, as said, a massive betrayal by the government and SD against all those Swedes who go to work every day. A-kassan is first and foremost a safety net and a support in difficult times. When one has lost their job due to cuts, bankruptcy, or a massive recession, one needs to know that they can manage to put food on the table, pay the children's floorball fee, and keep the house until things get sorted out.

As said, Madam Speaker: In normal cases, when everything is humming along, it is not a problem. But what happens when it does not look like that – when the construction market crashes, when inflation causes thousands to have to be laid off within healthcare, when the entertainment and restaurant industry stands still during a pandemic for a couple of years, or when a financial crisis like the one in 2008 hits several sectors simultaneously over a longer period?

The examples are highly relevant. We have thousands who do not know when their industry will catch up so that they can once again get a job in the area they are trained for, or who worry that they will lose their job in the near future. It is in just those situations that there needs to be an unemployment insurance fund to rely on - even after 100 days.

The reason why more people run the risk of exceeding that time is not the one that the right insinuates – that they have it too good, that they are too lazy, or that they do not want to contribute to society and need increased incentives to take a job. It is that circumstances outside their control make it worse than usual for a period and harder to get a job. To then punish people with lower compensation from an insurance they themselves have paid into is crazy.

One can be mistaken and think that it is not at all like this. But yes, people in general are just like you who are listening to this debate. They want to do right by themselves, just like you. They want a job, just like you. They want to be able to provide for their family and themselves, just like you.

When the right speaks about these other people who need incentives to take a new job, it is no one other than you they are talking about - you who go to work every day and do right by yourselves, support yourselves and expect that the security that your contribution to the unemployment insurance fund shall provide is there if something happens and it is just you who need a reasonable compensation for a few days.

Madam Speaker! This unemployment insurance change is outdated the moment it is passed and will be so when it comes into force. For today, what we have on the table will be implemented, but as soon as we have the chance, we will rebuild the unemployment insurance to what it should be.

Thank you for the floor! We Social Democrats will return.

(Applause)

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Lundqvist claimed here that talk of incentives is made up - this in conflict with established Swedish and international economic research, in conflict with referral responses from IFAU, in conflict with experts within the Expert Group for Studies in Public Economics, the National Audit Office, the Public Employment Service and the Unemployment Insurance Inspection, and in conflict with the Fiscal Policy Council's latest report.

Of course, incentives play a role, and research shows that both tapering and activity requirements reduce unemployment and shorten periods of unemployment.

Despite this, the Social Democrats accepted for many years substantial deficiencies in Arbetsförmedlingen's ability to demand that the unemployed seek vacant jobs not only where they live but in all of Sweden, and not only such jobs as they had had previously but more jobs.

Today, the motion is rejected that we should clarify the tapering of the unemployment benefit, so my questions to Member Lundqvist become: Why do the Social Democrats want us to weaken the work principle? Why do the Social Democrats want us to have more unemployed people in Sweden?

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats want people to feel secure and be able to get the right job, not just a job at any cost.

There are very many theories regarding incentives and other matters within the question of how to get people into work. But reality does not reflect the theory-building. In reality, people take jobs long before the benefits are reduced. People take jobs because they actually have a heart, a soul, a morality, and a will to do right by themselves. That is the greatest incentive.

I have spoken here today about prolonged recessions and market crashes where individual industries are more or less wiped out and very many compete for a decreasing number of jobs. In that situation, giving people lower benefits is not an incentive. It is to destroy people's lives. It is to worsen for Sweden in a recession with lower benefits and then also lower purchasing power so that more companies are wiped out. That, too, has been proven many times.

(Applause)

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! One could almost believe that Member Lundqvist has not taken note of the fact that the idea that grants and taxes affect people's labor supply is one that most researchers – I would say nearly all – agree on. On the other hand, it can testify to why the Social Democrats so often land wrong and skewed in their policy and not for a policy for people who work.

From the members' speeches and previous exchanges of remarks, we heard that the Social Democrats want to raise the ceiling in the unemployment insurance fund much, much more. That means that, in conclusion, there must be two questions from me.

Firstly, I repeat: Why do the Social Democrats want more people to be unemployed in Sweden? The research that exists shows that it would be the consequence of the motion they have presented to the chamber today, that we should not have a sharper tapering of the unemployment insurance.

Secondly: How much more do the Social Democrats want to raise the ceiling when one writes and says that one wants to raise the ceiling much, much more?

Is it perhaps the case that you stand behind the proposal from Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet to completely abolish the tapering and furthermore raise the ceiling even further?

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! If Oliver Rosengren's government had been transparent with the calculation basis, we could have provided answers to the questions here today. Then we could have spoken about how much we want to raise the ceiling and how we want to adjust the tapering or other parts. But we cannot do that now. Therefore, my previous answer stands.

I also want to return to what Magnus said earlier: This is not a benefit. A-kassan is an insurance. It is something one obtains because one has a need for security and because many circumstances that one does not have control over can put one in unemployment. It is an insurance. It is not a benefit.

It is obvious that the negotiations that have taken place between the majority parties have not been such a sunshine story as one might think. These contrasts are, to say the least, enormous.

Previously, we have heard about the differences between the parties in our government option, but I can state that when we needed to make these difficult compromises, the unemployment insurance was increased by several thousand kronor. Now it is barely the wage increase level for next year. There is a big difference there.

The Social Democrats hold the position that everyone who can work shall work. But it must not happen in a way that people's lives risk being ruined. That is what these changes risk leading to if we experience a prolonged recession or if something else causes many people to become unemployed for a long period.

(Applause)

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! The work line is the promise that society will continue to believe in your ability even if you have given up on yourself. The work line is the conviction that no human being is useless, that everyone is needed. The work line is the idea of the intrinsic value of work and the importance of work for a functioning community. Now we strengthen the work line, because we believe in people.

Madam Speaker! A functioning and effective unemployment insurance fund and unemployment benefit is an important component of a functional labor market. A well-functioning unemployment benefit fulfills the function of being a temporary financial protection for those who are between two jobs.

An excessively high unemployment benefit risks weakening the incentives for work and in that way causing fewer people to work and those who are unemployed to be unemployed for longer. It is not in the interest of the unemployed, if one believes as we do that the person who is unemployed can cease to be unemployed and that the systems surrounding the person who is unemployed play a role in the unemployment.

Policy has the important task of balancing between being sufficiently restrictive so that the incentives to seek work are high, but sufficiently generous so that people can match themselves to work that suits their competence and ability.

Madam Speaker! The new unemployment benefit will be based on incomes, which are already reported to Skatteverket today, not on hours worked reports in the employer certificate, which require significant administration for the employer, for the unemployment funds, and for the unemployed. This change means that 35,000 more are estimated to be able to be covered by a more secure protection during unemployment. This applies, for example, to people who today work irregularly or part-time. Our reform in this way adapts the unemployment benefit to our time's labor market.

Madam Speaker! Bureaucracy is decreasing. But so are the risks of fraud and errors when the compensation is to be based on register-based income data. The Swedish Work Environment Authority's latest report on incorrect payments from the unemployment insurance shows that errors corresponding to 218 million SEK were detected in 2023. That is approximately 1.5 percent of the total payments. The Authority estimates that they detect 2 incorrectly paid kronor for every krona spent on control. It can be said to be a good investment.

The reform we are now discussing makes the qualification's connection to work and membership in an a-kassa more understandable for the person who is a member and who is seeking a-kassa. How many compensation days the a-kassa is paid for will depend on the number of days worked with an income over 11,000 kronor, and how high the a-kassa will be depends on the length of the membership in the a-kassa.

If one has both worked and been a member of an a-kassa for twelve months or more, one receives the maximum level: 300 days with 80 percent of the salary under the ceiling. When the compensation days are exhausted or if one does not qualify for a-kassa, one receives activity support instead; I will return to that. The number of karensdagar remains two. It is a well-balanced proposal.

Madam Speaker! The drivers to leave unemployment for work are strengthened by our reform. Today, the unemployment benefit generally decreases by 10 percentage points after 200 days and thereafter by 5 percentage points after an additional 100 days. The decision we are to make today implies stronger drivers through a steeper tapering. The proposal is that the unemployment benefit is lowered by 10 percentage points after 100 days and thereafter by 5 percentage points per 100 days. The unemployment benefit ceases after 300 days.

Today, persons with children have 150 extra days of a-kassa. This is abolished through this reform. It is particularly important that parents return to work, so that all children see their parents go to work during their upbringing. Therefore, it is an important part of this reform.

Today, those who qualify for unemployment benefits can receive 20,000 kronor per month from day 101 and continue at that level year after year. It most closely resembles a universal basic income for the unemployed. Now that is over. Our reform involves a tapering of 5 percentage points per 100 days even in the activity support. It is one of the most important parts of the reform.

Benefits for the unemployed must always be accompanied by clear incentives to obtain a job and requirements to make an effort to seek available jobs and educate oneself to be able to take new jobs.

Madam Speaker! The reform of the unemployment insurance is a testament to the strength of the Moderate-led government, not least because the Tidö Agreement only contains an agreement that the levels that applied in the a-kassa during the pandemic shall apply until further notice. Despite the fact that it was only that which was included in the Tidö Agreement, we have now reached an agreement with the Sverigedemokraterna on a reform that also contains strengthened incentives for work and a significant reinforcement of the work line. It is a testament to the cooperation.

When we decided on the reductions of the unemployment insurance earlier in the term, I promised, among other members, Cato in Centerpartiet, that the work line will be strengthened with other reforms - be my guest!

On a day like this, the rift in the Social Democrats' government base becomes extra clear. The rift makes the Grand Canyon appear almost like a picturesque feature in the landscape. The Center Party wants to significantly lower the unemployment insurance. The Left Party wants, as usual, more for everyone always. The Green Party wants to scrap the phase-out. How do they actually want it on the left side? It is not clear. And how the negotiations can proceed so that any of the parties come anywhere near what they want is not obvious.

Madam Speaker! Everyone without a job should seek work, learn new jobs and take available jobs. You might think I sound a bit annoying now. But just wait! Our nagging about the jobs has only just begun.

Work is hope - about colleagues, about salary and about vacation. Work is to rise out of difficulties, stand on one's own feet, grow by one's own power and become one's best self. Work is responsibility. Our society is built with people's toil, diligence and trust in one another. I can continue for as long as I want. But you already know what I think; Sweden works when Sweden is at its best.

That is why the work line is my ideology. That is why the work line can become the campfire that replaces division with unity for Sweden. That is why I move for approval of the committee's proposal for reduced bureaucracy for the unemployed, employers, and the unemployment insurance funds, for reduced risk of fraud and errors with the taxpayers' money, and for strengthened incentives for work throughout the unemployment insurance.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! It is a very fine ode to work, or what one should call it, that the member delivers. It is of course very fine when people work. It is not for nothing that one comes from the movement one makes.

But it is still strange that cuts are being made in almost every way that one can support, help, and get people into work. It is about training, about Arbetsförmedlingen, and about other support services. Instead, the work line shall deliver people into work by having them receive lower benefits and worse opportunities to live their lives when they become unemployed.

I understand that this comes from the view of humanity one actually holds. One cannot smooth that over by talking well about work. The question is actually: How do you think the work line is going? Why is it always people's security and people's lives that are to be sacrificed and their vulnerability is to be increased so that they will take a job? There is not particularly much that supports the thesis that these are the reasons why people do not take a job or come to work.

We know that there is a huge gap between the needs for skilled labor and the education that people have. Shouldn't the focus lie in the work line? Now you have saved one and a half billion on the unemployment insurance reform. Where are you going to send the money? Are you going to send it straight into the education system, or will it rather go to tax cuts for those who do not lose their jobs and for those who still earn well with money?

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats are asking a couple of questions about the view of humanity in this. It is absolutely correct that we are carrying out this reform because of our view of humanity. We are convinced that no human being is useless. We know that with the right support and help, all people can find their place in the labor market.

We take society's responsibility very seriously. It is about ensuring that the unemployment benefit, the a-kassa, and the entire labor market policy never give up so that the person who has become unemployed can return to work. We know that drivers for work play a role. We know that it matters that it pays to work. We want parents who have ended up outside to return to jobs and not be forgotten or hidden in exclusion.

The Social Democrats are world champions at hiding people in exclusion, at forgetting people in vulnerable areas, and at never asking those who have become unemployed if they want to return to work. They early-retired hundreds of thousands of people when they held government power. They raise taxes for those who work. There is always a benefit to raise for those who do not work.

It is not our policy, for we believe in work. It is our view of humanity. It is our view of society. It would have been desirable if the old labor party also found its way home to that.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that the member is still living in the alliance era, with things such as Sweden works, the work line, and all that it is.

The reality is that it is not lower compensations that get people into work.

The committee member mentioned exclusion. Most people who are in a state of exclusion have not even qualified for the unemployment insurance fund (a-kassan). That is where more resources need to be allocated and it must be ensured that people from exclusion enter society. That can be done through several different methods, but it cannot be done by lowering the unemployment insurance fund for people who have worked an entire professional life, done right by themselves and been a productive part of society but then become unemployed and risk seeing their lives ruined. That is not the way forward.

People have enormous drives for work. It does not have to be the case that they are also squeezed financially when they end up in a situation that they themselves have not orchestrated, but which affects them due to circumstances coming from the outside. That is the core of the view of humanity that the Swedish right seems to have dug up again, where people are to be penalized because they are struck by misfortune in their working lives and lose their jobs. That is not the view of humanity I have.

People want to work and can work. They can also get that opportunity if we support them a little. Shorter educations are a significantly better step for people toward work than lowered benefits when they still do not have what is required to get the jobs that are available at the moment.

(Applause)

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! The reform we are now implementing means that more people, an estimated 35,000 more, will be covered by the unemployment benefit. By also introducing a tapering of the entire unemployment benefit, it means that more people will be subject to incentives for work that previously existed in benefit systems that lack incentives for work, for example, social assistance. It will strengthen the work line for more people.

Member of the Board Lundqvist mentions the need for educational measures. Let me make a few points on this. Our government is expanding the places within vocational adult education. We are expanding the university colleges. We have clarified in the regulatory letter that Arbetsförmedlingen shall prioritize labor market training. We are making substantial efforts so that unemployed people without education shall educate themselves for work. But it is not just a resource issue.

During the Socialdemokraternas time in government, it was accepted that every third vocational training site remained empty even if it was fully funded. It was accepted that only every third person who was assigned by Arbetsförmedlingen to a labor market training or regular education in the education system enrolled in it. We do not accept that.

That is why we are now tightening the instructions to Arbetsförmedlingen. That is why we will ensure that the obligation to educate oneself for work for those who are unemployed because they lack education becomes clearer. One should not be able to live off other people if the reason one does not have a job is that one lacks education and does not even make an effort to educate oneself. It is an end to the lax policy. Thanks to our change of power, it will be a new policy that will ensure that Sweden works.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! Those were big words about the work line from Oliver Rosengren. He said: Be my guest, Member Cato, here comes the work line! But it probably should have been a thank you instead.

This is the first reform that the Tidö government is presenting regarding the work line. In that case, it is an investigation appointed through the January agreement that is being delivered. It was the Center Party that pushed through that an investigation on changed unemployment insurance was put in place. Thank you, Oliver Rosengren!

We agree on the work line. However, an explanation is missing in the member's speech. There are two questions I want answers to. For the first: Is the raised ceiling a compromise, or have the Moderaterna shifted? For the second: How does the raised ceiling contribute to the work line? If the work line is an ideology, one should not be able to compromise it away.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! One gets the impression at regular intervals that the Centre Party Members of Parliament underwent a reboot when the January Agreement was concluded. One can draw that conclusion from a good deal of things that come from the party.

I still want to remind Member Cato that the Moderaterna have thought that the phase-out should come earlier, that the phase-out should be steeper and that there should be incentives for work even in the activity support - probably longer than either I or you have even been members of either of our respective parties, or perhaps even someone else in the room. This is what we have always thought. It is therefore not something that is the result of an investigation from the January agreement, even though it is good that you appoint investigations that we can then act upon and, in this case, with a skilled investigator, who has also become the new Director General of Arbetsförmedlingen.

Then there was the question of raising the ceiling. It is no secret that we have not wanted to raise the ceiling. It is no secret that the collective evidence points to the fact that raising the ceiling contributes to higher unemployment. The collective effects of the reform will mean fewer unemployed. The level of the tapering plays a larger role than the level of the ceiling, for among other reasons that have been raised by previous speakers, namely that relatively few reach the ceiling levels.

It is furthermore in line with available evidence that it is not so harmful to have a somewhat higher initial level of an unemployment insurance because it contributes to matching in the labor market, but what is relevant is that there is a clear tapering so that the incentives to shorten one's own period of unemployment become as clear as possible. It is therefore why the reform overall is well-balanced and will contribute to increased employability and a strengthened work line.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the concrete answer!

On Wednesday, we will conclude a second parliamentary session in the Swedish Riksdag. We will then have completed almost half of this mandate period. But this government has delivered only one major bill in the area of the labor market, and it is the one we are discussing today. Yes, the bill partially strengthens the work principle, but it also contributes to partially worsening the work principle with a raised ceiling in the unemployment insurance fund.

One cannot directly say that there is a work line at the Ministry of Employment when it comes to presenting major reforms. I have previously said from the rostrum that even the Ministry of Justice has had more propositions than the Ministry of Employment during this year.

My question to the member is the following: When will the other reforms be in place to strengthen the work line? Today's decision will be a kind of one step forward and one step back, that is to say, we are standing still.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! Jonny Cato has been a member of the Committee on Employment for a long time, and he therefore, of course, knows that employment policy, or job policy, does not only exist in the Committee on Employment. To therefore imagine that it is the Ministry of Employment or the Committee on Employment that is to bear the entire job policy is in conflict with the Riksdag's rules for the committees' areas of responsibility and the government departments' distribution of responsibilities. Perhaps the most important parts of the work line have been implemented annually by the government through reinforcements of the job tax credit, but that is perhaps no longer employment policy for the Center Party. It is perhaps not a question of the work line to ensure that it pays more to work.

Expanding resources and strengthening vocational training is perhaps no longer the work line for the Center Party. We have taken action against fraud so that it is those who are entitled to benefits who receive benefits, not fraudsters. It may no longer be the work line to ensure that transfers go to those who actually need the benefits.

We have tightened the directives to Arbetsförmedlingen, appointed a new director-general, replaced the entire board, and tightened the allocation of funds for the inspection authority to follow up on Arbetsförmedlingens work. Is that not also the line of action?

We are pushing on a work line, but the Center Party wants motions in the Committee on the Labour Market. Yes, here comes one, and there will guaranteed be more, but the decisive thing here is that the work line is strengthened part by part. Today we are discussing a reform that I didn't even think we would succeed in getting through this mandate period because it was not included in the Tidö Agreement.

But the Tidö Agreement is stronger than what the Center Party has managed in its collaborations. Therefore, the reform is in place.

(Applause)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! First, I did not intend to take the floor because it is so obvious that the Left Party and the Moderates stand so far apart from each other. But I must nevertheless point out how remarkable it is that the Moderates have such an incredibly high tone in really marking how much one despises people who are unemployed and what a cynical tone one has about people in general.

I assert that the vast majority really want to work. I do not know if Oliver Rosengren has been unemployed in his life, what employments he has had, and what has happened in between.

If he has been unemployed, he also knows that one wants nothing more than a new job. Unemployment insurance does not provide any livelihood amidst rosy clouds, but one absolutely wants to return to steady work.

Let us look at the policy prevailing in Sweden now, that is, the deterioration in labor law, easier to dismiss and so on. It must be matched with other insurance systems. In other Nordic countries, for example Denmark, people talk about flexibility and security, that is, flexicurity. Then one cannot deteriorate in all systems simultaneously, but instead, there must be a strong a-kassa so that people can move between jobs without losing out on it.

This "hungry wolves hunting" policy is a bit cynical. What is the labor market policy?

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! This is about people who are unemployed receiving support to return to work. It is exactly as Member Weidby says, namely that most people want to work. Unfortunately, a number of different economic systems have created a situation where there are people who get stuck in benefit systems and other compensations. The reform is about us not wanting benefits and other compensations to hinder people's motivations for work to take them back to jobs. Therefore, we strengthen the motivations to work.

If there had been nothing of the sort, if all of this had been as Member Weidby's colleague said earlier, made up, what is it then that makes it so that when one in Swedish and international research measures effects of, for example, activity requirements or tapering of benefits, the proportion that goes into work increases? If this did not exist, if economic drivers did not play a role, why does it become so? I would really like for the Left Party's Ciczie Weidby to explain what the Left Party bases its policy on regarding the unemployment insurance. It obviously cannot be available knowledge about labor supply and how people behave in the labor market. Then one would have landed on other and more balanced conclusions where one does not believe that in order to strengthen the drivers to work, one looks down on the unemployed. On the contrary, one understands that it is about faith and hope regarding people's will to work, but the systems hold them back. That is what our policy is based on.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! When one says "There are always some who..." and "Consider that this and this exist," it is a bit like saying that one has to crack a few eggs if it is to become a really good omelet. That policy is not and will never be the Left Party's policy. We want a social security that applies to everyone, completely regardless. That is and will be our policy.

The unemployment insurance is just an insurance. It comes from the fact that I pay every month to help those of my comrades who become unemployed - and vice versa. It is, therefore, an act of solidarity. I understand that it is difficult for Moderates to understand such things as solidarity.

I heard Oliver Rosengren scoffing earlier at the fact that Vänsterpartiet says: "More for everyone, always!" Vänsterpartiet's policy could be this, but it is also "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" - in contrast to the Moderaterna, who always think: "More for those who already have, and those who do not have shall continue to have it bad!"

I have not received an answer to my first question, so, again: When these changes are now being implemented and people want to be pushed, the question is how it is done. How are people to be upskilled between two different jobs if there is no proper, good labor market policy that actually gets people into employment? You cannot just pull the rug out from under people; you must also provide an alternative.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! The labor market policy is being strengthened in all essential parts.

Those who are unemployed and lack an education can, more or less, start a training program on any day. There are empty spots; for example, every third—fully funded—spot within vocational adult education is vacant. Arbetsförmedlingen has been tasked with prioritizing labor market training, as the levels are far too low.

The labor market policy is therefore in place because perhaps the biggest reason, among others according to the Fiscal Policy Council's latest report, why unemployment in Sweden is higher than it should be and could have been is a lack of education for work - that too many unemployed people without education do not educate themselves for work. We are changing that now.

It is a pity that the Left Party would rather see the compensation for those who do not work increased than improve the support for those who do not work. Then more people could have participated and contributed, and we could have held Sweden together better.

I would like to conclude this exchange by saying that this seems to be the crux of how we differ, not only in our view of the possibilities of politics but also in our belief in the human being. We are convinced that the person who is unemployed can cease to be unemployed – that the person who is unemployed can get to work with functioning support from society and with their own effort. Vänsterpartiet wants to increase the benefits and ensure that the incentives decrease. They want to abolish the tapering, because they do not seem to believe that it matters to the individual what society's systems around the unemployed person look like – how the incentives and support look.

We are quite the opposite and want to use all the tools we can within the labor market policy and the economic policy so that as few as possible suffer from unemployment. That is why we pursue this policy.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! In the old agrarian society, unemployment was a completely unknown phenomenon. There was work for everyone, and it was other problems that made existence uncertain, such as crop failure, drought, diseases, accidents, and war.

Unemployment first appeared with the creation of industries, when people actually became employed. Even though the wages were low, an employment still provided money for food, housing, and clothes. But when the employment ceased and the worker became unemployed, the economic security also disappeared.

There was a poor relief, but the requirements to be able to receive help were very harsh, and the compensation—if one received any at all, as said—was minimal. Being forced to go to the poor relief was perceived by many as very humiliating. In order to strengthen their position towards the employers, the employees around Europe therefore began to form trade unions.

In step with the fact that people began to organize themselves in that way, the idea was also born to start own unemployment funds, which of course were financed by the members and where the unemployed could receive help. The idea was a very simple type of solidarity: Everyone who works puts in a coin every month to be able to help the one who at the moment has no means of support, so that this person does not have to leave home between jobs.

Madam Speaker! According to the government, the unemployment insurance needs to be changed. The right to benefits and the size of the compensation should, according to the government, be based on income instead of time worked. According to the government, the unemployment insurance needs to contribute to the transition between jobs during unemployment in a better way than today. According to the government, the bill aims to create a clearer transition insurance that strengthens the work line - we have heard that before - and reduces the risk of fraud while the administrative burden is reduced.

Madam Speaker! The only one of the government's views that the Left Party shares is that the unemployment insurance needs to be changed. More wage earners need to be covered by the insurance, a higher proportion of the unemployed need to receive 80 percent of their previous salary in compensation, the compensation levels need to be raised and indexed, and the successive tapering of the compensation should be abolished.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet considers, just like LO, that an income-based allowance with an income condition is completely the wrong way to go. An income condition creates, by definition, a built-in injustice because employees with higher salaries qualify for the allowance faster than employees with lower salaries. For example, an employee with a salary of 30,000 kronor per month will only need to work for four months, while someone who only has 20,000 will need to work for six months to achieve the same result. It is neither reasonable nor fair.

The advantage of a work condition is furthermore that it is more linked to labor market anchoring, which should be one of the prerequisites for receiving unemployment benefits. Work is namely not the same thing as income, but work is the work tasks performed during a certain period. A person who is unemployed for a period does not work but seeks a job. Few hours worked with a high hourly wage should not be regarded as a higher degree of labor market anchoring than a low hourly wage.

One of the reasons why the government wants an income-based cash register is that it is intended to simplify the processing, increase predictability, counter incorrect payments, reduce the administrative burden, and so on. It is also argued that the reform regarding employer declarations at the individual level, which was implemented a number of years ago, provides an opportunity to obtain access to information on a person's income in a good way.

It is good to use the employer declarations because it increases transparency, reduces the risk of fraud, and eases the administrative burden. Vänsterpartiet argues however – just as LO, for the rest – that the working time should be included in the declaration and that information on working time and work income should be attributed to the calendar month in which the work for the income was performed. It would then be fully possible to use the employer declaration as a basis and thereby, as said, reduce the administrative burden, while the more just and practical working condition can continue to be the basis of the unemployment insurance.

Another reason the government has for transitioning to an income-based unemployment insurance is that the insurance is expected to lead to more people qualifying for benefits. At the same time, we can note that the investigation underlying the bill has calculated that the coverage rate among the unemployed will only increase from 40 to 47 percent if one transitions from today's conditions to these. Thus, a majority of the unemployed will continue to stand outside the compensation system. This can be compared with the year 2000, when around 80 percent of the unemployed had an income-based unemployment benefit or activity support with employment conditions as a basis.

If the government seriously wants more people to be covered by the compensation, there are completely different paths available. These can be read about in LO's referral statement, where there are also more proposals. One only needs to read up on them.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet is, in like LO, TCO and Saco, strongly critical of the government's proposal for such a much clearer tapering off of the compensation levels.

Firstly, there is a clear lack of support in research that the tapering actually leads to shorter periods of unemployment. Secondly, a tapering is not necessary for incentive reasons because there are existing control and sanction systems through Arbetsförmedlingen to ensure that the applicants take the measures required to transition to a new job. Thirdly, the proposed tapering leads to an all-too-low income protection and, in the long run, also a downward pressure on wages. Vänsterpartiet can never accept this. Vänsterpartiet considers, in line with several trade unions, that the replacement level should be 80 percent during the entire replacement period as well as during the entire period one receives activity support.

Madam Speaker! To, as the government proposes, severely deteriorate the welfare system does not push down unemployment. Unemployment is combated through an economic policy for full employment, through investments that provide jobs, and through an active labor market policy that equips the unemployed to take the jobs that exist and the new jobs that emerge.

The fact that the government does not pursue this economic policy, does not carry out the large investments that create jobs, and does not clearly pursue an active labor market policy worthy of the name means that the government abdicates the responsibility to push down unemployment. Instead, the government places the responsibility on the individual. It is deeply cynical and unworthy of a welfare country like Sweden.

That lowering unemployment benefits would lead to lower unemployment is based on an economic theory where reduced compensation always leads to the unemployed accepting a lower wage when seeking work. This is not positive for either the economy or unemployment, as modern labor market research shows. Rather, it harms productivity development and risks having long-term negative consequences on employment.

Madam Speaker! Given the significant deteriorations that the government's proposal entails, the Left Party cannot stand behind the bill. I therefore move for approval of reservation 1, which entails a rejection.

Madam Speaker! The unemployment insurance must be changed so that more wage earners are covered and feel economic security in the event of unemployment. It is important that the unemployment insurance covers a majority of wage earners and that a majority of wage earners can receive a compensation based on the actual previous income.

Vänsterpartiet's goal is that 80 percent of wage earners shall receive 80 percent of their previous salary during unemployment. We therefore want to raise the maximum unemployment benefit and the basic amount, index the compensation amounts to wage development, and raise the compensation level to 80 percent for the entire compensation period as well as for the period with activity support.

The right to unemployment benefits shall be based on time worked. The person applying for unemployment benefits shall fulfill a work condition. The work condition shall be designed in such a way that a majority of employees qualify for this. Time with pregnancy allowance, parental allowance, sickness allowance, rehabilitation allowance, infectious disease carrier allowance, close relative allowance, and sick pay should be counted as time worked for the months that are not non-countable. Furthermore, it should be the underlying salary, not the temporary compensation, that forms the basis for the unemployment benefit when this time is counted as time worked.

In addition to this, job seekers with children under 18 years of age should also be given the opportunity to extend the compensation period by 150 days in the future. Furthermore, the so-called 100-day rule, that is, that the job seeker is given the opportunity to seek work within their professional field during the first 100 days, should be reintroduced.

Madam Speaker! With these proposals for changes, I also move for approval of reservation 3.

Finally, I would like to thank the staff of the Committee on Employment, the Chamber Office, and of course all of AU's outstanding and fine members for a well-conducted parliamentary meeting. I hope for and wish everyone a very pleasant and summery summer.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! I had not actually intended to request the floor, but I could not refrain from asking a couple of questions regarding the view of humanity.

In the speech by Member of Parliament Weidby from Vänsterpartiet, the cynicism that Vänsterpartiet considers it to be is described as thinking that the person who is unemployed also has an individual responsibility to return to work. The Moderaternas view is that society has a responsibility, and the individual has a responsibility. The two parts together become the measures to return to work.

Therefore, I would like Ciczie Weidby to elaborate on what it actually is that is supposed to replace the individual's own job seeking and the individual's own seeking of an education. If one is offered an education and is unemployed because one lacks an education – should one not take this education, but instead be able to continue in unemployment for as long as one wants without educating oneself to be able to take an available job? Should there not be any requirements on the individual to seek available jobs?

It was not that the unemployment funds came into being. It was people who insured one another and at the same time had expectations of one another to make an effort to return to work.

I would like Member Weidby to elaborate on what it is that is cynical about these requirements, if the Left Party at all stands behind the idea that there should be any expectations at all of the individual.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Oliver Rosengren, for requesting a reply to my speech so that I have the opportunity to say that the Left Party is not a party that says that one does not need to do anything and that there are no requirements whatsoever! That has, of course, never been the case.

We mean that it is reasonable that the compensation should not only be okay for the first 100 days. It is, therefore, three months, and it is not a very long time. Everything depends so much on what type of industry one is in and what other job one can take.

Nowhere in my speech do I say that there are not different types of requirements that must be met to continue receiving unemployment benefits. Nowhere do I say that the unemployed person can sit and twiddle their thumbs for a long period of time. Nowhere do I say this.

What I do say, however, is that we should have a good safety net because it allows people to continue to have the standard of living they have. It is also good for society that people are not thrown out and need to leave what they have before they get new work. I also say that one should not distrust people because they do not find a job and punish them for it directly. This is just what I have said in my speech and what Vänsterpartiet thinks.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! In Member Weidby's speech, she said that it is cynical to shift responsibility onto the individual. I interpreted this as being bad because one tends to use "cynical" to describe something one thinks is bad. But based on the description we just received, "cynical" might not be something bad for the Vänsterpartiet because it apparently is not that bad to let the individual have some own responsibility. It is not always completely clear what the Vänsterpartiet is seeking.

I would, however, like to praise Member Weidby for being intellectually honest. To say that one does not believe in drivers for work and does not believe that incentives play a role, and therefore submit proposals to remove this from the unemployment insurance, is honest. You propose 80 percent in compensation during the entire period of unemployment, both in the allowance, where there is currently a tapering that we want to strengthen, and in the activity support, where there is currently no tapering but where we want to introduce it. It is honest. It is more honest than for the Social Democrats to argue against incentives but still have no proposals to remove them.

I ask therefore: What does member Weidby think about the conditions for achieving success for his more honest policy in the government alternative the member wants to be a part of?

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! It is very confusing, because I do not know if it was a compliment or not. I find it difficult to perceive whether "honest" is good or not when we are now talking about different words and what "cynical" and "honest" are.

Oliver Rosengren described our policy as everything for everyone. We believe that all individuals have a responsibility, but that everyone also has a responsibility to ensure that everyone in society is doing well. It is socialism, and it is so fine to always ensure that the floor is raised and not just give to those who already have the most.

To worsen the AKAS so much hits incredibly hard against so many of them in my old industry, within trade, hotel and restaurant and so on. They are already struggling to get a full-time compensation and now risk being quickly exhausted.

When it comes to integrity, I am trying to think of something to say about the Social Democrats, but I will have to come back to that. I only have 20 seconds, and that is far too short a time. But I thank you for your questions and for the opportunity to speak about the Left Party's policy: to each according to their needs and each according to their ability.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! In a previous debate, I have pointed out that the first documentation of some form of transfer from one time to another based on a kind of insurance model is probably the biblical text about Joseph and the seven good and seven bad years. Moving forward in history, we have the guild system during the Middle Ages, and even though the guilds primarily protected the master, the entire household was protected through that. In the 1600s, people began to build up insurance companies and joint-stock companies to protect the ships that traded with China, and by protecting the capital, everyone who was dependent on the capital, i.e., all employees, was also protected. In the 1700s, several of the orders that today can jokingly be called men's clubs were formed as an insurance system in a restless time in order to be able to create welfare over time. During the 1800s and 1900s, we then see how workers unite and insure each other in this way to protect themselves against unemployment, injuries, or other difficulties.

Madam Speaker! So to modern times. Already in the late 1990s, I looked at the Danish model with flexicurity, which meant that in Denmark, one strengthened the unemployment insurance while simultaneously making it easier for companies to change the workforce in the event of a recession. Unfortunately, we have not managed to implement the same reforms in Sweden. Now, however, we are implementing a major change regarding the unemployment insurance, which is good.

The new unemployment insurance is a transition insurance with higher compensation in combination with a clear tapering. The compensation shall be based on income. An alternative rule is introduced with a shorter period of compensation, 66 days. The insurance will cover more and become simpler for both companies and employees. The compensation period will be 300 days, and the compensation starts at 34,000. After 100 days, the compensation is lowered by 10 percent, and after an additional 100 days, it is lowered by 5 percent, which makes the new unemployment insurance a transition insurance.

Madam Speaker! In addition to the changes we decide on today, the government will also, via ordinances, review the rules for the activity support. For the new activity support, it applies that the maximum compensation will be 30,000 kronor, that the compensation is reduced by 5 percent every 100th day, that the minimum compensation per day is raised from 223 kronor to 365 kronor, and that the minimum level will function as a floor within the activity support.

These two reforms together mean that we are raising both the unemployment benefit and the floor of the activity support, which aims to provide increased security. In combination with a clear tapering, this becomes a transition insurance. Both reforms aim to clarify that the protection during unemployment is a transition protection where the purpose is that one should get into a job.

At the same time, it is not the insurance system itself that leads to new jobs. The insurance system is solely intended to provide relevant protection during the time one is seeking a job. The government's policy to get more people into work is actually handled within other committees. It is, however, important to point out that it is those measures in combination with a functioning insurance that allow us to create security for all those who are on the labor market.

In addition to our work in the Committee on Employment, the following has occurred: cooperation between the labor market parties regarding transition agreements, investment in education both in municipalities and through Arbetsförmedlingen, work on regulatory simplifications for entrepreneurs, review of taxes and reduction of fuel costs.

Madam Speaker! Through our various proposals in the Riksdag, the Christian Democrats strive to create a well-functioning business sector where more people feel that they dare to start companies. We also want those who are employed to feel that they both have the opportunity to develop in their workplace and have a functioning security if they must leave the workplace for various reasons.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! Finally, we are getting a reformed budget, a budget that the Center Party has demanded for so long. Finally, the government is also presenting sharp reforms within the committee's area of responsibility. It is, to say the least, about time. We truly hope that this is the start of a more active labor market policy from the government.

More Swedes need to have a job to go to. More Swedes need to contribute to our common welfare. If that is to happen, it is a fundamental part of a liberal economic policy that it should always pay to work.

The very high inflation means that the national standard for the social assistance, the guarantee pension, and a number of other supports and grants have been adjusted upwards very significantly, in nominal terms. The increases have been clearly larger than the wage increases. This means that today, within certain safety nets, it pays less to move from benefits to work. So we simply cannot have that.

The government has simultaneously made permanent the higher levels within the unemployment insurance that were added during the pandemic and significantly increased the employer contributions. This is not a reasonable priority for a bourgeois government, and it clearly shows that it is the Sverigedemokraterna who are setting the course for the labor market policy.

Centerpartiet supports that the basic economic safety net is price-indexed, but in times of high inflation, the need for measures that ensure the work principle is not undermined increases.

In the proposal for an unemployment insurance based on income that we are debating here today, the government has presented a new unemployment insurance, based on an investigation that the Centerpartiet was involved in appointing within the framework of the January agreement. Just as I said here earlier, one could say that when the government actually delivers labor market policy, it is thanks to the January agreement.

The new unemployment insurance will, through the commission's proposal, be modernized in several important points, not least by basing the unemployment insurance on actual income in a more flexible way.

Furthermore, it will, as the Center Party pushed for, be phased out somewhat faster than before, while at the same time being more generous initially - that is, a real transition insurance.

It is good. But – and unfortunately there is a big but here – by making permanent the high ceilings in the unemployment insurance that temporarily existed during the pandemic, the government has gone against what the work line should actually mean.

Given that those covered by the unemployment insurance have good opportunities to get a new job compared to other groups, it is a very strange prioritization that is costly in the form of both higher unemployment and space in the budget.

The Government itself assessed, in the budget bill for 2023, the effect of its policy as follows: "The assessable reforms in this bill that are proposed and announced to be implemented in 2023 are, however, assessed to reduce employment and the number of hours worked in the long term, while unemployment increases. This is a consequence of that the negative effects for employment and unemployment of maintaining today's level of unemployment benefits are assessed to be greater than the combined positive effects of other reforms."

At the same time, the National Institute of Economic Research has directed similar criticism.

No measures have been implemented by the government since then to counteract these effects, and based on the content of the bill, the high amounts will not be adjusted now either.

With the Center Party's proposal, a continued relatively high wage ceiling is combined with a relatively rapid and symmetrical tapering. A maximum time limit of three years for activity support is also introduced. In this way, the unemployment insurance becomes a secure transition insurance that contributes to both security and reduced unemployment.

In municipalities and regions across the country, it is now incredibly tough financially. It is truly tough. Municipalities are not only struggling with the quality of schools and preschools, but with being able to keep preschools and schools open. In my home municipality, we have a major political battle over whether we will be able to keep the rural schools open.

The country's regions are also struggling with the economy.

Either you can raise taxes or you can streamline, prioritize, and above all ensure that revenues for welfare are increased. We do that in only one way – through more hours worked. That requires a restored work line where it pays more to work.

I vote in favor of reservation 4.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! The reform that is now on the table for debate and decision is a testament to the strength of the Tidö cooperation. In the Tidö agreement, there is actually only one proposal when it comes to the unemployment insurance, and that is that the levels that were raised during the Social Democratic government shall apply until further notice. Despite this, the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have agreed on this well-considered and important reform of the allowance, which entails strengthened incentives for work.

In Jonny Cato's government basis, the view on the "akassan" is that the tapering shall be completely abolished in substantial parts of the basis. From the Social Democrats, we heard that the ceiling is to be raised significantly. Then the question is: What are Jonny Cato's expectations regarding the conditions for the Center Party's line in this chamber?

Should it not instead be so - in connection with the fact that Jonny Cato previously requested a thank you - that this time perhaps it is my turn to request a thank you? What the government has done is to gather majority support in the Riksdag for a well-considered reform of the cash payment which contains a 1,000 SEK increase in the ceiling but also sharpened incentives for work.

In the underlying material that Jonny Cato represents, Madam Speaker, one wants to raise the ceiling significantly more than that and furthermore abolish the tapering in large parts of that material. What do the prospects actually look like for the Center Party's policy here in the chamber if it were not for the government?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! So there was a debate in the Swedish Riksdag about the 2026 election - as usual. It is the only thing we talk about in the Committee on Employment.

I can calm Oliver Rosengren's concern by showing what happens when the Center Party compromises, negotiates and cooperates. Then the investigation will be in place for us to make decisions on here during the course of tomorrow.

It is always interesting to talk about the future, according to the Moderaterna. Let us then do that. What compromises regarding the work line will the Moderaterna need to make when the Sverigedemokraterna perhaps become the second-largest party in the Riksdag? I assume that Magnus Persson will want to have more influence over his labor market policy if the Sverigedemokraterna become larger. Will Magnus Persson perhaps even be the Minister for Employment in the next government – who knows? But if we are to speculate about the future, it is roughly somewhere there we can set the level.

I had, therefore, been more worried about my own government base, with troll factories and such, than about prophesying what might eventually happen to the opposition in the future.

I can at least state that when the Center Party negotiates and compromises, it becomes a bourgeois, liberal labor line. It results in lowered employer contributions. It results in proposals for reforming the AKAS. It results in a reforming of the Public Employment Service (Arbetsförmedlingen). It results in changed rules regarding LAS.

Given what the Center Party achieved during the last parliamentary term, I would probably have been more worried about my own government base if I were Oliver Rosengren.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! It is important to assess the expectations for the future with reference to history. The conclusion one can draw from what is happening here just today is that, while the Center Party is concerned about various ghosts linked to the Sweden Democrats that it is believed the parties in the government will be infected by, the government, in cooperation with the Sweden Democrats, is increasing the job tax credit and introducing strengthened incentives for work through the unemployment insurance.

Madam Speaker! It even seems to be the opposite of what Member Cato raised, that what is happening in the government cooperation is not substantial shifts in the position on economic policy among the government parties, but rather that the Sweden Democrats appear to be becoming somewhat more convinced about parts of our work line. That is something that the Center Party should welcome if, instead of being interested in games and seat counting in this chamber, they care about the support for the work line in Swedish politics. On the side where the Center Party has landed in Swedish politics, that support is indeed very weak and furthermore on the way to being eroded, which is evident after today's debate.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! It is something quite absurd to ask a question about political games and accuse me of engaging in political games. The entire question is based on what happens when you are to govern together. The Centre Party has not even taken a position on the government question. The only ones who seem to know what the Centre Party thinks about it are Oliver Rosengren and the Moderates.

Centerpartiet is an active opposition, and we pursue our policy. The only ones who seem to know what will happen in 2026 are Lars Beckman and others on Twitter. I have not been involved in any such discussions. But the Social Democrats and Centerpartiet have clearly shown that we can compromise on difficult issues. We did that in the January agreement. We have also shown that if one has the same values regarding people's equal rights and worth, one can compromise on quite a lot of other things.

I will give a honest and clear statement: I am much more willing to compromise on labor market policy and economic policy than on people's equal rights and value. In that choice, it is always easy to know what the Center Party will choose. We choose human rights. We choose openness and inclusion. We choose that all people are equally worthy. I cannot compromise on that. But I can compromise on economic policy and labor market policy. The Center Party has done it before, and we will do it again.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

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

The Liberals have, during the more than 100 years that we as a party have had influence, been involved in shaping the social safety net that exists today. We are proud of that. All people shall have the freedom to shape their own lives. A great responsibility lies on the individual to manage their own livelihood, and it works in the vast majority of cases, but in the cases where it does not work, stable safety nets should cushion the fall. There must be safety nets that provide incentives to return as soon as possible. It is safety nets that everyone contributes to and everyone can take part in.

Madam Speaker! One step in the work is a new and better akassa. The akassa was created in a time when the labor market looked different. The need for reform is great, not least so that one can take part in the digitalization that has occurred over the last decades where tasks can be retrieved from different databases.

In a well-functioning unemployment insurance system, it is not just easy to do the right thing. One also has a high compensation initially which is then tapered down. No one is served by getting stuck in unemployment. Unemployment insurance shall be a temporary solution between jobs, not a long-term livelihood.

Madam Speaker! More than half of Sweden's unemployed are not covered by the unemployment insurance today. Often, it is because the unemployed do not meet the requirements. Furthermore, there are people who do not know that the unemployment insurance exists. The system is also complex. It hits the weakest groups in society.

Calculations and forecasts in the 2024 budget bill show that the reform as a whole is largely neutral, in contrast to the opposition's proposals where there are several billion differences between the Center Party's and the Left Party's wish lists. The Social Democrats do not want as high incentives as we do to take a job, which could lead to cost increases of 3 billion. The Left Party's proposal for no tapering at all and significantly raised ceilings could lead to cost increases of 8.5 billion. It will undoubtedly be a tough nut to crack, as most of us in here agree that a reform of the AKAS is needed.

That we in the current government base have found a feasible path is a statement of strength. The bill on the cash deposit only states the consequences of the legislative proposals. The next step is to make the necessary regulatory changes where, among other things, the size of the amounts is established. The impact assessment will therefore be completed in connection with that regulatory work.

The Social Democrats have expressed concern regarding the gender equality perspective. The gender equality analysis will be completed and presented in connection with the ordinance work. The size of the amounts is determined there and practically decides the consequences for gender equality, as these amounts affect the number of recipients, the size of the compensation, and the length of the compensation period. We also accounted for this in the committee of state secretaries.

I have full confidence that the Government Offices' non-political civil servants have calculated this in a correct manner. I have full confidence that the government, which has economic equality as one of its goals, will resolve the situation wisely. This applies in particular to us liberals with Minister for Equality Brandberg at the helm, who has a focus on the issue. With the new regulatory framework, more people will be able to benefit from the security of the transition insurance. It is good for the individual, and it is good for Sweden.

We in the Liberals believe in freedom combined with social responsibility. Part of that social responsibility is to help the most vulnerable in society and, in this case, in the labor market. The goal is not that more people draw unemployment benefits. The goal is that more people are covered by them, and that is an incredibly important difference. Society should have high expectations for self-sufficiency. The reform of the unemployment insurance is part of the restoration of the work line.

As a former employer, I know that the old system with the accrual cards that had to be filled in was cumbersome and involved unnecessary administration. It paved the way for cheating. The biggest change – that the accrual is now based on income instead of the number of days worked – is a fantastic simplification for both employers and employees. There are no complicated rules regarding time worked, and furthermore, it becomes safer when the number of hours worked is retrieved from Skatteverket's database. It is excellent.

The individual responsibility for self-sufficiency is great, but good and well-informed decisions can only be made if one has knowledge. The Liberals therefore hope that a "pink envelope" shall be introduced in Sweden. In the long run, every Swede of working age should annually receive a notice, just as we now receive a pension notice, stating what the situation looks like for you specifically if you lose your job or if you choose to resign yourself. It creates a sense of security, but it also means that more people can make well-founded decisions about their future.

I stand here today, happy and proud of the steps we have taken towards the future's welfare. At the same time, it is no secret that I and the Liberals would gladly have done more and gone further. We want everyone to be able to support themselves. That is the path to an independent life. But losing one's job should not also mean a life crisis. Therefore, I and the Liberals want to see a universal and state-run welfare, but that is as far as we got in these negotiations. Now, that will have to be enough.

I wish Madam Speaker and the Speaker's Presidium a good summer!

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! It is impossible to avoid making a reply when the member in a rather strange way seems to want to gloss over the legal requirements and preparatory requirements we have in Sweden. Gender equality analysis is part of the legislative process - it is nothing that can be deferred to later work, but it must be done when new legislative proposals are submitted. This, however, has not been done.

It is very good if one has the ambition to bring this up in hindsight; it is naturally appreciated. But it would also be nice if one simply acknowledged and said: This went wrong for us. We did not do what we were supposed to, and we apologize for that. It shall not be repeated.

This is the line one should have. We have even heard here in the chamber that the Sverigedemokraterna stand behind this position, even if their representative perhaps expressed themselves a bit more weakly than I do.

I do not think it is reasonable to try to smooth this over by referring to other work that the government is to do with ordinances and other such things.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I have no problem saying that, after looking in the rearview mirror, we perhaps should have conducted a more thorough gender equality analysis. But I can also say that I felt completely calm when the state secretaries were at the committee meeting and described how this would proceed. It was also the non-political officials who described that the outcome of such an analysis depends very much on where one ends up in the economic compensations.

If it reassures the member, I can say that I wish such an analysis had been made, but that was not the case now. I stated in my speech that I feel calm regarding the decision that will be made going forward.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! Once again we end up there. The member spoke of "not enough," or however she expressed it – I don't quite remember. There is no analysis at all; that is the fundamental problem. Had a too weak, too poor, or too small analysis been made, it would at least have been there. The common way to evade things that one does not want to do is to do them a bit half-heartedly but still meet the minimum requirements, but that has not happened here.

I also look forward to the work that will be done, and I truly hope that it will be delivered. But this is quite serious. According to LO's calculations, tens of thousands of people who have low wages and part-time employment will fall out of the safety net because of this, as I said in my speech. This cannot be handled in this way.

I think it is beneath all criticism to even submit a proposal that has the consequence of people losing the security that the cash payment entails. Then you say that you will return to it later and put some fluff at the end. There is also, as said, a requirement that this shall take place.

I thank you for the answer - something will come. Then we shall see what kind of review KU will conduct of this in the future. KU will certainly not use the same words as I do, but I am convinced that they will arrive at the same conclusion.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! There are also approximately 35,000 people who are estimated to be covered by these proposals who are not covered today; the member forgot to mention that.

I also look forward to the KU's review of the work.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I stand here in place of our representative in the Committee on Employment, who unfortunately has a conflict today. I shall say a few words, because I believe this matter is so important that some form of statement is also needed from the Green Party.

We have long struggled with problems in our security systems on the labor market. This concerns not only what this matter primarily deals with, that is, the unemployment insurance, but also the sickness insurance, which has been broken. It is primarily about the fact that these two systems have interacted in a really poor way.

I have met many people - and read even more stories from other people - who have become ill, sought out Försäkringskassan to receive sickness benefit and then been told that they are not sick enough or, even more bizarre, that they are sick in the wrong way and therefore cannot qualify for sickness benefit or sickness compensation. They have then been bounced to Arbetsförmedlingen, where they have been told that they have no work capacity and are too sick to receive akassa. They are thus too healthy to receive sickness benefit but too sick to receive akassa.

That is why the Green Party has long pursued the line that we should merge these two insurances into a work safety insurance. If we merge the two authorities and the insurances, we can have the same labor market concept and similar compensation levels. The officials will then also speak in the same way to the individual person. The Green Party has a proposal regarding this in this matter.

Otherwise, we think this bill is positive. Just as we pushed for and implemented quite large positive changes in the sickness insurance during the last parliamentary term, we have pushed for improvements in the unemployment insurance. Therefore, we are positive.

We do, however, have quite a few views on this matter, and they are included in our reservations. Among other things, we believe that the phase-out has become far too steep. We believe that one should be allowed to keep their compensation the whole time; it should not be phased out in this way. We also believe that 300 days should apply to everyone - not 100 or 200 days, or 66 days for some.

We also have views on the age requirements. We believe that both younger and older persons than those permitted in the bill should have the right to unemployment insurance.

I can also add here that we think that students who perhaps graduate and do not get a job immediately should have access to AKASSA and unemployment insurance. We think that studies should be able to qualify people for AKASSA.

It also concerns some other groups, for example job seekers with children under 18 and artists. Those staying abroad as accompanying persons to aid workers need clarifications and better conditions, which I think people have forgotten. Even entrepreneurs need to get better conditions.

We think that it should be included in this bill and in this legislation.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 8 on the combined labor market model.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mats Berglund, for the presentation on the Green Party's view on unemployment benefits!

I have a few questions for you, Mats Berglund. You said that you are fundamentally in favor of this, but in your motion you are more or less proposing to abolish the unemployment insurance as it is constructed today, with tapering after a certain number of days. You want to abolish the incentives to work in the unemployment insurance, in contradiction to established Swedish and international economic research on how the labor supply is affected by tapering in compensation systems. I understood that you said you are in favor of large parts of the reform, but is it not the case that you want to abolish the tapering in the unemployment insurance?

You then said, linked to the qualification for the unemployment insurance, that you want 300 days to apply for everyone. This is a significant departure from the insurance principle in the unemployment insurance. According to the proposal presented, the length of the a-kassa, i.e., the number of compensation days, shall vary depending on how long one has been employed or worked with an income over 11,000 kronor, just as the level one receives from the a-kassa from the first day shall vary depending on how long one has been a member of the a-kassa. Do you want to remove these qualification requirements and ensure that the a-kassa becomes 300 days for everyone and thereby worsen the insurance principle in the a-kassa?

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Oliver Rosengren, for the question!

The starting point here is that both the sickness insurance and the unemployment insurance are transition insurances. We also have the starting point that the vast majority actually want to return to work. If one has lost their job, this is what one truly wants. That is my absolute experience after having spoken with, above all, sick people. I have worked with those issues rather than with unemployment issues, but I imagine it would have been exactly the same thing if I had met unemployed people who had had difficulty finding work.

Naturally, many get a job within the first 100 days - we have previously heard in the debate about average times and so on. But there are still some who are left behind and who need this insurance for a little longer. We think that they should be able to get it. That is why we at least want that this steep tapering should not be implemented, but also that the 300 days shall apply to everyone.

Then we perhaps do not think that they are needed for everyone, but this should not be seen as some kind of contribution. It is still an insurance - absolutely!

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! The point of the insurance aspect of the unemployment benefit is that, just as in an insurance, one qualifies for different parts, and that by taking a responsibility in the insurance collective, one also receives a benefit. What is proposed by the Green Party, Madam Speaker, would mean that the unemployment benefit would more closely resemble a grant than an insurance. If one both lowers the qualification requirements and worsens the incentive structure in the benefit, the unemployment benefit would more become a grant than have the insurance aspect that, after all, exists today, even if the largest part of the benefit is straight-up tax-financed – or actually all of it, with the exception of administrative costs.

It is, therefore, a very large change, one might still say, in the unemployment insurance that Miljöpartiet presents with this. It is major departures from the current one.

What Mats Berglund says, Madam Speaker, is that one imagines that not everyone will need the 300 days, but that one still wants to abolish the tapering. This would mean more people who are unemployed, in accordance with both Swedish and international accepted economic research, because unemployment decreases as a result of the tapering.

Therefore, despite everything, the concluding question to Mats Berglund is: What is it that makes Miljöpartiet want more people to be unemployed? This is, after all, legislation and needs to be based on more things than Mats Berglund's meetings with people. It needs to be based, for example, on accepted economic research, and that indicates with all desirable clarity that drivers and incentives play a role for unemployment levels and durations of unemployment. Why, therefore, do Miljöpartiet and Mats Berglund want more people to be unemployed and for more to be unemployed longer?

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Oliver Rosengren, for informing me about the economic research! I am not so well-versed in it. As I said earlier, I have primarily dealt with health insurance and perhaps also the sociological research, and therefore I think that the premise of the member's question, that there would be more unemployed due to more generous rules, actually falls. I do not think it corresponds with the sociological research I have read.

On the contrary, the work line, as it was formulated by the then bourgeois alliance, is about successively worsening the conditions for those who are not on the labor market for various reasons, such as having lost their job or having become ill. But the connection that one returns to the labor market because one receives worse conditions and worse opportunities, I think is missing when I talk to people and read the sociological research.

Rather, we see, as I touched upon in my speech, that instead of moving from sickness insurance or possibly labor market insurance to a job, one moves from sickness insurance down to social assistance – or perhaps not even social assistance, if one is not qualified for it because one has a little too much money in the bank or something. I have spoken with very many people about this who have just slipped down from sickness insurance to social assistance, simply because the sickness insurance has been too strict so that one has not received enough support.

We want to provide support to those who are ill and unemployed so that they can return. That is where the major effort must be.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 18 June.)

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